Mother sues gun store for negligent sale

[moonbogg]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-usa-missouri-gun-idUSBREA2D02120140314

Crazy. I'd sue them also. I suppose a background check was run and didn't help?

 

[OCGuy]

The Brady group using another tragedy and grieving family member to push their agenda.

On the bright side, this will get thrown out before it sees the light of day, which will cost the Brady bunch time and resources.

Every time someone attacks 2A in an election year, the libbies lose a seat. It is great to watch.

 

[Fern]

I would think if they ran the required background checks and the woman wasn't flagged the store should be OK.

I don't think individual gun stores should making decisions on who has 2nd Amend rights and who doesn't.

Looks like another failure of the system. We've seen several instances where the medical records didn't pop up in the system. This needs to fixed before we move to change anything else.

Fern

 

[Thebobo]

On the bright side?

Wow there is a bright spot to someone getting shot. Maybe you can Email the wife and tell here that. There was a death and all you can think about is your guns? Your attitude is the reason people hate fanatic gun owners.

 

[OCGuy]

On the bright side?

Wow there is a bright spot to someone getting shot. Maybe you can Email the wife and tell here that. There was a death and all you can think about is your guns? Your attitude is the reason people hate fanatic gun owners.

You are so cute.

You hear that? That is the Senate drifting away...

 

[MrPickins]

I would think if they ran the required background checks and the woman wasn't flagged the store should be OK.

I don't think individual gun stores should making decisions on who has 2nd Amend rights and who doesn't.

Looks like another failure of the system. We've seen several instances where the medical records didn't pop up in the system. This needs to fixed before we move to change anything else.

Fern

I agree that it was a complete failure of the system, but disagree that the gun store should disregard a warning like this.

If not from a legal standpoint, from a moral one. The owner has the right to refuse service, and sometimes that right should be exercised.

 

[KB]

They really should have listened to the mother and not sold the gun, but assuming the background check came back clean, then they broke no laws. The biggest question again is why if the SSA finds you are mentally ill, why doesn't that get you flagged for not getting a gun.

 

[TerryMathews]

A better question is why wasnt the girl flagged in NICS if she was mentally defective in 2006?

This woman has a wrongful death lawsuit, but its against SSA and the doctor that didn't discharge their duties properly.

O if only people would follow the laws and procedures on the books.

 

[Fern]

I agree that it was a complete failure of the system, but disagree that the gun store should disregard a warning like this.

If not from a legal standpoint, from a moral one. The owner has the right to refuse service, and sometimes that right should be exercised.

My position is that issue should NOT be litigated at the gun store.

The woman should have gone to the local police to make sure her daughter was on a 'no gun' list. If she didn't, why hold the gun store responsible?

Now, perhaps she did but they refused. If so, why hold the gun store responsible?

If someone drops by the gun store and says "hey don't sell MrPickins a gun, he's crazy" what should the gun store do? Do they ask for legal documents and medical records to verify the claim? Are the gun store personnel competent in that area of law?

If the gun store refuses you what if you sue them? How can a gun store take it upon themselves to deny you your 2nd Amend right? Don't you have a civil rights claim against them?

And WTH is the gun store doing looking at your personal medical information? Isn't that against the law? Same for the person supplying the gun store the medical records.

If state law says they can refuse to sell I'll bet it has to be done on a reasonable basis. What if they had a track record of refusing to sell to black people or gays? Would that law protect them?

I understand your point, but if the lawsuit is successful now all gun stores in that state have to follow it. They have to create their own separate database to keep up with such people. They have to develop policies and procedures to determine if the warning is valid etc.

For all we know the lady went in there raving one day to a manager. Maybe he wasn't at work the day the daughter purchased the gun. What was the manager supposed to do, put up on the wall a picture of the daughter with the headline "She's Crazy! Don't sell her a gun"?

TL;DR: IMO this shouldn't be handled at the gun store level.

Fern

 

[Jay5]

And WTH is the gun store doing looking at your personal medical information? Isn't that against the law? Same for the person supplying the gun store the medical records.

what do you expect when you have gun control supporting democrats running your healthcare.welcome to another great obamacare reality

 

[alzan]

From the article; " But the lawsuit says Missouri law allows a gun shop employee to use "individual judgment" in refusing sale to some customers."

Bad law. No individual, especially in the employ of a gun shop, should be judging who may purchase a gun.

 

[TerryMathews]

what do you expect when you have gun control supporting democrats running your healthcare.welcome to another great obamacare reality

You don't understand how NICS works.

 

[rommelrommel]

From the article; " But the lawsuit says Missouri law allows a gun shop employee to use "individual judgment" in refusing sale to some customers."

Bad law. No individual, especially in the employ of a gun shop, should be judging who may purchase a gun.

So if I come in talking crazy shit they should just ignore it and hand me a gun?

I think they obviously should have the right to deny service... It's not like there's only one gun shop in Missouri. I don't think they should be liable for this sale, but had they declined the sale I don't think they should be liable for that either.

 

[alzan]

So if I come in talking crazy shit they should just ignore it and hand me a gun?

I think they obviously should have the right to deny service... It's not like there's only one gun shop in Missouri. I don't think they should be liable for this sale, but had they declined the sale I don't think they should be liable for that either.

It's not part of the report that those were the circumstances but thanks for trying. I was actually referring to the conflict of interest. If an employee can exercise individual judgment then he has no reason to turn away a potential sale. All businesses are operating in order to make money.

If you can show evidence of an actual case of someone talking crazy shit while attempting to purchase a gun I'd be happy to consider that situation.

 

[shortylickens]

The Brady group using another tragedy and grieving family member to push their agenda.

On the bright side, this will get thrown out before it sees the light of day, which will cost the Brady bunch time and resources.

Every time someone attacks 2A in an election year, the libbies lose a seat. It is great to watch.

Umm, Brady himself was shot (by a guy who passed the shitty background check back int he 80's) so the "agenda" is to get less people shot.

 

[shortylickens]

As for the above issue:

Private medical info is supposed to be off limits. If a court declares you mentally incompetent then it becomes a legal issue and material for public record. A doctor by himself cant get you banned from having a gun.

Though looking at Sandy Hook and Aurora and Virginia Tech, I think I can understand why the libtards would want investigating into peoples lives. Well unless of course they are brown and not here legally. Then they get more government help than an American veteran.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I agree that it was a complete failure of the system, but disagree that the gun store should disregard a warning like this.

If not from a legal standpoint, from a moral one. The owner has the right to refuse service, and sometimes that right should be exercised.

Sooo....someone who knows I intend to buy a gun and doesn't like guns can call all the gun shops near me and say "Don't let this dude buy a gun, he might want to kill me" and thus prevent me from buying a gun? (regardless of whether I've ever threatened him.)

How about we start passing laws that figure mental illness into background checks.

 

[Fayd]

Umm, Brady himself was shot (by a guy who passed the shitty background check back int he 80's) so the "agenda" is to get less people shot.

uh, as i recall, it's not brady but his wife who's pursuing all this bullshit.

 

[master_shake_]

she can't sue

the tiahrt amendment takes care of that

Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.[5] This precludes gun trace data from being used in academic research of gun use in crime.[5] Additionally, the law blocks any data legally released from being admissible in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers.[5] Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[6] Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[7] Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association,[8] and the Fraternal Order of Police (although it allows municipal police departments only limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation). The National Rifle Association says that undoing the Tiahrt Amendment would lead to a rash of lawsuits against gun dealers.[6]

take that gun grabbers smfh

 

[shira]

she can't sue

the tiahrt amendment takes care of that

Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.[5] This precludes gun trace data from being used in academic research of gun use in crime.[5] Additionally, the law blocks any data legally released from being admissible in civil lawsuits against gun sellers or manufacturers.[5] Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the ATF database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[6] Numerous police organizations oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, such as the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[7] Conversely, the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association,[8] and the Fraternal Order of Police (although it allows municipal police departments only limited access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation). The National Rifle Association says that undoing the Tiahrt Amendment would lead to a rash of lawsuits against gun dealers.[6]

take that gun grabbers smfh

Of course the woman can sue; and I think you're misreading what the Tiahrt Amendment says. From your own quote, legally-released trace data can't be used in a civil lawsuit. That's completely beside the point. The woman is suing the gun store for the allegedly-negligent sale of a weapon to her daughter. Use of "trace data" not found.

 

[OCGuy]

Of course the woman can sue; and I think you're misreading what the Tiahrt Amendment says. From your own quote, legally-released trace data can't be used in a civil lawsuit. That's completely beside the point. The woman is suing the gun store for the allegedly-negligent sale of a weapon to her daughter. Use of "trace data" not found.

Want to bet this gets tossed like 2 day old guac?

 

[shira]

Want to bet this gets tossed like 2 day old guac?

Of course it might get tossed, but not because of the Tiahrt Amendment.

On the other hand, it could easily go to trial. What it will come down to is what a court decides is the gun-store's responsibility in this case. Examples:

A drunken man staggers into the gun store muttering, "I'm gonna kill that SOB! I'm gonna kill him! Give me an accurate handgun and 100 rounds of ammo! Here's $1500," and the man slams a wad of cash on the counter. If the store sells this man a gun and bullets, and he then murders someone with it that same day, do you think a wrongful-death lawsuit for negligence would be thrown out by the court?

An overwrought woman comes into a gun store, goes up to the counter, and pulls out a photograph showing a clear image of herself and a younger woman together in happier times. "This is my daughter; her name is xyz. She has mental problems and is off her meds. She's has a delusion that I'm the devil. If she comes in here and tries to purchase a gun, please don't sell one to her. But if you must, at least call me and let me know so that I can get police protection. My phone number is pqr." If that same gun-store person sells a handgun to the woman's daughter later the same day and fails to call the woman, who is then murdered by the daughter, do you think a wrongful-death lawsuit for negligence would be or should be thrown out by the court.

It's not that big a stretch to get from these two examples to the actual case. So I don't think "tossing" the lawsuit is slam dunk.

 

[boomerang]

The owner has the right to refuse service, and sometimes that right should be exercised.

So, must sell wedding cakes but guns, nope?

 

[Geosurface]

If my brother or friend tells me he is thinking of getting a gun for home defense but I'm a libtard and I disapprove - should I be able to preemptively phone up all the gun stores in town and tell them not to sell him one because he's mentally unstable and violent, and they are obliged to take my word for it?

Of course not. Their only obligation is to follow the law. Run the same checks as with anyone else.

Btw the daughter would have knifed him as he slept if she had to. Sometimes you just can't stop crazy til it has already done something awful.

 

[MrPickins]

My position is that issue should NOT be litigated at the gun store.

The woman should have gone to the local police to make sure her daughter was on a 'no gun' list. If she didn't, why hold the gun store responsible?
]Now, perhaps she did but they refused. If so, why hold the gun store responsible?

If someone drops by the gun store and says "hey don't sell MrPickins a gun, he's crazy" what should the gun store do? Do they ask for legal documents and medical records to verify the claim? Are the gun store personnel competent in that area of law?

If the gun store refuses you what if you sue them? How can a gun store take it upon themselves to deny you your 2nd Amend right? Don't you have a civil rights claim against them?

Refusing a sale is not the same as denying you your rights.

I refuse to sell you any of my guns. Am I denying your right?

And WTH is the gun store doing looking at your personal medical information? Isn't that against the law? Same for the person supplying the gun store the medical records.

If state law says they can refuse to sell I'll bet it has to be done on a reasonable basis. What if they had a track record of refusing to sell to black people or gays? Would that law protect them?

I understand your point, but if the lawsuit is successful now all gun stores in that state have to follow it. They have to create their own separate database to keep up with such people. They have to develop policies and procedures to determine if the warning is valid etc.

For all we know the lady went in there raving one day to a manager. Maybe he wasn't at work the day the daughter purchased the gun. What was the manager supposed to do, put up on the wall a picture of the daughter with the headline "She's Crazy! Don't sell her a gun"?

TL;DR: IMO this shouldn't be handled at the gun store level.

Fern

I don't think the woman should be able to sue over it (I don't think the store should have the liability), but I stick by my opinion that the gun shop could and likely should have refused the sale when provided credible information that the person is a likely threat to themselves or others.

Again, I'm arguing what should have been done from a moral standpoint, not legal.

And, like you, this is all just IMO.

Sooo....someone who knows I intend to buy a gun and doesn't like guns can call all the gun shops near me and say "Don't let this dude buy a gun, he might want to kill me" and thus prevent me from buying a gun? (regardless of whether I've ever threatened him.)

How about we start passing laws that figure mental illness into background checks.

Why would someone do that? And why couldn't you obtain a gun from any number of other sources?

And yes, mental illness should definitely appear on a background check, but that's a complicated issue:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/21/nation/la-na-shooting-background-checks-20130921

So, must sell wedding cakes but guns, nope?

Neither actually. Unless you're refusing service to a protected class, you should be able to run your business as you choose. (Act too much like an ass and word of mouth will shut you down.)


Before anyone accuses me of being a "gun-grabber", think again. I'm a lawful gun owner who fully supports second amendment right. I also support business owner rights (and their moral responsibility).

Lastly, If I owned the store, I wouldn't want to take the risk of making the sale and ending up on the news as the place that sold a murder weapon...