Mother sues gun store for negligent sale

[Sunburn74]

Owners of stores that sell wedding cakes are very interested in your theories:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/#

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/21/3184691/oregon-bakery-guilty-discriminating-sex-couple/

Fern

Apples and oranges. You can discriminate and refuse service to a person (and even groups of people) for a legitimate business reasons (ie public interest, safety, precluding ability to provide service to others, etc). For example, there are all sorts of businesses where children will not be allowed in for various practical business reasons. They are not being sued left and right. However, you cannot arbitrarily discriminate against groups of people based on federal laws. Those laws don't yet include gays, but most cases where such arbitrary discrimination has occurred without a legitimate business reason have been found in favor of the a policy of non-discrimination.

I think with this gun store, she has a case. A mother tells you her daughter has a history of mental illness and may use a gun for murder. It actually doesn't matter whether the gun was sold, but rather whether the business did due diligence to protect public interests given the information they were handed. Imagine if a drunk beligerent homeless guy wanders into the restaurant you are eating screaming that he wants something to eat. They offer him a seat in the middle of the restaurant nearby where you are and 3 mins after sitting down he smashes you over the head from behind with a beer bottle hospitalizing you for 3 weeks. Isn't the restaurant culpable? I think most people would say yes. The gun store was told about potential red flags and even if you thought the mother was making it up, those allegation are serious enough that should make the seller take pause before selling the weapons.

Just my two cents

 

[RampantAndroid]

I think with this gun store, she has a case. A mother tells you her daughter has a history of mental illness and may use a gun for murder.

Did she have a restraining order? In the current laws, a mental disorder doesn't cause a sale to be denied. A restraining order usually does. Again, calling the store isn't good enough. You involve the legal system.

Do laws need to change? Sure. Did the shop do wrong? From what I've read I don't believe so.

 

[Venix]

Imagine if a drunk beligerent homeless guy wanders into the restaurant you are eating screaming that he wants something to eat. They offer him a seat in the middle of the restaurant nearby where you are and 3 mins after sitting down he smashes you over the head from behind with a beer bottle hospitalizing you for 3 weeks. Isn't the restaurant culpable?

You clearly didn't expect the attack if you sat with your back to him for three minutes. If you didn't recognize the danger, why would the restaurant's employees be expected to?

Regarding this case, I'm skeptical of anyone who demands "a reasonable sum of money in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars" rather than lobbying to improve the hopelessly broken mental health and background check systems that are actually at fault. I'll wait for the pawn shop's response before making any decisions.

 

[Sunburn74]

Did she have a restraining order? In the current laws, a mental disorder doesn't cause a sale to be denied. A restraining order usually does. Again, calling the store isn't good enough. You involve the legal system.

Do laws need to change? Sure. Did the shop do wrong? From what I've read I don't believe so.

I think there is a difference between an absolute reason to deny a sale and a relative one. There are only a few absolute, hard and fast reasons to deny sale. There are many judgement calls which fall in between. The store owner always has an obligation to use judgement for relative reasons to deny sale.

You clearly didn't expect the attack if you sat with your back to him for three minutes. If you didn't recognize the danger, why would the restaurant's employees be expected to?

Regarding this case, I'm skeptical of anyone who demands "a reasonable sum of money in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars" rather than lobbying to improve the hopelessly broken mental health and background check systems that are actually at fault. I'll wait for the pawn shop's response before making any decisions.

Winning the case would probably enact more change more quickly than lobbying simply because it establishes a precedent. Once gun store owners see that they can be sure for not using reasonable judgment and can lose, they will themselves change their behavior without need for any laws to be passed.