View Full Version : Pawn Shop sued for selling a pistol to an individual after being "warned" about them.
Plumber237
11-23-16, 17:53
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/23/pawn-shop-settles-2-2-million-lawsuit-selling-murder-weapon/?utm_content=buffer1cad9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
This is an interesting scenario, it boiled down to whether a gun should be sold to an individual after the store receives a tip/warning from a family member that the individual is unstable. Settled out of court so there isn't any new precedent set by the case. I find myself leaning towards a random call from a non-official source should not be justification to deny someone purchasing a firearm. Thoughts?
Mrs. Delana sued Odessa Gun & Pawn in a wrongful death lawsuit, only to have it dismissed. The state Supreme Court reinstated the case on the grounds of negligent entrustment, and the gun shop has now settled the case out of court.
IMHO this is about gun control at the state level someone with an agenda just chipped away at our rights a bit more
it really shows its the big gov against the people and the bigger gov does not care about the lower courts !!!
Well...thats BS. If they arent prohibited at time of sale, no onus is on dealer.
This is like me giving a ring and telling a Lambo dealer not to sell to a cross-eyed blonde asian chick because she "can't drive anything except someone else crazy"
If she's an adult with a license and money, game on.
This Minority Report Pre-Crime shoot the messenger spiel is stupid as hell, unproductive. and deters no one.
At one what point does persomal responsibility end?
It doesn't. Call the cops if you fear someone that bad and get an investigation going. Gun Stores are not babysitters.
I've talked to a few FFLs who have said they would turn down a sale if something didn't feel right. How much did they pay to settle? I'd imagine a lot more than the profit from the sale.
I've talked to a few FFLs who have said they would turn down a sale if something didn't feel right. How much did they pay to settle? I'd imagine a lot more than the profit from the sale.
So if a stalker boyfriend wants prevent his ex from lawfully obtaining a firearm for personal protection all he has to do is tell the local gun shops that she is crazy and dangerous. Awesome.
How about this, FFLs are not LEOs, private investigators, psychologists or anything else. That is why they depend upon state background checks which are based upon state issued identification. The background check agency who approved the transaction is the one who should be sued because they told the pawn shop this guy was good to go.
They didn't ask the FFL or pawn shop if any family members have made troubling statements, they didn't ask if the buyer claimed he was a "seal back in Nam", they didn't ask if the buyer regularly reads the Alex Jones website.
Gun buyers say a lot of oddball crap. I've heard them claim they used to be in the CIA, I've heard them say they believe the government is involved in an ongoing conspiracy to conceal contact with extra terrestrial beings and I've heard them say the government is collecting all of our cellphone information and is going to put us in FEMA camps.
Am I supposed to violate a persons civil rights based upon any of those statements? Or am I supposed to rely on the background check agency, that is mandated by ATF, to provide me with an approval of the individual in question.
Also what happens if I get a "funny feeling" and decline a sale even though the buyer was approved and it turns out he turns around and sues me because he is black, Muslim or of Mexican origin and claims my refusal is race based and I am violating his second amendment rights. What happens when it turns out he is actual the President of the local Skeet Club and volunteers his time teaching gun safety to kids?
So either background checks mean EVERYTHING or they mean NOTHING. You can't put the responsibility on the FFL since he has no means of investigation or verification of any information except as provided by the background check agency.
Now if you want to remove that mandate and eliminate background checks completely, THEN the FFL would assume some level of responsibility for sales but the FFL would also have the right to refusal no matter what.
I think this Christmas season I'm going to visit several car dealers and warn them about various potential customers who I "have seen texting in traffic" and recommend they NOT sell them a vehicle since doing so would be a customer safety liability. I wonder if any of those car dealers will refuse the sale. And when was the last time a car dealer was sued because they sold a car to a person who had a valid drivers license but also had a history of alcohol and drug abuse as well as violations for DUI.
So if a stalker boyfriend wants prevent his ex from lawfully obtaining a firearm for personal protection all he has to do is tell the local gun shops that she is crazy and dangerous. Awesome.
How about this, FFLs are not LEOs, private investigators, psychologists or anything else. That is why they depend upon state background checks which are based upon state issued identification. The background check agency who approved the transaction is the one who should be sued because they told the pawn shop this guy was good to go.
They didn't ask the FFL or pawn shop if any family members have made troubling statements, they didn't ask if the buyer claimed he was a "seal back in Nam", they didn't ask if the buyer regularly reads the Alex Jones website.
Gun buyers say a lot of oddball crap. I've heard them claim they used to be in the CIA, I've heard them say they believe the government is involved in an ongoing conspiracy to conceal contact with extra terrestrial beings and I've heard them say the government is collecting all of our cellphone information and is going to put us in FEMA camps.
Am I supposed to violate a persons civil rights based upon any of those statements? Or am I supposed to rely on the background check agency, that is mandated by ATF, to provide me with an approval of the individual in question.
Also what happens if I get a "funny feeling" and decline a sale even though the buyer was approved and it turns out he turns around and sues me because he is black, Muslim or of Mexican origin and claims my refusal is race based and I am violating his second amendment rights. What happens when it turns out he is actual the President of the local Skeet Club and volunteers his time teaching gun safety to kids?
So either background checks mean EVERYTHING or they mean NOTHING. You can't put the responsibility on the FFL since he has no means of investigation or verification of any information except as provided by the background check agency.
Now if you want to remove that mandate and eliminate background checks completely, THEN the FFL would assume some level of responsibility for sales but the FFL would also have the right to refusal no matter what.
I think this Christmas season I'm going to visit several car dealers and warn them about various potential customers who I "have seen texting in traffic" and recommend they NOT sell them a vehicle since doing so would be a customer safety liability. I wonder if any of those car dealers will refuse the sale. And when was the last time a car dealer was sued because they sold a car to a person who had a valid drivers license but also had a history of alcohol and drug abuse as well as violations for DUI.
I also know an FFL who is NOT a member of the NRA. The Horror!
Civil liability is something that aught not be F'd with.
I also know an FFL who is NOT a member of the NRA. The Horror!
Civil liability is something that aught not be F'd with.
Not sure what the hell being in the NRA or not has to do with anything. So let me put it to you like this.
What if YOU were refused a sale because somebody in your family told every FFL that they thought YOU were some kind of extremist since you have more than 3 guns and to them that is crazy.
Would you want the FFLs in your zip code to refuse to do business with you based upon the statements of another person, or would you prefer to be approved or non approved based upon the results of YOUR back ground check?
And civil liability is usually very, very misplaced and often bullshit. And since background checks don't seem to be sufficient to satisfy liability concerns, how about FFLs just not sell guns to private individuals anymore. That's it, end of story, you have to be a FFL to get a gun. That should make the country safe and make sure nobody dangerous PASSES a background check and gets a gun.
So if a stalker boyfriend wants prevent his ex from lawfully obtaining a firearm for personal protection all he has to do is tell the local gun shops that she is crazy and dangerous. Awesome.
As usual, you make nothing but good points in this entire post, but…
Are you going to tell us that if you got that call, you wouldn't seriously consider not making this sale regardless of NICS? At the very least would you not mull it over and maybe make a call or two? Rights are rights, but if my Mom called the gun store and told them I was insane and going to kill someone, I would expect to be scrutinized a bit more and possibly denied the sale at that moment.
I'm not saying to permanently deny people's rights based on baseless hearsay, I'm saying as a society, I think we can check into things a little more in order to prevent a murder or murder(s) in cases where it makes sense to do so, like when a person's mother calls and says "Don't sell a gun to my schizophrenic daughter because she's going to murder her father…". Surely there is some scenario where you would deny or delay a sale regardless of NICS status, isn't there? To use your example, I wouldn't sell a car to this person in this scenario either. Or a sword, hatchet or hammer. I'd call the police and tell them I have a direct threat of murder. It might be baseless, but I'd like them to look into it before I make this sale. I'd tell the person standing in front of me that I'm sorry, and someone might be messing with them, but we are going to err on the side of caution. If it turns out to be a phony call, the daughter can sue the parent for defamation or the police can charge the parent with malicious mischief.
I think ignoring the obvious and following only the governments approval process, regardless of any circumstance, makes no sense in light of the times we live in. The media and lefties are just waiting for the next maniac to do something maniacal so they can all point their fingers and say "See? One more reason to ban guns. They sell them to crazy people who then murder their parents with them…" Isn't it worth a delay and a phone call to prevent this? It is to me.
If it turns out to be a phony call, the daughter can sue the parent for defamation or the police can charge the parent with malicious mischief.
Obviously you have no clue about how defamation works, or what the police would be willing to charge anyone with for calling an FFL dealer and telling them what to do.
Any lawyer would promptly let you know that you have no case for defamation as the statement made against you wasn't published and probably caused no measurable harm, and the police would let you know that malicious mischief is a property charge.
We will see how this plays out as WA state just passed a batshit crazy law around Extreme Risk Protection Orders being based on mere statements from household and family members.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-24-16, 12:03
So, why wouldn't they take their issue to the police? If it isn't enough for law enforcement to act, why should a retailer?
Also, in many people's eyes no one is 'safe' to have a gun. Aren't all white men racists? What if they just do a general call, don't sell to white guys..
Obviously you have no clue about how defamation works, or what the police would be willing to charge anyone with for calling an FFL dealer and telling them what to do.
Any lawyer would promptly let you know that you have no case for defamation as the statement made against you wasn't published and probably caused no measurable harm, and the police would let you know that malicious mischief is a property charge.
We will see how this plays out as WA state just passed a batshit crazy law around Extreme Risk Protection Orders being based on mere statements from household and family members.
How about you address the issue instead of pointing out my ignorance of defamation laws? No, I'm not a lawyer.
You want to sell guns to anybody who passes the NICS, regardless of any circumstance and no matter what it is totally fine regardless of what happens after the sale?
So, why wouldn't they take their issue to the police? If it isn't enough for law enforcement to act, why should a retailer?
Also, in many people's eyes no one is 'safe' to have a gun. Aren't all white men racists? What if they just do a general call, don't sell to white guys..
Have you ever called the police and been told they they con't/won't do anything because no crime has been committed yet? I have. More than once.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
11-24-16, 12:29
So, why wouldn't they take their issue to the police? If it isn't enough for law enforcement to act, why should a retailer?
Also, in many people's eyes no one is 'safe' to have a gun. Aren't all white men racists? What if they just do a general call, don't sell to white guys..
Here in CO, CRS doesn't allow us to do much in this situation. In order to hold anybody on a mental health evaluation (M1) we must PROVE that they are an IMMINENT threat to themselves or others. If all we have is mom's word, our hands are fairly tied.
Another teacher at my wife's school had a daughter that JUST killed herself last weekend. She had been trying to get her help for a long time. It's sad to see that we dont have a system that actually helps people.
You want to sell guns to anybody who passes the NICS, regardless of any circumstance and no matter what it is totally fine regardless of what happens after the sale?
Let me fix this for you...
You want to sell guns to anybody who passes the NICS, because this is the law as it stands right now, and we can't predict the future. Yeah, I think that we haven't developed a functional pre-crime system and if someone isn't a prohibited person, their right shall not be infringed.
regardless of any circumstance and no matter what, it is totally fine regardless of what happens after the sale?
Again, we can't predict the future. They sell cars to people knowing damned well that they may get into an accident. Even a fatal one. Yet they still sell them the car.
I don't hold the second amendment to be some ambiguous thing that needs interpretation.
Let me fix this for you...
Yeah, I think that we haven't developed a functional pre-crime system and if someone isn't a prohibited person, their right shall not be infringed.
Again, we can't predict the future. They sell cars to people knowing damned well that they may get into an accident. Even a fatal one. Yet they still sell them the car.
I don't hold the second amendment to be some ambiguous thing that needs interpretation.
We aren't talking about an accident.
No one said anything about psychic powers, and I know you can put two and two together here. Mom says "don't sell it to her, she's going to kill someone with it", then she buys it and kills someone with it. Is that a big surprise to anyone? Doing it your way, and innocent person died, a mentally ill person committed a horrific crime, the shop lost a 2.2 million civil suit, and the antis got more ammo to use against us. Doing it my way, what? A schizophrenic would have a delay in her purchase for a few days until the situation can be assessed? I don't want to see anyone's rights infringed upon, but I also don't want to see mentally ill people or felons buying guns. This woman was clearly mentally ill. What is wrong with exercising some caution?
You will have to proceed how your conscience dictates and I will proceed according to mine. If I have good reason to believe that a customer is going to commit a violent crime and do bodily harm to someone else with an item I am about to sell them, I will not sell it to them. I don't care what the legal technicalities are, and I don't care what the item is. Because the government sent back a form saying that its okay to sell it, would not excuse me from the guilt I would feel.
As it pertains to the OP, I do not think the pawn shop should have lost a lawsuit, but I do think that they should have exercised better judgement. As is so often the case anymore: Legal vs. illegal, does not necessarily have anything to do with right vs. wrong.
As usual, you make nothing but good points in this entire post, but…
Are you going to tell us that if you got that call, you wouldn't seriously consider not making this sale regardless of NICS? At the very least would you not mull it over and maybe make a call or two? Rights are rights, but if my Mom called the gun store and told them I was insane and going to kill someone, I would expect to be scrutinized a bit more and possibly denied the sale at that moment.
Who am I supposed to call? 800 Crazy Folks? Again, I'm a FFL not a PI. If people have a crazy family member THEY need to call the police. They need to call the police and tell them their crazy family member wants to buy a gun. They need to call the doctor treating the crazy family member and tell the doctor that their crazy family member is trying to buy a gun.
They don't go to the pawn shop or a gun store and tell them and assume that a business with zero investigation or incarceration capacity is going to fix it. It's like walking into a gun store on 9-10-2001 and tell them a group called Al Quida is going to fly planes into the WTC.
You would be 100% correct but what would a pawn shop or gun store do about it? Who do we call? NYC-TIPS?
Again, the ONLY reliable tool we have is the back ground check. It either is the tool we rely on or we shouldn't have to do it at all. If state IDs and background checks aren't enough then what is. No FFL has been through the FBI academy, we aren't trained to tell the difference between a guy telling tall tales and a guy who is nuts and we aren't issued polygraph machines.
Along those lines, how would you feel if a FFL requested you take a polygraph prior to completion of the transaction just for the FFLs "peace of mind"?
If people have a crazy family member THEY need to call the police. They need to call the police and tell them their crazy family member wants to buy a gun. They need to call the doctor treating the crazy family member and tell the doctor that their crazy family member is trying to buy a gun.
This Bulletdog... This...
Along those lines, how would you feel if a FFL requested you take a polygraph prior to completion of the transaction just for the FFLs "peace of mind"?
I'd say no thanks and go elsewhere in that scenario. But if they said: "Hey, your Mom called and said you intend to harm someone if I sell you this gun…" I would understand their reluctance or refusal. If it were bogus, I'd be pissed at Mom, but I'd understand the POV of the gun store.
My point is that we all have five senses and we all know how to use them. Why would we not wish to use them to prevent insane people from getting a gun and committing violent acts? I'm not suggesting anyone should have magical psychic powers of premonition, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and her Mom directly calls you and tells you its a duck, it just might be a duck, and we should sell or not sell accordingly. NICS is not your only reliable tool for deciding who to sell a potentially dangerous item to.
I am saying that it is okay for you, me or anyone else to refuse a sale and refer a case to the police in these circumstances, even if the government says a person passed a background check. We all know there is much more to it than that, don't we? I do. We don't trust the governments judgment and ineptitude anywhere else, so why would we trust it here when we have a direct warning to the contrary.
This Bulletdog... This...
Understood and agreed, but I still think it is okay for the gun store to refuse a sale under the circumstances, and I would have refused this sale.
Understood and agreed, but I still think it is okay for the gun store to refuse a sale under the circumstances, and I would have refused this sale.
It's OK for any party to refuse to take part in a sale. That's on them.
Mom could also have been the one who was batshit crazy, and daughter could have a psycho ex-boyfriend that was the one making the threats. So you put the shoe on the other foot and your refusal results in the murder of the daughter. All because someone called.
We can hypothetical all day. Does zero good.
well now if anyone was turned down and something happened and they could not protect themselves they have a case to sue
Let me fix this for you...
Yeah, I think that we haven't developed a functional pre-crime system and if someone isn't a prohibited person, their right shall not be infringed.
Again, we can't predict the future. They sell cars to people knowing damned well that they may get into an accident. Even a fatal one. Yet they still sell them the car.
I don't hold the second amendment to be some ambiguous thing that needs interpretation.
Your Constitutional Rights protect you only from the government. They in no way compel an FFL to complete a transaction or absolve the FFL from exercising common sense and judgement. Since 9/11, there have been numerous instances of gun store owners denying sales of weapons, ammo, and body armor to would be terrorists. Those are victories.
As for your car analogy, I recall an instance where a used car dealer was successfully sued for attempting to sell a car to an impaired driver who killed someone on the test drive. There are multiple instances of bar tenders being sued for serving intoxicated patrons who later killed someone.
Anyway, FFLs would be wise to remember that the average juror will not likely be a gun forum member and is likely to hold a much different standard for common sense and reason than most of us.
I am saying that it is okay for you, me or anyone else to refuse a sale and refer a case to the police in these circumstances, even if the government says a person passed a background check. We all know there is much more to it than that, don't we? I do. We don't trust the governments judgment and ineptitude anywhere else, so why would we trust it here when we have a direct warning to the contrary.
You clearly have no understanding of anything involved. Want to know what happens if I refuse a sale and then call the police?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They won't take a name over the phone, they won't send an officer out, NOTHING. The police will always do NOTHING, but you expect ME to do something about it. Why?
Even more to the point, want to know what happens when a person tries to buy a gun but is denied?
NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. And this means they are some kind of prohibited person who just tried to obtain a firearm, which is actually a crime. So is even holding a gun, so is falsifying information on the 4473. But despite the fact that a prohibited person has just committed several actual crimes, NOT ONCE in the almost 20 years I've been a FFL has anyone been arrested or even questioned in connection with their non approval.
Not once.
But you expect ME to act as some kind of agency of enforcement that protects the public. Even when no actual agency of enforcement does anything when a prohibited person attempts to purchase a firearm from me except advise me that they are "non approved."
It is like mandating car salesmen prevent people with DUIs or more accurately, people they suspect may be people who will potentially drive under the influence, from obtaining a car.
By the way, when the government is eventually successful in mandating UBCs, YOU will be as culpable if you sell one of your firearms. I wonder if you had a $2,000 rifle listed in the EE, if you'd refuse to sell it because you got an email from the buyers mother saying he's got mental issues.
Your Constitutional Rights protect you only from the government. They in no way compel an FFL to complete a transaction or absolve the FFL from exercising common sense and judgement. Since 9/11, there have been numerous instances of gun store owners denying sales of weapons, ammo, and body armor to would be terrorists. Those are victories.
As for your car analogy, I recall an instance where a used car dealer was successfully sued for attempting to sell a car to an impaired driver who killed someone on the test drive. There are multiple instances of bar tenders being sued for serving intoxicated patrons who later killed someone.
Anyway, FFLs would be wise to remember that the average juror will not likely be a gun forum member and is likely to hold a much different standard for common sense and reason than most of us.
How many doctors are "treating" these impaired people but still refuse to confine them in the interest of public safety? Why are these dangerous people even allowed to be walking around if even their family knows they are dangerous?
Your Constitutional Rights protect you only from the government. They in no way compel an FFL to complete a transaction or absolve the FFL from exercising common sense and judgement. Since 9/11, there have been numerous instances of gun store owners denying sales of weapons, ammo, and body armor to would be terrorists. Those are victories.
And I clearly stated a few posts later that it takes two parties to complete a transaction. I am all for business owners making a business decision that they feel is right for themselves and their business. If that decision is for an altruistic greater good, then so be it. I am not for a mandate that just because some unknown private citizen makes a phone call to the businessman, they are forced to change the way they do business.
As for your car analogy, I recall an instance where a used car dealer was successfully sued for attempting to sell a car to an impaired driver who killed someone on the test drive. There are multiple instances of bar tenders being sued for serving intoxicated patrons who later killed someone. Selling a car to someone who is drunk is a little different than selling a car to what appears to be a normal person only to have them have a mental breakdown and intentionally cause an accident. You can't smell psychological disorders on someone's breath... If that person makes comments that they're going to cause someone harm with a weapon, well then see my point to your first comment. Businessman can say, "take your business elsewhere."
How many doctors are "treating" these impaired people but still refuse to confine them in the interest of public safety? Why are these dangerous people even allowed to be walking around if even their family knows they are dangerous?
The era of physicians being able to confine people ended more than 60 years ago. Now, physicians no longer make the decision to remove rights. That decision is ultimately made by the magistrate or judge according to state law. Like the police in criminal matters, we are the investigators and fact finders for the court. Yes, judges rely on and often give great deference to our opinions, but physicians must supply a minimum standard of facts for a commitment to be upheld. Moreover, the burden of facts necessary to remove someone's freedom and confine them to a treatment facility is much greater than the burden needed to suspend their right to arm themselves. The medical community did not make those rules - they were imposed on us by you the people due to egregious violations of human fights by my predecessors.
Despite these limitations, we are still held to high standards of malpractice liability when it comes to the actions of our psychiatric patients. We have duties to both notify and protect those who might be harmed by our patients. Psychiatrists, family physicians, and emergency physicians are often sued when a patient harms themselves or another person. Nobody is immune from the duty of sound judgement - not gun store owners and certainly not physicians.
Like the police in criminal matters, we are the investigators and fact finders for the court.
Thank you, that is exactly what I was hoping you would say.
And in direct contrast to physicians, FFLs have no investigative ability or training and that is why we are forced to rely exclusively on background checks. If the police and physicians DO NOTHING when a family member says somebody is dangerous and a threat, and if that declaration is INSUFFICIENT for the individual to be declared a "prohibited person", let alone be taken into some kind of custody, then I can't imagine how everything becomes the responsibility of a FFL.
But just to be clear, that doesn't make me careless or indifferent. To the contrary I stopped doing "transfers" for just anybody a long time ago. I quickly discovered that "quick $25 profit" was usually more trouble than it was worth.
I think only in the firearms business are owners actively discouraged from making sales. We've come a long damn way from what I remember. When this whole Brady Bill crap was sold to us, one of the key benefits is that background checks on everyone would actually protect the FFL in situations like this and would prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.
When this whole Brady Bill crap was sold to us, one of the key benefits is that background checks on everyone would actually protect the FFL in situations like this and would prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Criminals won't be able to get guns, because they won't pass the background checks? Ya don't say.
These days I put that on the level of Obamacare's, "everyone will have insurance when we make it illegal to not buy it!!!"
Thank you, that is exactly what I was hoping you would say.
And in direct contrast to physicians, FFLs have no investigative ability or training and that is why we are forced to rely exclusively on background checks. If the police and physicians DO NOTHING when a family member says somebody is dangerous and a threat, and if that declaration is INSUFFICIENT for the individual to be declared a "prohibited person", let alone be taken into some kind of custody, then I can't imagine how everything becomes the responsibility of a FFL.
But just to be clear, that doesn't make me careless or indifferent. To the contrary I stopped doing "transfers" for just anybody a long time ago. I quickly discovered that "quick $25 profit" was usually more trouble than it was worth.
I think only in the firearms business are owners actively discouraged from making sales. We've come a long damn way from what I remember. When this whole Brady Bill crap was sold to us, one of the key benefits is that background checks on everyone would actually protect the FFL in situations like this and would prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.
I not seeing where anybody is arguing that a business owner is responsible for conducting an investigation. If that was the prevailing wisdom, then torts against gun store owners and FFLs would be common. The meat of negligence is: did a reasonably prudent person act with due diligence and exercise reasonable caution under a particular set of circumstances. A store owner who has no reason to believe that a patron will use their product to harm a 3rd party has nothing to worry about when it comes to negligence. The problems come when there is a reason to believe.
The question at hand is: can a business owner be negligent when they sell a product to an individual after receiving specific information that the product will be used to commit a heinous crime or harm a 3rd party. That is what happened in this case. The information was given to him; there was no need for an investigation. The same question holds true for the hardware shop own who sells a hatchet to a customer after receiving a call from the customers's parents stating the patron plans to go on a hatchet killing spree. Given what we know about terrorism, some might even consider a pilot school instructor to be negligent if they train a bunch of guys to fly planes without landing them, etc, etc.
Keep in mind this was a settlement, not a judgment. In addition, the numbers were not peanuts. I'm just saying that the owner's instincts to avoid a trial have improved since selling that gun. That's all.
The question at hand is: can a business owner be negligent when they sell a product to an individual after receiving specific information that the product will be used to commit a heinous crime or harm a 3rd party.
Ok, how is the business owner supposed to judge the credibility of that information. And if the local PD won't act on the exact same information AND a background check clears, then what?
How soon before we refuse to sell to a person genuinely needing a personal protection firearm because somebody claimed they have mental issues. What happens when a FFL refuses the sale and THAT person ends up murdered?
And how long before we get sued for the equivalent of refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Along those lines what if some parents think their kid is mentally ill because he is gay and he is refused a sale along those lines. That will be an awesome national news story, gun shop refuses lawful sale because purchaser was gay even though he PASSED a background check.
I can think of a couple hundred ways this crap can go wrong either way, and that is why information that would qualify as "hearsay" in a courtroom shouldn't be the basis upon whether or not a person is denied a lawful purchase.
It really comes down to this, either the background check is EVERYTHING or it is NOTHING. If we are going to leave it up to the "spidey sense" of every dealer and hold them accountable then get rid of background checks completely. They seem to only give people a false sense of security and put people selling firearms at risk.
We can do it that way, and then every single FFL will simply decide who they will and will not sell a firearm to. Can't have it both ways.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-24-16, 23:21
The question at hand is: can a business owner be negligent when they sell a product to an individual after receiving specific information that the product will be used to commit a heinous crime or harm a 3rd party.
Information that the local LEO won't take action on? There is no issue of pre-crime. If someone is making threats, where is the problem in arresting them? If there are no threats and just someone thinks that there is an issue, how can that be enough make someone culpable for what happens with a purchased firearm. You can argue that it isn't a good idea and even that someone shouldn't do it- but are they legally responsible?
Like I said, there are people that think that no one is safe with a gun- they are a general threat to the population in anyone's hands. This case of a gun seller being responsible in a specific case is a directly adjacent case that a gun seller is responsible in a general case. And of course, for any seller, especially private sellers without a UBC. That makes UBCs a soft regulation for some kind of immunity from selling the gun to a wrong person- but as we see, even a clean UBC isn't enough.
How about if you modify your gun? Put a new faster trigger in it, mount a red dot or a light and then sell it and someone shoots a place up with it. Are you culpable because you made the gun more lethal?
What about a gun store with multiple workers and the call only comes into one of them and doesn't get passed around? What if someone posts the warning on FB? How long should the selling prohibition be in effect? Till the person calls back with an all-clear?
People are responsible for their own actions. This is just a tangential attack to get around the protections for gun sellers.
Ok, how is the business owner supposed to judge the credibility of that information. And if the local PD won't act on the exact same information AND a background check clears, then what?
How soon before we refuse to sell to a person genuinely needing a personal protection firearm because somebody claimed they have mental issues. What happens when a FFL refuses the sale and THAT person ends up murdered?
And how long before we get sued for the equivalent of refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Along those lines what if some parents think their kid is mentally ill because he is gay and he is refused a sale along those lines. That will be an awesome national news story, gun shop refuses lawful sale because purchaser was gay even though he PASSED a background check.
I can think of a couple hundred ways this crap can go wrong either way, and that is why information that would qualify as "hearsay" in a courtroom shouldn't be the basis upon whether or not a person is denied a lawful purchase.
It really comes down to this, either the background check is EVERYTHING or it is NOTHING. If we are going to leave it up to the "spidey sense" of every dealer and hold them accountable then get rid of background checks completely. They seem to only give people a false sense of security and put people selling firearms at risk.
We can do it that way, and then every single FFL will simply decide who they will and will not sell a firearm to. Can't have it both ways.
I'll answer the bolded part that applies to this case and thread, but will leave the stuff about gays and wedding cakes alone as they are of no interest to me - I'm about as straight as they come and on a diet after the past 12 hours.
The business owner will need to apply a prudent person standard when judging the credibility of information. A jury gets to decide what is prudent in these matters provided it gets that far, and this one didn't. Yes, it is a moving target and a real bitch at times - such is life. That gun owner should be thankful that he is not one of those stupid "rich" doctors. ;)
As for the police not acting on the information, do you have any evidence that that the police were notified and failed to act? I looked but could not find that. If the mother had notified the gun store owner but not the police, I expect that would have come at a trial as contributory negligence on the mother's part (i.e. a reasonable person would notify the police under the circumstances).
As for the background check being everything or nothing, I would call that legally risky perspective if you were still an FFL. I bet that most jurors in a civil trial would view the background check and Form 4473 as the standard for compliance with federal and state criminal law. While they are certainly pertinent to civil negligence cases, I'm not so sure that non-shooters would agree with your assertion that they are everything. At least, this gun store owner did not seem to think a jury would see it that way. Otherwise, he would not have settled for $2.2M.
Anyway, it is an interesting case and too bad that the owner settled (from a curiosity perspective). I'd have liked to see how our fellow citizens would have decided it as I've certainly been wrong before. Cheers and happy Black Friday.
Information that the local LEO won't take action on? There is no issue of pre-crime. If someone is making threats, where is the problem in arresting them? If there are no threats and just someone thinks that there is an issue, how can that be enough make someone culpable for what happens with a purchased firearm. You can argue that it isn't a good idea and even that someone shouldn't do it- but are they legally responsible?
Like I said, there are people that think that no one is safe with a gun- they are a general threat to the population in anyone's hands. This case of a gun seller being responsible in a specific case is a directly adjacent case that a gun seller is responsible in a general case. And of course, for any seller, especially private sellers without a UBC. That makes UBCs a soft regulation for some kind of immunity from selling the gun to a wrong person- but as we see, even a clean UBC isn't enough.
How about if you modify your gun? Put a new faster trigger in it, mount a red dot or a light and then sell it and someone shoots a place up with it. Are you culpable because you made the gun more lethal?
What about a gun store with multiple workers and the call only comes into one of them and doesn't get passed around? What if someone posts the warning on FB? How long should the selling prohibition be in effect? Till the person calls back with an all-clear?
People are responsible for their own actions. This is just a tangential attack to get around the protections for gun sellers.
The harm to a third party need not come a crime for their to be negligence. Granted, criminal actions certainly make negligence cases easier to prove. For example, let's say I'm a really shitty surgeon. So shitty that my mortality rates are noticibly higher than the industry standard. My hospital could be held responsible for allowing me to operate in their facility even though no crime is being committed and I have a state medical license. Guess what - that happens all the time.
In these cases, you need to focus on the merits of the individual case at hand. In the OP case, a jury would decide if a store owner is negligent in selling an item if they are given specific information that the item will be used to harm a 3rd party. I'm saying that I'm not sure how the jury would decide, but the gun store own seemed to think it was not looking good for him.
The business owner will need to apply a prudent person standard when judging the credibility of information. A jury gets to decide what is prudent in these matters provided it gets that far, and this one didn't. Yes, it is a moving target and a real bitch at times - such is life.
Awesome. Nancy Pelosi and crew just need to hang out all day at gun stores and pawn shops and warn that every potential buyer is dangerous. First off they honestly believe that and if you can't rely on a warning from somebody in Congress then who can you rely on?
As for the police not acting on the information, do you have any evidence that that the police were notified and failed to act? I looked but could not find that. If the mother had notified the gun store owner but not the police, I expect that would have come at a trial as contributory negligence on the mother's part (i.e. a reasonable person would notify the police under the circumstances).
Hell YES. The first time somebody was non approved I was naive enough to call the police and ask if I need to report it. They acted like I was calling in a report about a jaywalking. Keep in mind this is a case of a prohibited person who attempted to obtain a firearm which is an actual felony. Not a felony that might happen, but one that just did complete with documentation. They didn't even want to know the persons name. If I called them with even less like "Yeah this guy wanted to buy a gun and his mom said he was dangerous" they would probably arrest me for wasting their time.
As for the background check being everything or nothing, I would call that legally risky perspective if you were still an FFL. I bet that most jurors in a civil trial would view the background check and Form 4473 as the standard for compliance with federal and state criminal law.
I'm not talking about what a juror or civil trial might decide, I'm talking about the way it should actually be. If that wasn't 100% clear it should be by now. With a juror you can always lose no matter what you do. I could get sued for selling a gun to somebody who somebody else said was dangerous and I could get sued for refusing to sell a gun to somebody because I thought they might be dangerous. In a very real way it's technically a civil rights violation.
We've seen that "right of refusal" by a business owner is seldom upheld by jurors or in civil suits. And if the system is going to work it both ways and the background check becomes a meaningless formality, then the ATF is going to have to station agents in every pawn shop and gun store so that the regulatory agency can make determinations.
I'm amazed at the murky road some of you are advocating we travel down.
You clearly have no understanding of anything involved. Want to know what happens if I refuse a sale and then call the police?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They won't take a name over the phone, they won't send an officer out, NOTHING. The police will always do NOTHING, but you expect ME to do something about it. Why?
Even more to the point, want to know what happens when a person tries to buy a gun but is denied?
NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. And this means they are some kind of prohibited person who just tried to obtain a firearm, which is actually a crime. So is even holding a gun, so is falsifying information on the 4473. But despite the fact that a prohibited person has just committed several actual crimes, NOT ONCE in the almost 20 years I've been a FFL has anyone been arrested or even questioned in connection with their non approval.
Not once.
To the contrary, I'm well aware of our governments complete and utter failure in this arena. I'm hoping this will change with our new press and his appointees.
But you expect ME to act as some kind of agency of enforcement that protects the public. Even when no actual agency of enforcement does anything when a prohibited person attempts to purchase a firearm from me except advise me that they are "non approved."
No, I don't expect you or anyone else to do anything. I am saying that if you suspect a buyer is going to cause harm to someone else, regardless of why you suspect this, that you, as an intelligent and reasonable person should refuse the sale. I am saying that I would have refused this sale, and I'm saying that this pawn shop should have refused this sale. Given the facts of this case, I would have been right.
It is like mandating car salesmen prevent people with DUIs or more accurately, people they suspect may be people who will potentially drive under the influence, from obtaining a car.
No its not. First of all, during this entire discussion I have been advocating that sellers have a choice. At no time have I proposed any mandate. Further, on this point, intentional pre-meditated murder, is not the same thing as potential drunk driving. Not in the eyes of the law, not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of any reasonable person.
By the way, when the government is eventually successful in mandating UBCs, YOU will be as culpable if you sell one of your firearms. I wonder if you had a $2,000 rifle listed in the EE, if you'd refuse to sell it because you got an email from the buyers mother saying he's got mental issues.
As addressed above, I'm not calling for a mandate, I'm calling for self-imposed use of common sense. In your scenario above, I would, and have refused a sale on a lot less info than that.
How many doctors are "treating" these impaired people but still refuse to confine them in the interest of public safety? Why are these dangerous people even allowed to be walking around if even their family knows they are dangerous?
Again, I agree with you here. I have long been an advocate for re-opening the loony bins and filling them right up with all our mentally unfit people so that they can get the help that they need and so that society at large will be protected from them. Adam Lanza, anyone?
But because we don't have this system in place any longer is not an excuse to throw common sense out the window and knowing put firearms into the hands of questionable people. What makes them "questionable"? I'm confident that you and others like you have the skills to make this discernment. I do. I've never seen any reason to think you are less capable than I am.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-25-16, 10:11
The harm to a third party need not come a crime for their to be negligence. Granted, criminal actions certainly make negligence cases easier to prove. For example, let's say I'm a really shitty surgeon. So shitty that my mortality rates are noticibly higher than the industry standard. My hospital could be held responsible for allowing me to operate in their facility even though no crime is being committed and I have a state medical license. Guess what - that happens all the time.
In these cases, you need to focus on the merits of the individual case at hand. In the OP case, a jury would decide if a store owner is negligent in selling an item if they are given specific information that the item will be used to harm a 3rd party. I'm saying that I'm not sure how the jury would decide, but the gun store own seemed to think it was not looking good for him.
Should you be kicked out when the wife of one of your patients complains about your work? Your version has multiple data points of validated information. What we are talking about here is the word of one person that can't be verified.
Like it is difficult to get a restraining order nowadays? Especially if they are that much of a threat that you are calling all the guns stores not to sell to him?
And all you need to know is in the article:
Attorneys for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which helped the widow with her lawsuit, praised the development and said it sets an important precedent.
Winner, winner, turkey dinner. This is totally about pushing the edges of the law protecting gun manufacturers and sellers. If they can't legislate guns out, they will make it economically impossible to get insurance.
If you can't see that, you can't see that. Thank God you were smart enough to get into med school and didn't have to settle for law school. ;)
Ok, how is the business owner supposed to judge the credibility of that information. And if the local PD won't act on the exact same information AND a background check clears, then what?
Then what? Then you use the tremendous powers of discernment that you were born with and that your parents, family and friends helped you develop. You, all own your own, without the governments help, make a decision about who to sell a deadly weapon to. Or not.
How soon before we refuse to sell to a person genuinely needing a personal protection firearm because somebody claimed they have mental issues. What happens when a FFL refuses the sale and THAT person ends up murdered?
Way too far fetched. If someone intends to murder me and I know it, running to the store to buy a gun is not my only solution. In fact, that's not even on the top 10 list of things to do at that moment. If the person has the money to buy a gun, then they have the money to leave town and hole up somewhere where the potential murderer can't find them while things get sorted out. You aren't going to cause that person's immediate death because you decided to wait to sell them a gun.
And how long before we get sued for the equivalent of refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Along those lines what if some parents think their kid is mentally ill because he is gay and he is refused a sale along those lines. That will be an awesome national news story, gun shop refuses lawful sale because purchaser was gay even though he PASSED a background check.
I can think of a couple hundred ways this crap can go wrong either way, and that is why information that would qualify as "hearsay" in a courtroom shouldn't be the basis upon whether or not a person is denied a lawful purchase.
How about we cross that bridge when we come to it, if we ever come to it. The more immediate bridge to cross is: Should we or should we not sell a gun to someone if we have a reasonable suspicion that they intend to do illegal harm with it, regardless of what NICS says.
You really think that in the case we are discussing anyone on any jury of our peers would convict us of a rights violation in this case? No way. It would never even get in front of a jury.
It really comes down to this, either the background check is EVERYTHING or it is NOTHING. If we are going to leave it up to the "spidey sense" of every dealer and hold them accountable then get rid of background checks completely. They seem to only give people a false sense of security and put people selling firearms at risk.
We can do it that way, and then every single FFL will simply decide who they will and will not sell a firearm to. Can't have it both ways.
I can't argue what your opinion is or isn't on this issue, but I don't agree. A BG check is one tool. One piece of info. There are others too. It is not "all or nothing" in my view.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-25-16, 10:23
People need to separate out what is a bad idea and what isn't legal. Not a good idea to sell her a gun, pretty clear. Lose you business over it?
That woman just woke up that morning, had breakfast, told her mom that she was going to buy a gun and go all "Rage against the Machine" on the family.... Just out of the blue. First time she mentioned it.
Awesome. Nancy Pelosi and crew just need to hang out all day at gun stores and pawn shops and warn that every potential buyer is dangerous. First off they honestly believe that and if you can't rely on a warning from somebody in Congress then who can you rely on?
Nope. NP and her ilk are not credible people and would have no credible info on this case or any other. You and I and anyone else selling a firearm knows that.
Hell YES. The first time somebody was non approved I was naive enough to call the police and ask if I need to report it. They acted like I was calling in a report about a jaywalking. Keep in mind this is a case of a prohibited person who attempted to obtain a firearm which is an actual felony. Not a felony that might happen, but one that just did complete with documentation. They didn't even want to know the persons name. If I called them with even less like "Yeah this guy wanted to buy a gun and his mom said he was dangerous" they would probably arrest me for wasting their time.
The police and governments failure to do the right thing and prosecute a criminal is not a reason or an excuse for you to allow an innocent person to come to harm. Never has been and never will be.
I'm amazed at the murky road some of you are advocating we travel down.
Life is murky. These are troubled times. For example: The government can't protect us every minute of every day, but then tells us that we aren't allowed to protect ourselves. Decisions must be made. Judgement calls must happen every single day.
Despite the ridiculousness of our governments conflicting maze of rules and laws, and despite the complete and utter non-sense that our legal system has become, I hope that good guys like you will still make the right call. This pawn shop did everything legally and a man died because of it. Does that mean they made the right call? What harm would there have been, if they simply said "No. Not today lady."?
Information that the local LEO won't take action on? There is no issue of pre-crime. If someone is making threats, where is the problem in arresting them? If there are no threats and just someone thinks that there is an issue, how can that be enough make someone culpable for what happens with a purchased firearm. You can argue that it isn't a good idea and even that someone shouldn't do it- but are they legally responsible?
Culpable? In a legal sense? No. Should they have known better and chosen otherwise? Yes. Very clearly yes in this case, because a man was murdered. Unarguably yes, given the outcome.
I'm not arguing that the pawn shop is legally responsible. I'm arguing that a decent, reasonable person, who still has the free will to make a decision about what to do should have chosen differently. I'm saying that I would, and I have, chosen differently.
How about if you modify your gun? Put a new faster trigger in it, mount a red dot or a light and then sell it and someone shoots a place up with it. Are you culpable because you made the gun more lethal?
What about a gun store with multiple workers and the call only comes into one of them and doesn't get passed around? What if someone posts the warning on FB? How long should the selling prohibition be in effect? Till the person calls back with an all-clear?
How about all these possibilities? What would you do? What would weigh on your conscience? Indeed, what would a reasonable person do in any scenario you've dreamed up here? How would a jury of your peers judge you in any of these cases? As Steyr pointed out: Its murky. I can only answer for myself. I have a strong sense of right and wrong. I have the ability to make judgement calls. I have no problem doing so. There is no fool-proof solution for every case and every situation, but as advocates for gun rights, should we not do whatever we can do to prevent the next gun murder that will be used against our case? Whether it is justifiable for "them" to use the acts of murders and criminals against us is not relevant. They do use it against us in the court of public opinion. Let's take their ammo away, and lets do what we can do as individuals to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I'm confident that anyone reading this thread can discern for themselves what the "wrong hands" are, and what the right thing to do is.
Culpable? In a legal sense? No. Should they have known better and chosen otherwise? Yes. Very clearly yes in this case, because a man was murdered. Unarguably yes, given the outcome.
I'm not arguing that the pawn shop is legally responsible. I'm arguing that a decent, reasonable person, who still has the free will to make a decision about what to do should have chosen differently. I'm saying that I would, and I have, chosen differently.
How about all these possibilities? What would you do? What would weigh on your conscience? Indeed, what would a reasonable person do in any scenario you've dreamed up here? How would a jury of your peers judge you in any of these cases? As Steyr pointed out: Its murky. I can only answer for myself. I have a strong sense of right and wrong. I have the ability to make judgement calls. I have no problem doing so. There is no fool-proof solution for every case and every situation, but as advocates for gun rights, should we not do whatever we can do to prevent the next gun murder that will be used against our case? Whether it is justifiable for "them" to use the acts of murders and criminals against us is not relevant. They do use it against us in the court of public opinion. Let's take their ammo away, and lets do what we can do as individuals to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I'm confident that anyone reading this thread can discern for themselves what the "wrong hands" are, and what the right thing to do is.
Members in this thread seem to be using criminal and civil exposure interchangeably. Again, nobody on M4C is expecting the gun store owner to serve jail time. Also, the civil aspects of this case are not all that murky once to step away from the haze of a gun forum. According to the settlement, the gun store owner was legally responsible (in a civil sense). That is why he settled for $2.2M which was probably near the cap of his liability insurance and umbrellas; he didn't want to risk a judgement exceeding his caps. Murky cases get settled for far less or go to trial.
For those upset at the outcome, I have a question. Let's say a building contractor from LA wanted to buy 500 lbs of high nitrogen fertilizer for a job site. His paperwork and licenses are all in order, but the guy's fiancée calls the supplier concerned that he plans to blow up the SHOT Show Convention in Las Vegas. The fiancée is despirate because the local police in LA think he is harmless from all the other false calls for service to the residence (not to mention that a bunch of gun nuts going up in a ball of flame is not necessarily undesirable in LA). You're telling me that the supplier should face no financial consequences if he proceeds with the sell and we are no longer able to get SMGLee's cool updates?
I'm just shaking my head at where this thread has headed. It's devolved into "who can come up with the more horrific way to demonstrate that their point is the right one." Sensei, if the police were notified and refused to act on the threat, I'm pretty confident that the supplier shipping fertilizer to a job site would have a damned good legal defense. Does your terrible scenario suck beyond words? Yeah, but what if the guys fiancé was nuts and making shit up to harm his business for banging the nanny?
Pretty confident that Steyer, myself, and others aren't going to get on board with Sensei, Bulletdog, et al... And of course, the opposite is true too. I'm bowing out of this one.
To the contrary, I'm well aware of our governments complete and utter failure in this arena. I'm hoping this will change with our new press and his appointees.
It's been going on since 1968, with brief overhauls in 1986 that have been for the most part ignored since 1990. I don't see any major changes coming that will improve anything.
No, I don't expect you or anyone else to do anything. I am saying that if you suspect a buyer is going to cause harm to someone else, regardless of why you suspect this, that you, as an intelligent and reasonable person should refuse the sale. I am saying that I would have refused this sale, and I'm saying that this pawn shop should have refused this sale. Given the facts of this case, I would have been right.
Well now we are back the the violation of civil rights scenario. Lets say I have misgivings about a sketchy looking individual and decline the sale based upon nothing but "what I believe the person may do." Given that business owners have been denied "right of refusal" in a lot of recent rulings, I now open myself up to a violation of civil rights case if my "sketchy looking individual" turns out to be a regular guy with no problems but also happens to be black, muslim, gay or whatever.
No its not. First of all, during this entire discussion I have been advocating that sellers have a choice. At no time have I proposed any mandate. Further, on this point, intentional pre-meditated murder, is not the same thing as potential drunk driving. Not in the eyes of the law, not in my eyes, and not in the eyes of any reasonable person.
So if a persons mother informs the car dealer that her son intends to buy a car so he can run over a bunch of people at the upcoming memorial day parade or a marathon you don't see a direct comparison?
As addressed above, I'm not calling for a mandate, I'm calling for self-imposed use of common sense. In your scenario above, I would, and have refused a sale on a lot less info than that.
The problem is there is no criteria for common sense refusals. They have to be defined in the same way ATF attempted to define a "straw purchase." Sellers need very specific guidelines because they are literally walking a tightrope with factions on both sides pulling as hard as they can.
Anything self imposed borders on deciding to violate a persons right to purchase in an environment where business owners no longer have the same rights of refusal they once had. This is an impossible catch 22.
Then what? Then you use the tremendous powers of discernment that you were born with and that your parents, family and friends helped you develop. You, all own your own, without the governments help, make a decision about who to sell a deadly weapon to. Or not.
So what happens when all the FFLs in your zip code make the following common sense determinations.
1. Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime and therefore fall into a "potentially dangerous person" category therefore no sales to black people. Apply the same to Muslims and any other "at greater risk" category.
2. Religious people believe in "fairy tales" and therefore exhibit a kind of mental illness that makes them exceptionally prone to engage in violence in the name of religion. Carry over Muslim examples and apply it to all religions that believe in a form of supernatural deity.
3. Combat veterans are a high risk group for things like PTSD so military service makes them an exceptionally at risk group.
Any of the above could be submitted as a common sense determination and in fact being a minority is the basis for most of the gun control laws in the US, most on the left consider anyone more devout than a Christmas Christian to be a potential "religious extremist" and ATF has already attempted to deny anyone seeking treatment for PTSD to be declared a prohibited person.
That is where "seller must use common sense" without providing very specific criteria and qualifiers gets you. The problem is you are imagining the best case scenario of your "common sense" idea but the litmus test for "is this really a good idea" is the worst case scenarios and applications.
For me, my "common sense" is that if a person is NOT a prohibited person they can vote, buy a gun and drive a car. And if that person really SHOULD NOT be voting, buying a gun or driving a car then they need to be classed as a prohibited person at a minimum. That way I don't have to determine the validity of a statement from "Mom" (which honestly is so effin absurd I cannot believe we are actually having this discussion), I will quickly be informed they are a "prohibited person" and that would be the end of that.
It is only "common sense" that people who qualify as "prohibited persons" be classified as such. That is the actual solution, that is why background checks exist in the first place.
Hey guys- It's just another internet argument. It doesn't matter. At all. Take a breather, and eat some leftovers maybe?
I am certainly not a lawyer. But negligent entrustment seems pretty clear. If the dealer had failed to check publicly available records, ie background check, and the purchaser had a history of violence that is a clear case of negligent entrustment.
This case on the other hand seems to be some sort of bastardization of tort law. She literally just called 1 pawn shop? Wasn't worth driving there? Calling the police? Realizing you can buy guns at other places? She can completely remove all her personal responsibility by a 10 second phone call?
Here is her quote
“You can be held responsible for negligent entrustment. So use some common sense and judgment.”
Hey guys- It's just another internet argument. It doesn't matter. At all. Take a breather, and eat some leftovers maybe?
Dude, I'm in Bryson City, NC waiting to ride the Polar Express (in 60 degree weather) with about half of the country's toddlers screaming for Santa. So, it's either argue the merits of a settled case or face the reality surrounding me. Yeah, I'd much rather argue with Steyr and Stormin...
As usual, you make nothing but good points in this entire post, but…
Are you going to tell us that if you got that call, you wouldn't seriously consider not making this sale regardless of NICS? At the very least would you not mull it over and maybe make a call or two? Rights are rights, but if my Mom called the gun store and told them I was insane and going to kill someone, I would expect to be scrutinized a bit more and possibly denied the sale at that moment.
I'm not saying to permanently deny people's rights based on baseless hearsay, I'm saying as a society, I think we can check into things a little more in order to prevent a murder or murder(s) in cases where it makes sense to do so, like when a person's mother calls and says "Don't sell a gun to my schizophrenic daughter because she's going to murder her father…". Surely there is some scenario where you would deny or delay a sale regardless of NICS status, isn't there? To use your example, I wouldn't sell a car to this person in this scenario either. Or a sword, hatchet or hammer. I'd call the police and tell them I have a direct threat of murder. It might be baseless, but I'd like them to look into it before I make this sale. I'd tell the person standing in front of me that I'm sorry, and someone might be messing with them, but we are going to err on the side of caution. If it turns out to be a phony call, the daughter can sue the parent for defamation or the police can charge the parent with malicious mischief.
I think ignoring the obvious and following only the governments approval process, regardless of any circumstance, makes no sense in light of the times we live in. The media and lefties are just waiting for the next maniac to do something maniacal so they can all point their fingers and say "See? One more reason to ban guns. They sell them to crazy people who then murder their parents with them…" Isn't it worth a delay and a phone call to prevent this? It is to me.
You would deny a sale of a car or gun based off of second hand hearsay? If I know a dangerous individual has resigned themselves to purchasing a gun to use to commit a crime, I'm calling the police, not the gun store. They can be the one to have the gun store conversation. I would have zero expectation the gun store would take me seriously. You know, since they don't know me, and there is already a mechanism in place to screen out restricted persons.
JMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You would deny a sale of a car or gun based off of second hand hearsay? If I know a dangerous individual has resigned themselves to purchasing a gun to use to commit a crime, I'm calling the police, not the gun store. They can be the one to have the gun store conversation. I would have zero expectation the gun store would take me seriously. You know, since they don't know me, and there is already a mechanism in place to screen out restricted persons.
JMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And if the police came in and they provided the warning, then I could accept THAT as credible. Just seems like "common sense."
Yeah, I'd much rather argue with Steyr and Stormin...
Hate to break it to you, I'm not arguing. Completely disagreeing yes, but arguing...nah.
Maybe we can go back to how BJJ sucks if you are in a parking lot, confined space or fighting an attacker armed with a screwdriver.
:lol:
And if the police came in and they provided the warning, then I could accept THAT as credible. Just seems like "common sense."
Exactly. Like I said, I would have no expectation the LGS would consider me credible. So I would call the cops since that's pretty much who is supposed to get that kind of info anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude, I'm in Bryson City, NC waiting to ride the Polar Express (in 60 degree weather) with about half of the country's toddlers screaming for Santa. So, it's either argue the merits of a settled case or face the reality surrounding me. Yeah, I'd much rather argue with Steyr and Stormin...
My Huskies just kicked the crap out of the Cougars... Being that I went to UW, and my wife went to WSU, I'm back to wanting to argue on the internet. :-D
My Huskies just kicked the crap out of the Cougars... Being that I went to UW, and my wife went to WSU, I'm back to wanting to argue on the internet. :-D
You guys have a good team this year...it's about time. ;)
Happy Thanksgiving
Culpable? In a legal sense? No. Should they have known better and chosen otherwise? Yes. Very clearly yes in this case, because a man was murdered. Unarguably yes, given the outcome.
I'm not arguing that the pawn shop is legally responsible. I'm arguing that a decent, reasonable person, who still has the free will to make a decision about what to do should have chosen differently. I'm saying that I would, and I have, chosen differently.
How about all these possibilities? What would you do? What would weigh on your conscience? Indeed, what would a reasonable person do in any scenario you've dreamed up here? How would a jury of your peers judge you in any of these cases? As Steyr pointed out: Its murky. I can only answer for myself. I have a strong sense of right and wrong. I have the ability to make judgement calls. I have no problem doing so. There is no fool-proof solution for every case and every situation, but as advocates for gun rights, should we not do whatever we can do to prevent the next gun murder that will be used against our case? Whether it is justifiable for "them" to use the acts of murders and criminals against us is not relevant. They do use it against us in the court of public opinion. Let's take their ammo away, and lets do what we can do as individuals to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I'm confident that anyone reading this thread can discern for themselves what the "wrong hands" are, and what the right thing to do is.
You keep saying that you would, and have, done this differently. Can you provide some context?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.