Gun store follows the law, get sued anyway, anti gunners want to sue gun stores in "legal warfare."

[2aguy]

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

Yes so what?

Thats the consequences of doing business in our litigious society. I dont see how not selling someone a weapon in the interest of safety can be considered harassment. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

They are trying to go after Remington for the Sandy Hook shooting....the company ate the costs of the case...but it cost them a lot of money...they didn't even sell the gun to the woman, and they were still sued, it should never have gone forward.....

Doesnt matter who they go after. They have to prove negligence. Remington can counter sue for court costs. You need to speak to an attorney so you are more educated on how this works.

I know how it works and so do the anti gunners....they understand they can target individual, small gun stores...who do not have the resources for a protracted court battle, and put them out of business...and then scare other people from even trying to open up new gun stores....they are no better than the klan keeping blacks from voting.....

 

[JoeMoma]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

 

[Asclepias]

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

Yes so what?

Thats the consequences of doing business in our litigious society. I dont see how not selling someone a weapon in the interest of safety can be considered harassment. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

They are trying to go after Remington for the Sandy Hook shooting....the company ate the costs of the case...but it cost them a lot of money...they didn't even sell the gun to the woman, and they were still sued, it should never have gone forward.....

Doesnt matter who they go after. They have to prove negligence. Remington can counter sue for court costs. You need to speak to an attorney so you are more educated on how this works.

I know how it works and so do the anti gunners....they understand they can target individual, small gun stores...who do not have the resources for a protracted court battle, and put them out of business...and then scare other people from even trying to open up new gun stores....they are no better than the klan keeping blacks from voting.....

Sucks to be small. Why isnt the NRA helping them out? What are they paying their dues for?

 

[Asclepias]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

 

[JoeMoma]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

 

[Asclepias]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

 

[Asclepias]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

Not my concern to be honest and youre being a drama queen. Your logical conclusion is anything but logical. If someone is calling to keep you from buying a weapon chances are that there is a good reason for it. However, just because they wait to find out more information doesnt mean your rights will be infringed. You just have to wait a little longer until the situation is cleared up. Its a common sense precautionary step. I would hope that if someone took the time to call on me the gun store owner would not sell until he checked out the situation.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am an adult. My mother should not be able to take away my 2nd amendment right to purchase a firearm just based on her say-so.

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

Not my concern to be honest and youre being a drama queen. Your logical conclusion is anything but logical. If someone is calling to keep you from buying a weapon chances are that there is a good reason for it. However, just because they wait to find out more information doesnt mean your rights will be infringed. You just have to wait a little longer until the situation is cleared up. Its a common sense precautionary step. I would hope that if someone took the time to call on me the gun store owner would not sell until he checked out the situation.

If the gun shop owner decides no to sell to someone or delay selling to someone because of tip, that's fine. But he should also be free to ignore the phone call from Mom. Ignoring a phone call from someone's mother should not be grounds for a lawsuite.

 

[Asclepias]

She cant take away your rights. What made you think she could?

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

Not my concern to be honest and youre being a drama queen. Your logical conclusion is anything but logical. If someone is calling to keep you from buying a weapon chances are that there is a good reason for it. However, just because they wait to find out more information doesnt mean your rights will be infringed. You just have to wait a little longer until the situation is cleared up. Its a common sense precautionary step. I would hope that if someone took the time to call on me the gun store owner would not sell until he checked out the situation.

If the gun shop owner decides no to sell to someone or delay selling to someone because of tip, that's fine. But he should also be free to ignore the phone call from Mom. Ignoring a phone call from someone's mother should not be grounds for a lawsuite.

They are already free to ignore the phone call. The point is if you ignore a warning you can be sued for negligence in the event someone dies. Gun shop owners shouldnt receive special protection from that fact of business life.

If Mcdonalds received a bomb threat and they didnt evacuate their establishment then they are negligent in the event someone dies in the explosion someone called in to them.

 

[JoeMoma]

Damn! Have you even been reading this thread? The gun shop was sued because they sold someone a gun after the person's mother called and warned the gun shop that the person should not be sold a gun.
Please don't be intentionally obtuse.

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

Not my concern to be honest and youre being a drama queen. Your logical conclusion is anything but logical. If someone is calling to keep you from buying a weapon chances are that there is a good reason for it. However, just because they wait to find out more information doesnt mean your rights will be infringed. You just have to wait a little longer until the situation is cleared up. Its a common sense precautionary step. I would hope that if someone took the time to call on me the gun store owner would not sell until he checked out the situation.

If the gun shop owner decides no to sell to someone or delay selling to someone because of tip, that's fine. But he should also be free to ignore the phone call from Mom. Ignoring a phone call from someone's mother should not be grounds for a lawsuite.

They are already free to ignore the phone call. The point is if you ignore a warning you can be sued for negligence in the event someone dies. Gun shop owners shouldnt receive special protection from that fact of business life.

If Mcdonalds received a bomb threat and they didnt evacuate their establishment then they are negligent in the event someone dies in the explosion someone called in to them.

If they can be sued, then they are not free (from consequences) to ignore the phone call.

That's a false comparison with the bomb threat. Now Mom calling McDonalds and telling the Owner/manager not to sell a hamburger to her adult daughter (perhaps she is getting too fat) would be a more valid comparison.

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously I have been reading the thread. I know the gun shop was sued. No ones 2nd amend right was taken away. Dont be obtuse.

There you go being intentionally obtuse. If mom can call all the gun shops and say don't sell guns to her daughter, and the gun shops comply, then the daughter's right to buy a gun has been taken away. If the gun shops can be sued because they don't comply with Mom's request, then that puts the power of government behind Mom's request. So if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, the mother is given the authority to ban her daughter from buying guns by simply contacting gun dealers and essentially putting the daughter on a black list.

Of course, this is only one gun shop, and the daughter probably could have found another gun shop not warned by the mother, but being banned from one gun shop is still an erosion of the daughter's 2nd amendment rights (had the gun shop complied).

Not my concern to be honest and youre being a drama queen. Your logical conclusion is anything but logical. If someone is calling to keep you from buying a weapon chances are that there is a good reason for it. However, just because they wait to find out more information doesnt mean your rights will be infringed. You just have to wait a little longer until the situation is cleared up. Its a common sense precautionary step. I would hope that if someone took the time to call on me the gun store owner would not sell until he checked out the situation.

If the gun shop owner decides no to sell to someone or delay selling to someone because of tip, that's fine. But he should also be free to ignore the phone call from Mom. Ignoring a phone call from someone's mother should not be grounds for a lawsuite.

They are already free to ignore the phone call. The point is if you ignore a warning you can be sued for negligence in the event someone dies. Gun shop owners shouldnt receive special protection from that fact of business life.

If Mcdonalds received a bomb threat and they didnt evacuate their establishment then they are negligent in the event someone dies in the explosion someone called in to them.

If they can be sued, then they are not free (from consequences) to ignore the phone call.

That's a false comparison with the bomb threat. Now Mom calling McDonalds and telling the Owner/manager not to sell a hamburger to her adult daughter (perhaps she is getting too fat) would be a more valid comparison.

No one is free from consequences. Thats a free life tip for you.

No its not a false comparison just because you dont like it. We are talking about danger not a hamburger. The comparison is spot on.

 

[JoeB131]

Here you have a case of a gun store that followed the law. To the letter. But a mentally ill woman, with no record that would have put her on a list even if we had a list of the dangerously mentally ill...bought a gun legally, then used it to kill her father.

Some moron judge allowed the case to go forward, and they lost a million dollar settlement...for having obeyed the law....

Now the anti gunners see this as a way to use "legal warfare" to shut down gun stores.....

Works for me.