Store That Sold Gun Agrees To Pay $1 Million To Wounded West Virginia Officers

7.62FMJ,

Do the Tamara (tm): substitute any other product for a gun where behavior of the end user becomes a factor in the product's misuse.
Click to expand...

[Sympathetic Sarcasm Follows:]

Oh, why in the hell should we do that? People who work in gun stores are supposed to be psychic and responsible for any and all criminal misdeeds of their customers. People in every other business are supposed to get off scot free. Didn't you know that? :(

It was the fault of the gun and the gun store sales clerk that these cops got shot. The criminal had dick-all to do with it, right? :mad:
 
Return to the real world,

where duty and foreseeability still exist, and eschew (at least momentarily) our usual rants, at least long enough for some rational analysis.

"Neither the gun store, nor employees thereof, pulled the trigger. The person who bought the guns broke the law. I don't see any liability on the gun shop."

Neither have you made any effort to look. Bartenders and social hosts alike are responsible for the harm resulting from serving liquor to minors and those already drunk. Why? The obviously foreseeable and highly likely harm from doing so.

"Do the Tamara (tm): substitute any other product for a gun where behavior of the end user becomes a factor in the product's misuse. [?] "

Yes - See above - along with prescription drugs, cigarettes, explosives, etc. See also providing autos to the senile, drunk, or otherwise incompetent. It's called "negligent entrustment" - look it up.

So-called "straw sales" are not just in violation of "voluntary standards about gun sales" (leave it to the news media to conjure up THAT drivel); it is a violation of federal law. Marital funding does not alter that fact, as the issue is who is the REAL recipient of the firearms. And a convicted felon has no business in a gun store, however solicitous he is of his wife's purchases.

"People who work in gun stores are supposed to be psychic and responsible for any and all criminal misdeeds of their customers."

More disingenous misdirection. What "people who work in gun stores" ARE supposed to be is responsible for complying with the laws regarding their stock in trade. Facilitating straw sales breaches that duty.

"People in every other business are supposed to get off scot free."

A pitiful attempt to work the "pity factor." There is no such policy or suggestion. Ask anyone who deals in liquor, pharmaceuticals, explosives, cigarettes - are you grasping the concept, or shall I list MORE? :rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: This in no way, shape, manner or form suggests that MANUFACTURERS should be held responsible for the criminal use of lawfully made and distributed products, control of which passed to other parties prior to any misuse/abuse of those products.

In English - Don't sue Seagrams and Ford when you get hit by a drunk driver in an Expedition. :D
 
Let me introduce you to my fantasy corrollary: We have constructed a series of blissninny laws that not only rely on wacky subjectivism, but which are selectively enforced. Another big hammer over the head of lawful business.

foreseeable and highly likely harm
negligent entrustment
Facilitating straw sales

IANAL. How is the average citizen and average store clerk expected to know and understand the legal theories dreamt up by lawyers and courts?

I give the benefit of doubt to the clerk. They did have suspicions the following day and notified the authorities.

Neither the gun seller nor the clerk pulled the trigger.

They don't have to shut down the manufacturers because they can make selling firearms much too expensive by attacking the gun dealers.
 
Has anyone asked the race of the straw purchaser and/or the owner/operator/clerk in the store? Sad as it may be, this may very well be a factor. E.g., if the store personnel are predominantly white, and the buyer black (or green, whatever) they could logically fear a discrimination lawsuit by not going through with the original sale - especially if all the paperwork was in order. IIRC this is exactly how CPD/BATF conducted their straw purchase stings on several Chicago-area gun dealers a few years back. Damned if ya' do, damned if ya' don't.
 
I AM NOT NECCESSARILY SPEAKING OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
Click to expand...

Well, Jim, we were. This was a no-brainer. I don't think the ultimate shooting victim (or his family) should be able to sue the store, but the store SHOULD be held liable for any laws broken. It's for a jury to decide if that interesting animal known as "a reasonable person" would have smelled a rat sometime before the next day - like soon enough to halt the sale.
 
"... Segal said the settlement "shows gun retailers they have to be careful about who they sell their guns to and under what circumstances."

.... I see; so as well as following the law, retailers must be "mind-readers" as well ;)

As far as the cash sale is concerned - I have never used anything but cash to buy firearms and many other things. This business of associating cash with a "crime" - and incorporating it as some basis for "suspicion" ought to go. I couldn't care less how many people use credit cards or think that their money is "safer" writing checks.

But there is something wrong with the whole pretext of "straw purchases". Sure, there are no doubt some people who can not legally buy a firearm who might just go through some extremes just to get their hands on a "brand new" gun. But most people with criminal intent can find about anything they want in a private sale without any of the hassles of commercial retail red tape in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top