Store Fined $6 Million For Selling Gun Used To Shoot Cop

dailycaller.com...


I think honestly this is crap. How is the Dealer supposed to know? There are many times, when a new gun owner will go into a store with an experienced one, to help coach him on his first purchase. That does not mean it is a straw purchase. I fail to see the evidence that this gun dealer was responsible. Your thoughts?


Pcg

The jury ruled that the gun shop should have seen the signs and refused to sell the gun

So now gun shops have to be psychic.

Those cops just destroy the business, and for NO other reason for 6 million dollar payday split two ways.

I hope they feel good about themselves.

I mean it's not like cops don't get shot at for a living, and they didn't know before hand.

i agree or charge car dealers for killing people to,this is a ridiculous lawsuit.
how about sue wallmart for selling knives that killed people to

a reply to: pcgamer11

From the source:

Jason Collins, the “straw buyer,” purchased the gun for Burton, who was underage. A video of the purchase shows Burton and Collins at the store together as Burton obviously points at one of the guns and says “that’s the one that I want.”

Prosecutors pointed out that in the last decade, the store has been among the worst in the nation for selling guns that would later be used in crimes, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

My thoughts: If true, it seems quite clear that a) it should have been obvious that it was a straw purchase and b) that this is not just a fluke.

a reply to: pcgamer11

Does this set a dangerous precident or what? We should all see the signs now? If I sell cars, am I to say no because I have a "feeling" the buyer may be wanting the vehicle for lethal purpose?
In doing this would I not then be assured entanglement in discrimination litigation? The client I got the feeling about was (fill in the blank) and because of this, I refused the purchase.


Do we stop having children? We could give birth to a Charles Manson...

If this is the new rules, I refuse to play.

Well, it's no surprise, considering "commercial vendors of alcohol" can be sued for serving liquor to someone...

Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Link
I do understand the "straw buyer" part though. If it was proven the man bought the gun with the intention of giving it to someone who legally can't own a firearm, then I think the straw buyer should be responsible, not so much the store, because anyone could be buying for someone else and you'd never know it.

a reply to: Klassified

Wasn't this story posted some time ago..not the judgment but the details..they screwed up the paperwork as well, a child could of figured it a straw man. In all of these threads the usual pathetic souls are crying "we don't need new laws..enforce what we have!!!..so WTF what should be done FFS. This store has a history.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: pcgamer11

From the source:

Jason Collins, the “straw buyer,” purchased the gun for Burton, who was underage. A video of the purchase shows Burton and Collins at the store together as Burton obviously points at one of the guns and says “that’s the one that I want.”

Prosecutors pointed out that in the last decade, the store has been among the worst in the nation for selling guns that would later be used in crimes, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

My thoughts: If true, it seems quite clear that a) it should have been obvious that it was a straw purchase and b) that this is not just a fluke.

Upon first coming into this thread, I was really annoyed at the officers for suing the gun store. But after reading more into it, it makes perfect sense to me now.

When I was younger, I worked at a music store that was also a head shop. That was during the days of pot being illegal, but we were able to coast on the thin grey line because our pipes were sold as "tobacco smoking accessories". There were a few rules to looking at our wares:

1. You had to be 18, and show a valid ID.

2. You could not use certain lingo related to illegal activities, for example, "bong is wrong". But "waterpipe" was ok.

Pretty simple, right?? You'd be surprised how often people got mad at showing an ID, but the rules were there so we could legally sell the product. Anyway, the reason I mention all of this is because if it looked like someone was buying for someone else, we blocked all sales. For example, if there was a high school kid pretending to look at cd's, all the while trying to direct their friend to purchase the pipe they wanted, we kicked them out of the store. If you didn't follow the rules, you didn't get a new toy.

So if we could do that for something as simple as glass pipes, why the hell couldn't that guy do it for something more serious, like a gun purchase??

originally posted by: Klassified
Well, it's no surprise, considering "commercial vendors of alcohol" can be sued for serving liquor to someone...

Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol, such as bars, taverns and package stores responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons
Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a "proximate cause" of the injury
Commercial vendors are liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer if they serve liquor to him after he was visibly intoxicated

Link
I do understand the "straw buyer" part though. If it was proven the man bought the gun with the intention of giving it to someone who legally can't own a firearm, then I think the straw buyer should be responsible, not so much the store, because anyone could be buying for someone else and you'd never know it.

Exactly. The starw purchaser should be held responsible, if evidence shows. I would like to see the video.

Pcg

a reply to: pcgamer11

Why isn't the government itself on trial here? Doesn't it have access to all of his communications and history? Much more access than does a tool distributer I would imagine anyway.

Why should the buck stop there, the city official who awarded them their gun dealer license should also share in the blame, should they not? Maybe $500,000?

I hope my point is clear but, in case it isn't, when anti-2nd amendment activists lose on constitutional law, they resort to local ordinance or just plain illegality to restrict lawful second amendment arms ownership. This must be countered by the necessary expansion of the percentage of the population who exercise that right.

When free speech is challenged, it must be exercised. When rights are violated, they must be prosecuted. There is no other way to respond than with rationality and logic.

They may have put a gun store out of business but, I suspect, that their gun ownership just went up.

I'm not sure about this, 6 million? When we look at it with Cigs and alcohol who is to blame when someone buys for underage people? The business should have asked who is the gun for, then asked to see if the younger person was related to make it legal and if the older guy then still gave it to the kid it is on him. On the other hand I'm not sure how the prosecutor would know if the kid said "that's the one I want" (does the video have sound) or if the seller actually heard him say it since the buyer would most likely try and make it look like the gun was for the older person.

The background check was on the older person, and the older person bought it and give it to the kid, so the blame is rather obvious there. It would be like some guy bought alcohol for miners and they get in a crash and people die, then they go back to the store and say you should have known the older guy was buying for minors so here is your 6 million fine.

originally posted by: Necrobile

So if we could do that for something as simple as glass pipes, why the hell couldn't that guy do it for something more serious, like a gun purchase??

So some guy comes in picks out a gun, is of legal age, passes the background check and buys it, then goes home and gives it to the kid... Could I being 55 buy a bong in your store then go outside and hand it to a 12 year old? I guess if I did it's on you to know I was going to do that...hehe

Also who in their right mind would buy a gun in their name for someone else...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

No, the 2 went into the store,,one pointed out what he wanted(apparently captured on the security cam), the other then purchased..even screwing up the paperwork in the process. The store also has a bad histoy..Im sure there was a thread on this.. pre judgement.
I would of course agree the legal purchaser bears equal or more punishment

a reply to: pcgamer11

Sheesh...this is a toughie.

It's one of those 'chicken or the egg' situations. Is it the manufacturers fault for producing the weapon? is it the dealers fault for selling the weapon? or is it the owners fault for using said weapon?

a reply to: NewzNose

Well I was thinking of another precedent....


When police shoot an innocent man/woman/child who ever issues department guns can be sued as well as the PD.


Fairs fair, right.

originally posted by: vonclod
I would of course agree the legal purchaser bears equal or more punishment

6 million is kind of steep I would think since the store could most likely not pay that in a lifetime and I don't think there is actually a straw man law that the shop broke, but they did not use full discretion.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NewzNose

Well I was thinking of another precedent....


When police shoot an innocent man/woman/child who ever issues department guns can be sued as well as the PD.


Fairs fair, right.

So the company the buyer works for can be sued too?

You legally buy whiskey for some kids who die in a car crash who is to blame?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Klassified

Wasn't this story posted some time ago..not the judgment but the details..they screwed up the paperwork as well, a child could of figured it a straw man. In all of these threads the usual pathetic souls are crying "we don't need new laws..enforce what we have!!!..so WTF what should be done FFS. This store has a history.

IF the store had a previous history, they should have had their license revoked long before this could happen. This is a failure on the part of the system to the degree that they knew about the previous infractions, and did nothing to stop it. I realize that many people think removing firearms from the common man/woman will create a long overdue utopia, but it won't happen. No more than removing alcohol during prohibition did. It made things so much worse.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Personal responsibility is paramount.

I recently bought some vodka for some underagers and looking back if something had happened I'd accept responsibility for my part.


But in comparison to the gun store, unless he broke a law, he shouldn't be sued.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xtrozero

No, the 2 went into the store,,one pointed out what he wanted(apparently captured on the security cam), the other then purchased..even screwing up the paperwork in the process.

So you have a friend that is underage to buy guns lets say. You go to him and say I'm going to buy a gun today want to come? He says sure and at the store you both are looking and he says I like that one and you say I like that one too. You buy it and go home keeping it for the next 20 years. How is this any different than what happened other than the buyer went home and instead of keeping the gun gave it to the kid?

The store also has a bad histoy..Im sure there was a thread on this.. pre judgement.
I would of course agree the legal purchaser bears equal or more punishment

I guess that bad history wasn't enough to loose their licences over but was bad enough to add to a 6 million fine...lol As some suggest maybe the city should be charged 6 million for not taking their licence on those other bad events?