Gun Store Loses Lawsuit Over Sales

[Dr. Keith]

Sounds improbable. The first thing that comes to mind is the federal protection of vaccine manufacturers from liability due to known side effects of proper use.

Yeah, it struck me as an odd statement.

And it makes sense for vaccines, since they provide a broad society benefit, but I'm not sure it makes sense for guns other than "they are so dangerous that our legal system would make it entirely unprofitable to make, use, or sell guns in the US." Seems kind of the point of a robust product liability system, but OK.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I heard today that they are the only industry to have federal protection against most forms of liability for the sale of their product. Wow.

Glad this went the way it did. Maybe it will clear out some of the bad actors.

As I understand it, they are a only protected from negligence. They can still be sued for other forms of liability.

 

[marplots]

If the net effect of lawsuits was to make it prohibitavely expensive to buy guns, the laws enabling gun lawsuits should be tossed by courts. If no such laws exist, then it should be thrown out on a construction of powers argument.

The decision on a net benefit for society has already been made by The People in their Constitution, and clearly they did not intend any such result.

The logic here seems to be that not only should we enumerate rights Constitutionally, but also support citizens' ability to access those rights. Is that the idea? I ask, because by extension, we ought to help those who cannot afford a gun to get one, should they be so inclined.

Would you support "gunfare," a mechanism where tax dollars provide firearms to those who otherwise couldn't afford one? We could distribute military surplus side arms and long guns.

 

[cullennz]

Out of interest, how was the shop supposed to monitor the progress of that gun after they'd sold it?

That is their problem

 

[Babbylonian]

Out of interest, how was the shop supposed to monitor the progress of that gun after they'd sold it?

That is their problem

Not really. All they have to do is pay attention to the probable legality of each sale. Everybody knows about straw purchases, and every gun store owner has a responsibility to do what they can to prevent them. It was clear to the court that this particular purchase should have been suspected to be fraudulent, and that is what confers upon them a measure of responsibility for the outcome. If there were no obvious warning signs that the sale was illegitimate (e.g., the buyer came in alone and wasn't obviously consulting with someone else), they would have won the case.

In other words, GlennB's question was a ridiculous one because nobody has suggested that the store should track the guns they sell once they're out of the store. This case was about their failure (or refusal) to detect an obvious straw purchase.

 

[cullennz]

I meant that is their problem, no one else's

 

[theprestige]

I meant that is their problem, no one else's

Who is "they" in your meaning?

The gun store? Or the straw purchaser?

 

[marplots]

In other words, GlennB's question was a ridiculous one because nobody has suggested that the store should track the guns they sell once they're out of the store. This case was about their failure (or refusal) to detect an obvious straw purchase.

There is a bit more. Even if they admit to participating in (or even encouraging) the straw purchase, a link has to be made to negligence. Could the store reasonably assume some criminal act (or any harm to another) would flow from the straw purchase? In other words, does liability attach for whatever might happen next? How long after? In the parking lot ten minutes later may be one thing, a week after another, and years later still a different case.

This wasn't a criminal case, but a civil case. The jury believed that allowing the straw purchase did make the store responsible (at least in part) for the subsequent injuries the cops suffered. Appeal will surely follow.

 

[Checkmite]

There is a bit more. Even if they admit to participating in (or even encouraging) the straw purchase, a link has to be made to negligence. Could the store reasonably assume some criminal act (or any harm to another) would flow from the straw purchase?

I would think so; if the store was aware of (and encouraged) the straw purchase, that meant they were aware the "real" purchaser was not legally allowed to own or purchase a gun for himself, and knew with reasonable certainty that the gun was about to be given to him. In other words, yes, they could reasonably assume that a crime was imminently about to be committed with the gun (unlawful possession - which, I believe, is a felony is it not?) and sold it anyway.

 

[marplots]

I would think so; if the store was aware of (and encouraged) the straw purchase, that meant they were aware the "real" purchaser was not legally allowed to own or purchase a gun for himself, and knew with reasonable certainty that the gun was about to be given to him. In other words, yes, they could reasonably assume that a crime was imminently about to be committed with the gun (unlawful possession - which, I believe, is a felony is it not?) and sold it anyway.

That's true and works for the criminal charge, but it might not address the civil side. Could the store reasonably assume their actions would lead to the injury of two police officers?

It's one thing to sell a gun illegally, and another to contribute to an attempted homicide.

Now, suppose the actual buyer (who was in the store) was talking about defending himself from "those cops who are always harassing me" or some such. That's a pretty clear link. What's less clear to me is whether anything/everything that happens after the illegal sale should automatically attach to the store.

Using the same logical chain, we might make the case that knowingly selling to a straw buyer, who then transfers to a felon, who then sells to his grandmother, who then sells to her nephew, who then sells to another felon, who then robs a bank and kills a teller -- it all flows back to the store.

 

[cullennz]

Who is "they" in your meaning?

The gun store? Or the straw purchaser?

The store

 

[Checkmite]

Now, suppose the actual buyer (who was in the store) was talking about defending himself from "those cops who are always harassing me" or some such. That's a pretty clear link. What's less clear to me is whether anything/everything that happens after the illegal sale should automatically attach to the store.

Not sure about any case law; but it seems to me the outcome of this trial seems to have established that as a matter of precedent, hasn't it?

Strictly speaking, driving the getaway car means you share culpability for anything that happens in the bank while you're waiting, whether you're aware of it or not. That includes murder, if things go off-script and one of your buddies shoots someone...or in some places even if someone (i.e., law enforcement) shoots one of your buddies. When you plan to commit a crime - or help someone else commit one, and that crime leads to other crimes, it is indeed often the case that you've got a screwing coming.

 

[marplots]

Not sure about any case law; but it seems to me the outcome of this trial seems to have established that as a matter of precedent, hasn't it?

Strictly speaking, driving the getaway car means you share culpability for anything that happens in the bank while you're waiting, whether you're aware of it or not. That includes murder, if things go off-script and one of your buddies shoots someone...or in some places even if someone (i.e., law enforcement) shoots one of your buddies. When you plan to commit a crime - or help someone else commit one, and that crime leads to other crimes, it is indeed often the case that you've got a screwing coming.

By the same token though, all the previous times they sold to straw purchasers where nothing happened (no cops were shot) would imply the store had a reasonable expectation that nothing would happen this time either - defense by way of Bayes.

But we'll have to wait for the appeal and read the arguments. From the comments I've seen so far, this one played out like it did (so far) as a rather unique set of circumstances - the reputation of the store, the video, the ability to track the gun back in a single step, and other particulars.

 

[BStrong]

My personal rule of thumb wrt firearms sales has always been the no MOPAR rule.

I have never sold a firearm to a Moron, Outlaw, Pervert, ******* or Racist.

If the dealer in this case was in fact complicit in a straw buy they deserve what they received.

 

[PhantomWolf]

By the same token though, all the previous times they sold to straw purchasers where nothing happened (no cops were shot) would imply the store had a reasonable expectation that nothing would happen this time either - defense by way of Bayes.

But we'll have to wait for the appeal and read the arguments. From the comments I've seen so far, this one played out like it did (so far) as a rather unique set of circumstances - the reputation of the store, the video, the ability to track the gun back in a single step, and other particulars.

Are you advocating that negligence is fine if you have done it lots of times before and no one got hurt those times?

 

[Babbylonian]

Are you advocating that negligence is fine if you have done it lots of times before and no one got hurt those times?

Not just simple negligence. Law-breaking negligence.

"I'm really sorry that person got hurt but no one ever got hurt during my previous bank robberies, so there's no way I could foresee this!"

ETA: Also, opening up the possibility of investigating how previous improperly sold guns might have been [mis]used would probably not be the best strategy.

 

[WildCat]

Some more details here - the staff actively and knowingly aided in the straw purchase.

I'm totally against lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers just because they sold a gun used in a crime - but that's not the case here. They actively skirted the law, and I hope they have the book thrown at them.

Yep. And this completely exposes the lie every single Dem candidate repeated in yesterday's debate that no one could sue gun sellers or manufacturers. You certainly can, if you can show actual negligence.

 

[marplots]

Are you advocating that negligence is fine if you have done it lots of times before and no one got hurt those times?

No, just that negligence ought to have a "reasonable man" standard and an element of foreseeableness about it. If I cannot reasonably predict, or even suspect, my actions will have bad consequences, should I be held liable for those actions when the rare event occurs?

"You kissed that girl and she died."
"Yeah, but how was I to know the Snicker bar I ate yesterday would trigger her peanut allergy? I didn't even know she had a peanut allergy."
"Tough. You are aware that extreme sensitivity to peanuts exists, right?"
"Sure."
"And your actions directly led to her death?"
"I guess..."

 

[marplots]

Not just simple negligence. Law-breaking negligence.

"I'm really sorry that person got hurt but no one ever got hurt during my previous bank robberies, so there's no way I could foresee this!"

ETA: Also, opening up the possibility of investigating how previous improperly sold guns might have been [mis]used would probably not be the best strategy.

That would work, except the selling of the gun to the straw buyer, and the use of the gun against the police, are disconnected acts with different agents causing them. Otherwise, we'd charge the store with accessory to attempted homicide (or something like it).

 

[WildCat]

I heard today that they are the only industry to have federal protection against most forms of liability for the sale of their product.

There is no immunity from negligence or criminal activity. There is immunity from frivolous lawsuits that are filed not to win but to force them into bankruptcy by having to defend against them. The law was put in place after anti-gun groups and several municipalities filed lawsuit after lawsuit based on nothing except that they lawfully sold a legal product that was later used in criminal activity.