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

[2aguy]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

How long do you think stores keep notes up by the register about shoplifters or bad check writers?

The mother's background means nothing because it would not have changed anything. The store was negligent. It failed to act as a reasonable gun store.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

How long do you think stores keep notes up by the register about shoplifters or bad check writers?

The mother's background means nothing because it would not have changed anything. The store was negligent. It failed to act as a reasonable gun store.

The difference is people who steal and kite checks are actually committing crimes. A person legally purchasing a weapon is not committing a crime

 

[Rooster]

Did the mother communicate with this gun store and plead with them not to sell the deranged girl a gun?

The store was given adequate warning of the risk of harm. It chose to make a small profit.

Nonsense.

Some random person calls a store and asks the proprietor not to sell his product to someone. Why on earth would the proprietor agree when, legally, there's no reason to not make the sale?

If someone calls a liquor store and begs the person who answers the phone not to sell a bottle of Jack to someone, and they do, and then that person kills someone in a DUI, is the liquor store liable?

Of course not.

This is what's so wrong with our society. People want to shift blame and avoid placing responsibility where it rightly belongs.

Missouri has the death penalty. They should employ it here...

 

[Rooster]

Gun shop owners are not psychologists. The problem here is mental illness, not a firearm business. The proof of that lays with all of the customers that bought guns and then killed no one.

Exactly.

If the woman was so off-kilter that she should would buy guns with her her disability checks, she should probably have been a ward of the State and kept away from polite society.

If we're not going to place the blame on her, then let's place it on her family. Why didn't they call the police? Why call the store? The store is going to follow the law and, if nothing comes up precluding the sale, they will rightly make the sale. The police, on the other hand, would be duty-bound to investigate such a thing.

The father is dead for two reasons: The woman shot him and the family failed to do what was necessary to stop her...

 

[Asclepias]

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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

 

[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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

 

[Asclepias]

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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

I thought they were sued not fined. My bad.

 

[2aguy]

Gun shop owners are not psychologists. The problem here is mental illness, not a firearm business. The proof of that lays with all of the customers that bought guns and then killed no one.

Exactly.

If the woman was so off-kilter that she should would buy guns with her her disability checks, she should probably have been a ward of the State and kept away from polite society.

If we're not going to place the blame on her, then let's place it on her family. Why didn't they call the police? Why call the store? The store is going to follow the law and, if nothing comes up precluding the sale, they will rightly make the sale. The police, on the other hand, would be duty-bound to investigate such a thing.

The father is dead for two reasons: The woman shot him and the family failed to do what was necessary to stop her...

She did call the local police...who said they couldn't do anything till she broke the law, and they suggested she call the FBI, which she did, and then she called the ATF...and none of them did anything.....and the mother worked for Missouri Social Services...so she actually knew the system........but it was the gun store, and no one else, who had to make the call to stop the sale........that is messed up.

 

[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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

I thought they were sued not fined. My bad.

Yes...they were sued.....the case should have been dismissed.

 

[2aguy]

Did the mother communicate with this gun store and plead with them not to sell the deranged girl a gun?

The store was given adequate warning of the risk of harm. It chose to make a small profit.

Nonsense.

Some random person calls a store and asks the proprietor not to sell his product to someone. Why on earth would the proprietor agree when, legally, there's no reason to not make the sale?

If someone calls a liquor store and begs the person who answers the phone not to sell a bottle of Jack to someone, and they do, and then that person kills someone in a DUI, is the liquor store liable?

Of course not.

This is what's so wrong with our society. People want to shift blame and avoid placing responsibility where it rightly belongs.

Missouri has the death penalty. They should employ it here...

And make a nice 2 million dollars....

 

[2aguy]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

How long do you think stores keep notes up by the register about shoplifters or bad check writers?

The mother's background means nothing because it would not have changed anything. The store was negligent. It failed to act as a reasonable gun store.

The store was not negligent.....they followed the law. The responsibilty was the mother and law enforcement....

 

[Asclepias]

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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

I thought they were sued not fined. My bad.

Yes...they were sued.....the case should have been dismissed.

No. The case was good. They were warned and as a result of them ignoring that warning someone died. They have some responsibility in that event occurring. It would be totally different if they were not warned.

 

[Asclepias]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

How long do you think stores keep notes up by the register about shoplifters or bad check writers?

The mother's background means nothing because it would not have changed anything. The store was negligent. It failed to act as a reasonable gun store.

The store was not negligent.....they followed the law. The responsibilty was the mother and law enforcement....

Yes the store was negligent. They ignored a warning any sane person would have looked into.

BTW what trouble would the store have gotten into had they refused to sell her the gun?

 

[Asclepias]

So...the guy who took the call about the woman....was he supposed to man the register 24/7 to make sure that this woman wasn't sold the gun...since it now appears to be his sole responsibilty to stop this woman, who he has been told by a federal background check is legal to buy the gun......since the local police, the ATF, the FBI and a the mother who actually knows the social welfare system in Missouri can't be bothered to stop the woman....

How long was this guy supposed to maintain his watch for this woman....2 days, a week, a month, a year....till the end of time?

I think one of the articles had the mother saying she asked for a note to be put on the register so any clerk would know. That time gap does certainly seem to sway things a bit into the store's favor.

Yes.....how long do you think the gun store should have been on alert about this woman? And what about the fact that the mother was a retired social services worker in Missouri, and knew the system..and also called the local police, the ATF and the FBI and then blames the gun store for what happened...after she failed, and the government agencies also failed to stop this woman.....?

How long do you think stores keep notes up by the register about shoplifters or bad check writers?

The mother's background means nothing because it would not have changed anything. The store was negligent. It failed to act as a reasonable gun store.

The store was not negligent.....they followed the law. The responsibilty was the mother and law enforcement....

What kind of gibberish is this?

"Using this case as precedent, all they need to do is find out when someone is thinking of making a gun purchase and begin calling around to gun shops and making false claims that the person is “crazy.” This will put business owners in a quandary where they have no good options left while doing nothing to help the mentally ill who are truly in need of assistance."

 

[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.

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

I thought they were sued not fined. My bad.

Yes...they were sued.....the case should have been dismissed.

No. The case was good. They were warned and as a result of them ignoring that warning someone died. They have some responsibility in that event occurring. It would be totally different if they were not warned.

They could have been sued for that.....just like bakers are sued for not baking cakes......and again...they had a phone call.....and the local police, the FBI, and the ATF refused to do anything............with the same information......

If the government will not act, it is not up to a private business to become the cops.....

 

[Asclepias]

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

That isn't the issue...the issue is wether they should be fined when they didn't break the law.....

I thought they were sued not fined. My bad.

Yes...they were sued.....the case should have been dismissed.

No. The case was good. They were warned and as a result of them ignoring that warning someone died. They have some responsibility in that event occurring. It would be totally different if they were not warned.

They could have been sued for that.....just like bakers are sued for not baking cakes......and again...they had a phone call.....and the local police, the FBI, and the ATF refused to do anything............with the same information......

If the government will not act, it is not up to a private business to become the cops.....

They were sued....and lost. You do realize you can get sued for anything dont you? Would your rather be sued and someone die or just be sued? In the interest of safety any lawsuit would have been thrown out if they were warned the person was not mentally competent. My gun shop actually asks not only do you have a history of mental illness but if you are taking your meds.

The police cant do anything just because someone is off their meds. The store was the only one that had the ability to stop the event and they failed. Their job was not to be a cop but to act responsibly.

 

[The Irish Ram]

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

What would you suggest the store owner do to find out "what was going on"? Move in with the family for a month or two to get a better grasp on the situation? The store owner did everything he is required to do by law.
If I was nuts and started stabbing people with a knife, would you sue Williams Sonoma?

We have mental facilities for a reason.

 

[Asclepias]

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

What would you suggest the store owner do to find out "what was going on"? Move in with the family for a month or two to get a better grasp on the situation? The store owner did everything he is required to do by law.

If I was nuts and started stabbing people with a knife, would you sue Williams Sonoma?

i suggest they talk to the parties involved to figure out what was going on.

Thats a dumb question. Why would I sue Williams and Sonoma?

 

[The Irish Ram]

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

What would you suggest the store owner do to find out "what was going on"? Move in with the family for a month or two to get a better grasp on the situation? The store owner did everything he is required to do by law.

If I was nuts and started stabbing people with a knife, would you sue Williams Sonoma?

i suggest they talk to the parties involved to figure out what was going on.

Thats a dumb question. Why would I sue Williams and Sonoma?

Williams Sonoma sold me lethal weapons. Sharpest knives I have ever had. Shouldn't they have made sure I planned on cutting steak with my weapons and was not planning to cut my husband? Shouldn't Williams Sonoma gotten to know me better before trusting me with knives?

This is not a consumer issue. This is a mental health issue.
I have guns. So did she. My guns have never attacked anyone. Neither did hers. An inanimate object is not to blame here. The unbalanced woman and her family are to blame, for doing nothing. What if she had bought the gun five years before she used it? Gun shop still at fault? Or had her mental illness progressed? That family substituted a shop owner for a licensed mental health provider and it ended badly for them.