Does anyone see any legal issues in this

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Jun 12, 2010
101,175
24,222
2,220
Kannapolis, N.C.
I think this video was intended as a joke. However I also see it as a legal issue if someone innocent was ever hurt by the user. Selling a firearm for home defense that's specific use would be for long range. Should these box stores such as Walmart have experienced salesmen selling firearms, or am I looking to much into it? OH and I did send Walmart this video and a message expressing my concern.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibtt6wTIaHk]Buy a gun at Wallmart - YouTube[/ame]
 
Why is it that people only want to talk about something after the fact when something bad happens, and not before it happens?
 
I came to this thread because I was looking for something about all youth violence. We have Jackson and Sharpton who only care about whote on black for op eds. We have Bill Cosby for black on black crime who stands up for the senseless crimes without color involved?

Doesn't anyone see through non color glasses anymore? Can't we just look at horrific crimes and say STOP THE SENSLESNESS OF IT ALL?

The shooting of the pizza delivery boy was colorless. It was a boy who lost his life by thugs. Lets call the little bastards what they are, thugs and they come in all colors. We don't need a Sharpton to come in and point them out. We need justice and families to start doing their jobs.
 
As long as the buyer passed the NICS, I don’t see the problem.

Is it your position that the salesperson is engaging in ‘inappropriate banter’ with regard to ‘killing bad-guys’ that if indeed the buyer kills someone Walmart is potentially liable? Or that Walmart should not sell the gun to the buyer due to his statements?
 
As long as the buyer passed the NICS, I don’t see the problem.

Is it your position that the salesperson is engaging in ‘inappropriate banter’ with regard to ‘killing bad-guys’ that if indeed the buyer kills someone Walmart is potentially liable? Or that Walmart should not sell the gun to the buyer due to his statements?

The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.
 
The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

109th Congress, 2005–2006

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - GovTrack.us

The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com
 
Why is it that people only want to talk about something after the fact when something bad happens, and not before it happens?

Unless you are psychic, you can't talk about something bad that happens before the fact because it hasn't happened! :lol:
 
As long as the buyer passed the NICS, I don’t see the problem.

Is it your position that the salesperson is engaging in ‘inappropriate banter’ with regard to ‘killing bad-guys’ that if indeed the buyer kills someone Walmart is potentially liable? Or that Walmart should not sell the gun to the buyer due to his statements?

The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.


I live in a brick house. My nearest neighbor lives in a brick house. Not likely to happen. You don't know where this guy lives or who his neighbors are. You seriously need a life.
 
The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

109th Congress, 2005–2006

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - GovTrack.us

The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.
 
The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

109th Congress, 2005–2006

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - GovTrack.us

The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

Nobody would take the case as lawyers don't like to work for nothing. What don't you get about there being a law that prohibits such actions. :confused:
 
As long as the buyer passed the NICS, I don’t see the problem.

Is it your position that the salesperson is engaging in ‘inappropriate banter’ with regard to ‘killing bad-guys’ that if indeed the buyer kills someone Walmart is potentially liable? Or that Walmart should not sell the gun to the buyer due to his statements?

The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.


I live in a brick house. My nearest neighbor lives in a brick house. Not likely to happen. You don't know where this guy lives or who his neighbors are. You seriously need a life.

1. Not all homes are constructed out of brick.
2. A lot of homes are only 20 feet a part.
3. What does
You don't know where this guy lives or who his neighbors are. You seriously need a life
Have to do with a burglar breaking into someones home and the home owner missing the intended target and shooting through his neighbors home? Do you know what the maximum effective range of a 270 is? Here's a good example

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VBAInIDlG4]long range goat hunting savage 270 660 metres (721 yards) - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:



The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

Nobody would take the case as lawyers don't like to work for nothing. What don't you get about there being a law that prohibits such actions. :confused:
An anti gun lawyer would pro bono
 
I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.
Again, given the Federal statute, I don’t see a successful lawsuit. We need to see what happens in the Alaska case.

Otherwise, is .270 Win in general an ‘ideal’ defense round? No, but a gun buyer is allowed to purchase a firearm for whatever purpose he wishes, in good faith.
 
As long as the buyer passed the NICS, I don’t see the problem.

Is it your position that the salesperson is engaging in ‘inappropriate banter’ with regard to ‘killing bad-guys’ that if indeed the buyer kills someone Walmart is potentially liable? Or that Walmart should not sell the gun to the buyer due to his statements?

The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.

Obviously grinding an ax here...I have to say, if I were working behind the sporting goods counter, and some dickweed shitball like this came up, speaking a foreign language into some camera, I would definitely ask for his PHOTO ID before handing him any firearm. No ID, no gun. I'll go out on a limb here and say right now, shitball and friend would not pass the NICS.
Other than that, it is not up to the clerk to determine whether the requested "tool" was appropriate for the "job". She did many things I would consider inappropriate, but it is still not up to her to refuse to sell to a qualified buyer.
I have been a certified firearms instructor for many years now. When a student asks what would be the best home defense gun, I always tell them a shotgun. You don't need to aim, just point it. Most people do not spend enough time practicing to be effective with anything else, especially under pressure. Shotguns also do not have the penetrating power and pose little danger to the neighbors. Especially loaded with #7 Skeet & Skeet. It'll do one helluva job on bad guys at close range, though.
 
The seller (Walmart) selling the wrong tool for the job specified. The job being home defense. A high powered rifle can penetrate your walls and your neighbors wall, injuring unattended person.
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:

109th Congress, 2005–2006

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

S. 397 (109th): Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - GovTrack.us

The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

And you just nailed one of the biggest problems in this country. Always gotta blame someone, always gotta make someone PAY, PAY, PAY!
 
I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

Nobody would take the case as lawyers don't like to work for nothing. What don't you get about there being a law that prohibits such actions. :confused:
An anti gun lawyer would pro bono

People do not work for free. Even 'pro bono' lawyers. They are doing their community service that is required for bar membership. :rolleyes:

And even pro bono lawyers don't take cases that have a federal statute prohibiting civil suits in those instances. Even pro bono lawyers don't want to get smacked down for filing frivolous lawsuits and filing a case that has a federal statute prohibiting it would be frivolous to a T.
 
Walmart is likely covered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:



The statute is currently under review by the Alaska Supreme Court:

Alaska's Supreme Court reviews federal gun-shop liability law - Politics - Wire - TheState.com

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

And you just nailed one of the biggest problems in this country. Always gotta blame someone, always gotta make someone PAY, PAY, PAY!

In my opinion it goes deeper than that. Gun owners get a bad enough rap from the anti gun nuts without adding onto the issue of someone who hasn't gotten a clue about what they are selling. Of course the gun owner should be accountable for how he uses his firearm, and he should have some knowledge of what it is they are purchasing. However let's not compound the problem with the seller selling the firearm for something other than the purpose of the firearm. It wouldn't cost Walmart or any gun dealer much to give their firearms sellers a little training in those firearms they are selling.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

And you just nailed one of the biggest problems in this country. Always gotta blame someone, always gotta make someone PAY, PAY, PAY!

In my opinion it goes deeper than that. Gun owners get a bad enough rap from the anti gun nuts without adding onto the issue of someone who hasn't gotten a clue about what they are selling. Of course the gun owner should be accountable for how he uses his firearm, and he should have some knowledge of what it is they are purchasing. However let's not compound the problem with the seller selling the firearm for something other than the purpose of the firearm. It wouldn't cost Walmart or any gun dealer much to give their firearms sellers a little training in those firearms they are selling.


So you want to turn Wally World's gun counter into Macy's Lancôme make up counter! You seriously need a life!
 
I'm not a lawyer, but if someone took the advise of that sales person from Walmart and they used it for home defense shot at the bad guy in their home, the round penetrates through their wall and goes through their neighbors home wall and kills the baby in the crib, I am pretty sure a lawyer could hold the shooter responsible and Walmart because as a seller the seller should have some basic knowledge of the weapon they are selling. Someone is going to have to explain why that baby is dead.

And you just nailed one of the biggest problems in this country. Always gotta blame someone, always gotta make someone PAY, PAY, PAY!

In my opinion it goes deeper than that. Gun owners get a bad enough rap from the anti gun nuts without adding onto the issue of someone who hasn't gotten a clue about what they are selling. Of course the gun owner should be accountable for how he uses his firearm, and he should have some knowledge of what it is they are purchasing. However let's not compound the problem with the seller selling the firearm for something other than the purpose of the firearm. It wouldn't cost Walmart or any gun dealer much to give their firearms sellers a little training in those firearms they are selling.

Depending on location, there are usually already many job applicants who have knowledge. Walmart jobs are pretty much "entry level" in most cases. What I see here is not necessarily a young lady lacking knowledge, but one who's being "cute". Perhaps as a cover for her lack of knowledge? She may have just been covering the counter for another, better informed co-worker. That often happens, too.
At any rate, you are correct. A "customer" with a heavy accent and a camera "crew" would put me on high alert. People like that are often just drooling over the opportunity to make someone or some organization look foolish. I'm just guessing here, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the bozo in the video was French-Canadian and he was highlighting the fact that Walmarts in the US sell firearms.
As far as making the sales outlets liable for how a customer uses whatever he purchases there, that is just part and parcel of our litigious system here. If we were to extrapolate that theory to include automobiles, then every time someone is killed by an auto, their family should sue the maker of the car.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top