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

[Montrovant]

It wasn't the police though was it? The police aren't selling weapons. If the police were selling guns, their duty of care would be higher. Mother knew that daughter was going to the gun store for the purpose of getting a gun to kill someone. Mother called the gunstore and gave them very specific information to not make that sale.

This is no different than someone who said they were going to blow up a plane and bought dynamite.

Nope......if the police will not act ons something, the gun store does not become the police.....

Again...why didn't the mother call the police instead of the gun store? If she knew the daughter was going to shoot someone, why didn't she call the police instead? The woman didn't tell the gun store she was going to murder someone...did she? Again..why didn't she tell the police? And why didn't they stop her from buying the gun?

It seems from the articles that the parents were concerned the daughter would kill herself, not someone else.

and is the proper authority to make that claim the owner of private business or the police?

I'm just pointing out that, according to the article, the parents may have been concerned the daughter would shoot herself, not someone else.

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope......if the police will not act ons something, the gun store does not become the police.....

Again...why didn't the mother call the police instead of the gun store? If she knew the daughter was going to shoot someone, why didn't she call the police instead? The woman didn't tell the gun store she was going to murder someone...did she? Again..why didn't she tell the police? And why didn't they stop her from buying the gun?

It seems from the articles that the parents were concerned the daughter would kill herself, not someone else.

and is the proper authority to make that claim the owner of private business or the police?

I'm just pointing out that, according to the article, the parents may have been concerned the daughter would shoot herself, not someone else.

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

 

[Montrovant]

It seems from the articles that the parents were concerned the daughter would kill herself, not someone else.

and is the proper authority to make that claim the owner of private business or the police?

I'm just pointing out that, according to the article, the parents may have been concerned the daughter would shoot herself, not someone else.

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

 

[hadit]

Odd this when you understand that someone who gives or lends a gun to someone after being told they intend to kill someone is criminally liable.

Not the same....the gun store did the background check......

And show me the case where that is true about the suicide....

Don't rely on a background check when you have additional, contradictory evidence.

Using that standard an abuser could prevent his/her victim from getting a weapon to protect themselves. In this case, we have the benefit of hindsight, from which we can assume the inevitability of the tragedy. The store clerk did not have that luxury.

And sometimes that might be true. Since victims of abuse do not normally tell abusers they are getting a gun, it doesn't often come up.

The point remains that the owner of the gun store had no way of knowing whether the call was genuine, a prank, or a nasty attempt to prevent someone from protecting themselves. Again, we have the benefit of hindsight, he did not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and is the proper authority to make that claim the owner of private business or the police?

I'm just pointing out that, according to the article, the parents may have been concerned the daughter would shoot herself, not someone else.

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

 

[Montrovant]

I'm just pointing out that, according to the article, the parents may have been concerned the daughter would shoot herself, not someone else.

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

 

[Skull Pilot]

doesn't change the fact that the gun owner did nothing wrong

According to the available information, the store did nothing criminal. Whether or not it did anything wrong, legally or morally, is a bit less certain. There could be more information not contained in the articles that would make things seem different, such as what the manager meant when he said that Weathers was acting "nervous" when she bought the gun. It's certainly quite possible that the store did nothing wrong, though.

if the store owner did everything he was required to do by law then by definition he did nothing wrong

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. It is possible to do nothing criminally wrong while still being liable civilly. The store may have done nothing criminally wrong, but that doesn't speak to civil liability nor morality. As I've said repeatedly, there isn't enough information to be certain one way or another. It seems pretty clear nothing criminal occurred, at least.

he wasn't civilly responsible either

What do you base that statement on?

He in no way intentionally or negligently caused or contributed to the events.

The state and federal authorities were also called and they were unable to do anything to stop the sale if they couldn't do it how can a civilian be responsible for stopping what was as far as the government authorities were concerned a legal purchase of a weapon?

And the mother's phone call isn't sufficient as the shop owner had no way to verify she was who she said she was

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

 

[2aguy]

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.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

 

[2aguy]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

Any industry.....especially pharma and liqour...and sports.....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

and he settled because it was going to be cheaper than going to trial and since we don't hold the losers of such frivolous law suits responsible for all court costs innocent people will continue to settle such lawsuits

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

If someone called a car dealership and said that a schizophrenic intended to buy a car, fill it with explosives and detonate it your concern would be valid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

How?

If they refuse the sale they can be sued for gender discrimination. They had no basis for rejecting that sale.

If anyone is at fault, and there is not always someone at fault other than the idiot that killed people, it is the government for failing to have the necessary records of this woman's instability.

So we have to have a Big Brother looking over everyone's shoulder, with a finger into everyone's privacy in order to stop a handful of murders each year?

Bullshit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am truly surprised that the auto industry is not helping gun stores with their legal defense in cases like this.

More people die in car accidents than in gun accidents of all types. All this can be viewed as just legal groundwork for suing the auto industry into the ground.

If someone called a car dealership and said that a schizophrenic intended to buy a car, fill it with explosives and detonate it your concern would be valid.

No it wouldn't because as with this case there is no way to tell who was making the call and whether or not they had any actual evidence

 

[JimBowie1958]

.but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....
And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

Horse shit, if it were that easy to stop gun purchases, libtards would be calling gun stores 24/7.

Do you actually give this stuff thought before you post?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.....

These are the people who are trying to take away the 2nd Amendment right to self defense.....they are vile.

This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent - Hot Air

. The Washington Post brings us the story, indicating that it may be the template which opponents of gun rights can use in the future.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived…

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun…

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

Weathers planned to kill herself next but told a 911 operator: “I can’t shoot myself. I was going to after I did it, but I couldn’t bring myself to it.”

As with most liberal causes, the Brady campaign is seeking to exploit the tragedy experienced by this family for their own benefit. We see the same tactics used in the debate over illegal immigration, where liberal groups find the most heart wrenching example of a child being separated from their parent in an attempt to pluck at the sensitivities of voters. The case of Ms. Weathers is indeed a tragedy which should be a call for action, but not the sort which the Brady campaign is seeking.

Something went desperately wrong in Janet Delana’s family, but it wasn’t the fault of the gun shop. As the article documents, Colby Sue was not some marginal character with a few questionable incidents on her record. She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior.

This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis.

Had those steps been taken, a quick background check would have revealed that she was ineligible to purchase a weapon and the gun shop owner could have refused the sale. Having established that, let’s look at it from the perspective of the manager at the store. He receives a phone call from a distressed woman claiming that her daughter is crazy. T

he daughter then arrives looking to purchase a firearm, but passes the required background check with flying colors.

If he refuses to serve her and she turns out to be competent, he can wind up in trouble of an entirely different kind.

The manager has no way of knowing whether the woman on the phone is providing accurate information or is engaged in some sort of domestic dispute with her daughter and is just looking to cause trouble for her. These types of unofficial accounts are completely unreliable, which is why official court records are part of the process for clearing a background check.

Gun stores, if they can prove that they have followed the laws to the letter, should be shielded by law from any civil suits. Period.

Yes...exactly.....this woman is a retired social services worker...she has access to he system. She called the local police, she called the ATF, she called the FBI and yet....none of those government agencies reacted to or dealt with the problem...but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....

And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

you assume the gun store owner knew a tragedy was imminent he didn't

He was told. He knew that there was reasonable risk of harm and chose to ignore it. Even worse, after having been informed that the prospective buyer was unstable, he personally observed that the woman appeared nervous. The two incidents, taken together would have alerted a reasonable gun store owner that the risk of harm outweighed the incidental sale of a single firearm.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

.but the gun store, that followed the law, and had a vague notion of a problem...is the only one that is held to account for the intentional actions of an unknown individual....
And some people don't see that as a problem?

Nope. The gun store was the closest in time and had the last opportunity to stop a tragedy which is why the store settled.

Horse shit, if it were that easy to stop gun purchases, libtards would be calling gun stores 24/7.

Do you actually give this stuff thought before you post?

The gun store realized it had no defense and settled. Had the warning not been so specific it would be different.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The gun store realized it had no defense and settled. Had the warning not been so specific it would be different.

So if your pretend gun-hating child wanted to stop you from going to buy a gun, all they would have to do would be to call the store and say that you are mentally unfit to buy a gun and that you have said that you plan to go to a mall and commitmass murder, and the gun store would then be required to not make that sale, despite the 100% lack of any hard evidence of your claimed instability?

No, friend, you are mistaken on this matter.