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

[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.

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.....

Were they fined? Didn't they pay out a settlement?" No fine.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

The family did not ask the shop to make a diagnosis. It was a warning. The shop did not heed the warning. It is no different than a warning given to any other facility that was ignored.

 

[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?

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.

Williams and Sonoma sells combat knives?

Why would they make sure you werent going to kill anyone? Did someone call them and warn them not to sell you the knives?

I think the point you missed is they did do something. They called the gun store and begged them not to sell the mentally unstable woman a gun.

 

[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.

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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The family did not ask the shop to make a diagnosis. It was a warning. The shop did not heed the warning. It is no different than a warning given to any other facility that was ignored.

I'll ask you the same question

I make a dozen anonymous phone calls claiming to be your father and tell people not to let you in their businesses because you are dangerous

you're just fine with those businessmen refusing to serve you based on that one anonymous phone call?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Williams and Sonoma sells combat knives?

Why would they make sure you werent going to kill anyone? Did someone call them and warn them not to sell you the knives?

I think the point you missed is they did do something. They called the gun store and begged them not to sell the mentally unstable woman a gun.

with no proof that she was unstable.

if she was unstable they should have had her committed

 

[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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

Thats why you push the pause button and research. Put on your thinking cap for a moment. Under what scenario do you think someone would want to keep another person from purchasing a weapon? Why would someone go through the trouble of calling a gun shop and pleading with the owner not to sell the person a weapon? Use your common sense and dont be a retard.

 

[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.

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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

An anonymous call can ground an airplane, lock down a mall, a school, a courthouse. No proof. Just a call. It doesn't even have to name anyone.

No one called every business. Just one identified as posing the danger.

 

[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?

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.

The family did not ask the shop to make a diagnosis. It was a warning. The shop did not heed the warning. It is no different than a warning given to any other facility that was ignored.

I'll ask you the same question

I make a dozen anonymous phone calls claiming to be your father and tell people not to let you in their businesses because you are dangerous

you're just fine with those businessmen refusing to serve you based on that one anonymous phone call?

You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.

If I was a business person and someone called me to warn me I wouldnt let your ass in my business either.

 

[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.

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.

warned by whom

a person with absolutely no authority who offered no proof of her claims

if the girl was that unstable why didn't the mother have her committed

the parents failed to do what they could to protect their daughter so now they are trying to shift the blame

 

[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.

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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

An anonymous call can ground an airplane, lock down a mall, a school, a courthouse. No proof. Just a call. It doesn't even have to name anyone.

No one called every business. Just one identified as posing the danger.

so now this woman threatened to kill a plane full of people?

did the person buying the gun make any threats to kill anyone? No?

and if this girl was such a danger why didn't her parents have her hospitalized?

This is blame shifting that is all

 

[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.

warned by whom

a person with absolutely no authority who offered no proof of her claims

if the girl was that unstable why didn't the mother have her committed

the parents failed to do what they could to protect their daughter so now they are trying to shift the blame

the mom. Didnt you read the OP?

No proof needed. The shop should have researched before selling the gun. Thats why they lost the suit. I cant tell from the story if she made a threat.

I have no clue. That wasnt in the story nor does it have anything to do with the point.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The family did not ask the shop to make a diagnosis. It was a warning. The shop did not heed the warning. It is no different than a warning given to any other facility that was ignored.

I'll ask you the same question

I make a dozen anonymous phone calls claiming to be your father and tell people not to let you in their businesses because you are dangerous

you're just fine with those businessmen refusing to serve you based on that one anonymous phone call?

You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.

If I was a business person and someone called me to warn me I wouldnt let your ass in my business either.

Your loss I would have been a paying customer

the fact is the shop owner did everything he was required to do he broke no law he was not responsible for what the person did after she left his store

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

warned by whom

a person with absolutely no authority who offered no proof of her claims

if the girl was that unstable why didn't the mother have her committed

the parents failed to do what they could to protect their daughter so now they are trying to shift the blame

the mom. Didnt you read the OP?

No proof needed. The shop should have researched before selling the gun. Thats why they lost the suit.

I have no clue. That wasnt in the story nor does it have anything to do with the point.

Of course there is proof needed

you just believe everything an anonymous person on the phone tells you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

It's not a gun grab

It is however a perversion of the law.

There is no law stating that a gun shop owner is responsible for what a person who legally buys a gun does after the purchase

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The family did not ask the shop to make a diagnosis. It was a warning. The shop did not heed the warning. It is no different than a warning given to any other facility that was ignored.

I'll ask you the same question

I make a dozen anonymous phone calls claiming to be your father and tell people not to let you in their businesses because you are dangerous

you're just fine with those businessmen refusing to serve you based on that one anonymous phone call?

You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.

If I was a business person and someone called me to warn me I wouldnt let your ass in my business either.

Your loss I would have been a paying customer

the fact is the shop owner did everything he was required to do he broke no law he was not responsible for what the person did after she left his store

Pretty sure I would get over it.

No one claimed he broke a law. The claim was that he was negligent and thats why he lost the suit. You dont have to be a criminal in order to lose a suit.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

warned by whom

a person with absolutely no authority who offered no proof of her claims

if the girl was that unstable why didn't the mother have her committed

the parents failed to do what they could to protect their daughter so now they are trying to shift the blame

the mom. Didnt you read the OP?

No proof needed. The shop should have researched before selling the gun. Thats why they lost the suit.

I have no clue. That wasnt in the story nor does it have anything to do with the point.

Of course there is proof needed

you just believe everything an anonymous person on the phone tells you?

Not where safety is concerned.

Doesnt matter if I believe it or not. I'd rather be safe and gullible than dead.

 

[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.

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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

Thats why you push the pause button and research. Put on your thinking cap for a moment. Under what scenario do you think someone would want to keep another person from purchasing a weapon? Why would someone go through the trouble of calling a gun shop and pleading with the owner not to sell the person a weapon? Use your common sense and dont be a retard.

doesn't matter what another person wants.

was the person that bought the weapon legally eligible to do so? Yes

that is all that needs to be known

 

[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.

warned by an anonymous caller who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So I suppose I could call every business in your town and warn them about you and you'd be just fine with being refused service based on an anonymous call

right?

Thats why you push the pause button and research. Put on your thinking cap for a moment. Under what scenario do you think someone would want to keep another person from purchasing a weapon? Why would someone go through the trouble of calling a gun shop and pleading with the owner not to sell the person a weapon? Use your common sense and dont be a retard.

doesn't matter what another person wants.

was the person that bought the weapon legally eligible to do so? Yes

that is all that needs to be known

Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.