Gun shop liable for what their product does?

[PiratePast40]

Anyone else catch this...

Yes, and the elephant in the room is lack of prosecution of the gun shop owners for violating ATF law. This lawsuit implies that you can be accused of a crime, but convicted on another without those initial charges even being filed.

This is a bad precedent all around.

 

[DuneHopper]

If this turns into a crime, that is scary because court normally laugh at anyone who tries to get inside the head of a suspect with no crime or evidence. For the shop to be liable in the smallest of ways they would have to prove the shop acted with with knowledge a crime could be committed and did so anyways. And then one must look at motive.

To look at this another way, say I own a car dealership in a small town, I know Bob is an alcoholic and has two DUI's. He wrecked his last two cars and now came to me to buy another. Bob buys the car goes out and two days later runs down two cops. Am I liable, noooooooooooooo. Maybe I have some moral obligation as a good person but even with some degree of knowledge I would not be liable.
Some would say well firearms can kill and I say BS, cars kill more people each year way more then firearms and there more DUI deaths then firearm deaths and yet you never see not a one dealer sued.
It would be different if Bob came in drunk and I sold him a car and watched him drive off.

This post scared the sheeets out of me, not only are they trying to get in the dealers head with no proof they are now trying to prove liability with no knowledge of the act to be committed or the possibility.
What they are trying to sell, is. ( you sold a gun and should have known someone would kill with it after all thats all guns are good for is murder ) if this sells to the public it would set a standard of liability for simply selling and item. And it would be different if the customer said hey gimme that AR I want blast me some cops and then he sold it. But none of that is proved or suggested.

SCARY!!! I hate stuff like this.

EDIT : By the way the UCC president in Roseburg, knew her Guards were unarmed, knew there was no protection, knew only one was on duty. Discouarged conceal carry and staff would not let an armed CHL holder that day to use his firearm. The liberal say she is not liable but in the case above they say this shop is WHATTTTT???

 

[tfbit]

Young, Black, Straw Purchaser, NO PROBLEM! White, Gun, Business, BIG PROBLEM!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...n-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html

 

[DieselScout]

I have a feeling they really played up the red flags that the dealer ignored. I wish they would publish what those were it would relieve a lot confusion and frustration over this.

I still think this opens a lawsuit to open up against the ATF, but they won't charge the gubmn't.

According to NPR the jury saw security video from the shop of the buyer filling out the 4473 and checking "yes" on the box asking are you buying the for another person....etc. The store stopped him and told him he needed to check "no" for them to sell him the gun. So they gave him a new form and started over.

 

[etrain16]

According to NPR the jury saw security video from the shop of the buyer filling out the 4473 and checking "yes" on the box asking are you buying the for another person....etc. The store stopped him and told him he needed to check "no" for them to sell him the gun. So they gave him a new form and started over.

If they're pulling crap like that, then yes, they should be held liable. But it should NOT set a precedent for other sales. It should be restricted only to those that choose to ignore the law - and there are a handful of bad guy gun stores around the country.

 

[DieselScout]

If they're pulling crap like that, then yes, they should be held liable. But it should NOT set a precedent for other sales. It should be restricted only to those that choose to ignore the law - and there are a handful of bad guy gun stores around the country.

I don't think it's setting any precedent. It was a local court and as we can all see the sellers were in the wrong. It was cut and dried if it was on camera.

 

[DuneHopper]

Hmmm being by SB941 standard one can buy a firearm for various family members as gifts.
Not sure how the Jury is using this as and automatic guilt or liability.

I am going to play the devils advocate here, because at the end of the form the buyer signs verifying the information is correct. Doesn't matter what the seller said prior to the sale. And FFL does not accept liability unless they agree to do so.
The buyer knew full well or is responsible to read and sign. The buyer is an adult responsible for his own acts. The seller even if a moron and lack knowledge of the sales process still did not point a gun and make the seller agree.

Buyer agrees F4473
Section B - Must Be Completed By Transferor (Seller)
. I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to question 11.l. is prohibited from
purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers "Yes" to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punish able as a felony
under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearmsfor the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law.

No sure why there is a debate buyer agreed.

 

[DieselScout]

Hmmm being by SB941 standard one can buy a firearm for various family members as gifts.
Not sure how the Jury is using this as and automatic guilt or liability.

I am going to play the devils advocate here, because at the end of the form the buyer signs verifying the information is correct. Doesn't matter what the seller said prior to the sale. And FFL does not accept liability unless they agree to do so.
The buyer knew full well or is responsible to read and sign. The buyer is an adult responsible for his own acts. The seller even if a moron and lack knowledge of the sales process still did not point a gun and make the seller agree.

Buyer agrees F4473
Section B - Must Be Completed By Transferor (Seller)
. I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to question 11.l. is prohibited from
purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers "Yes" to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punish able as a felony
under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearmsfor the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law.

No sure why there is a debate buyer agreed.

The person he was buying a pistol was not legal to purchase one on their own. He was 18 and he was not family. Basically this is the media making hay out of nothing. The store screwed up by putting itself in a position to be easily found liable. Want to be pissed off, be pissed off at the store, they caused this manure storm.

 

[etrain16]

Hmmm being by SB941 standard one can buy a firearm for various family members as gifts.
Not sure how the Jury is using this as and automatic guilt or liability.

I am going to play the devils advocate here, because at the end of the form the buyer signs verifying the information is correct. Doesn't matter what the seller said prior to the sale. And FFL does not accept liability unless they agree to do so.
The buyer knew full well or is responsible to read and sign. The buyer is an adult responsible for his own acts. The seller even if a moron and lack knowledge of the sales process still did not point a gun and make the seller agree.

Buyer agrees F4473
Section B - Must Be Completed By Transferor (Seller)
. I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers "yes" to question 11.l. is prohibited from
purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers "Yes" to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punish able as a felony
under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearmsfor the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law.

No sure why there is a debate buyer agreed.

From the ATF quick reference guide:

You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. Do not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm and do not contact NICS if you have reason to believe that a person seeking to obtain a firearm is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

Note: If a person answers "No" to Item 11.a or 12 of Form 4473, or answers "Yes" to one or more questions in Items 11.b through 11.l of Form 4473, that person has given you reason to believe he or she is prohibited and the transaction must be stopped.

source: <broken link removed>

This is probably what they nailed them on. According to the BATF, if they answer "No" to question 11A, then, by doing so, you have enough reason to assume they are prohibited and you must, note the term "must", stop the transaction. They didn't do that. They gave them a clean form and told them to do it over. And, from the sound of things, they admitted they weren't buying it for themselves.

It would seem, at least in this case, that the dealer was trying to work around the system. And it also sounds like they've done this kind of thing before. If they are pulling these kinds of stunts, it would be better if they were out of business - we really don't need them giving legitimate dealers a bad name, or to fuel the fire of the anti-gunner's rhetoric.

 

[slimmer13]

I would imagine that ffls see someone get confused and mistakenly cross the wrong box almost daily. Especially someone who has never done it before. Probably pretty common so unless we hear more about the other red flags it seems pretty weak.

That being said the dealer should have asked him if the gun was for him and if he said no he should have sent him away. If he said yes he should have given him a chance to reread the question on the 4473.

 

[DuneHopper]

I understand I guess how that played out. Makes me wonder why is there an optional NO ?
If using a NO makes it illegal why even process it, perhaps thats the point.
I am not a FFL but do make allot of purchases the situation in my head doesnt seem as cut and dry.
Id like to see the video , I wonder if the seller gave the new form because it was an oops or a on purpose. Is there video somewhere ?

 

[etrain16]

I understand I guess how that played out. Makes me wonder why is there an optional NO ?
If using a NO makes it illegal why even process it, perhaps thats the point.
I am not a FFL but do make allot of purchases the situation in my head doesnt seem as cut and dry.
Id like to see the video , I wonder if the seller gave the new form because it was an oops or a on purpose. Is there video somewhere ?

I've seen a clip on the news, but I understand there is more to the story that the jury was privy to. Maybe more will come out now that the case is over?? I'd like to know more about this too.

 

[Goosebrown]

They should be no more liable than the parents of a kid who plays "gangsta" and kills someone.

Actually this shop should have known. The buyer admitted it was for someone else and they told him to change his answer. They knew it was a straw sale and encouraged it.

Turns out one year 500+ guns they sold were used in crimes putting it in the top 5% of all gun shops selling guns to criminals.

If this had been a random sale that they couldn't detect was fake it would be different

 

[bnsaibum]

OK, so it wasn't some months back I read the story I referenced in my earlier comment, rather some weeks, but this may be the one I remembered reading. If everything in this is correct the jury's verdict is no surprise.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/as...lts-gun-store-sale-b99587735z1-330182131.html

 

[bnsaibum]

What I find most interesting about all the media coverage is the lack of reasons for the verdict.

Now, why would that be?

 

[albin25]

"Now, why would that be?"

That's easy,
Because the anti-gun Media want more people to file lawsuits thinking they can get rich, and if the actual facts were known it might not encourage those lawsuits.

Therefore the Media loves the, "Store that sold a gun used in a crime is liable" story.
But...
The actual, "Negligent/greedy/criminal shop employee that intentionally sold a gun to whom he knew was an obvious straw buyer is held liable story", isn't as conducive to their anti-gun narrative...so it gets ignored.

Is there going to be a criminal trail too? Or was there already one and I missed it?

 

[bnsaibum]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to be thinking along those lines.

And there was a criminal trial for both the straw buyer and the attempted murderer. Something like 2 years or so and a long, long time for sentences, respectively, is as much as I remember.

 

[Outrider]

The shop was already in trouble with the ATF. The original owners were in the process of having their license revoked when they surrendered it. They transferred the shop to one of the owner's sons who took out a new license and the bad behavior continued with at least one of the previous owners working as an employee in the shop.

With the purchase, it was clear that it was a straw purchase. The teenager was selecting the firearm and telling the straw purchaser everything. When the straw purchaser didn't have enough money, the teenager old took him outside and gave him the rest. The clerk saw this and proceeded anyway.

It seems the straw purchaser was developmentally disabled. The prosecutor had sought ten years. The maximum possible was twenty. His sentence was actually fairly light given what happened. He got two years. That's the minimum sentence under the federal guidelines.

The case is a bad precedent but these kinds of things are always tested by the screwups. It will be appealed.

 

[Stomper]

Actually this shop should have known. The buyer admitted it was for someone else and they told him to change his answer. They knew it was a straw sale and encouraged it.

Turns out one year 500+ guns they sold were used in crimes putting it in the top 5% of all gun shops selling guns to criminals.

If this had been a random sale that they couldn't detect was fake it would be different

I would agree under those circumstances.

 

[sobe911]

Most of the responses I've seen show me that no one actually read about this... The shop is basically known to be lenient with regulations. They are the shop that sells the most guns that end up being used in a crime. You'd be naive to say that "word on the street" hasn't spread about the store.
Dont you guys remember when you were kids? I remember before I was 21 I heard all the time about differen stores that sold beer to minors and were known to do it. Just like certain stores are known to sell cigarettes to minors. They all get punished when they get caught. I'm as pro gun as the next guy but I personally wouldn't shop at the gun store that was ordered to give this payout.

Tl;dr
Replace the word "gun store" with "7/11" and the word "gun" with "alcohol".
If a store sells booze to a 19 year old (or a 21 year old when the clerk has knowledge that the alcohol is not for someone who's of age) and the 19 year old drinks and drives and kills someone, the store clerk can be held liable for criminal negligence.
Same bubblegum as the article.

This isn't ABOUT gun stores being liable for gun violence. This is about stupid people who shouldn't even work at gun stores.
If anything it's sad that the business will fail now because of piss poor management.