Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pretty sure I would get over it.You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.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.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.
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?
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
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.
Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.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.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.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.
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?
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
You would have been broke and lost your business fighting the suit and still end up losing.Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.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.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?
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
I would have fought the suit and not settled.
If the cops, FBI, ATF could not prevent the sale legally then I as a private citizen have no power to do so either
I would counter sue the parents for not having their "dangerous" "unstable" daughter committed
You would have been broke and lost your business fighting the suit and still end up losing.Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.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.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?
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
I would have fought the suit and not settled.
If the cops, FBI, ATF could not prevent the sale legally then I as a private citizen have no power to do so either
I would counter sue the parents for not having their "dangerous" "unstable" daughter committed
You arent operating as a private citizen. It was a gun store open to the public. You have the power to use your common sense and not sell until you researched,
You would have the right to counter sue but I'm sure after losing you wouldnt want to go through court again only to have your suit thrown out and incur additional court costs.
I never claimed you were required to do any research. Again you are confusing law with common sense. The store followed the letter of the law but still lost because they didnt employ the common sense most people would have.You would have been broke and lost your business fighting the suit and still end up losing.Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.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
I would have fought the suit and not settled.
If the cops, FBI, ATF could not prevent the sale legally then I as a private citizen have no power to do so either
I would counter sue the parents for not having their "dangerous" "unstable" daughter committed
You arent operating as a private citizen. It was a gun store open to the public. You have the power to use your common sense and not sell until you researched,
You would have the right to counter sue but I'm sure after losing you wouldnt want to go through court again only to have your suit thrown out and incur additional court costs.
All the research I have to do is the required background check. If a person passes that check I have no reason not to sell a weapon to him or her
an anonymous phone call is not proof that a person is unstable
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
He lost the decision to have the suit thrown out. He settled because his attorneys knew he was going to lose.Pretty sure I would get over it.You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.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?
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
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.
he didn't lose the suit since it never went to trial
he settled because most likely his insurance company told him to
and he was not negligent since he followed every regulation he was bound to follow
He lost the decision to have the suit thrown out. He settled because his attorneys knew he was going to lose.Pretty sure I would get over it.You just said you made a dozen calls not just one.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?
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
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.
he didn't lose the suit since it never went to trial
he settled because most likely his insurance company told him to
and he was not negligent since he followed every regulation he was bound to follow
Yes he was negligent and thats why he settled. If he wasnt negligent his attorneys never would have advised him to settle now would they?
Doesnt say. Thats what Skull claims happened.He lost the decision to have the suit thrown out. He settled because his attorneys knew he was going to lose.Pretty sure I would get over it.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
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.
he didn't lose the suit since it never went to trial
he settled because most likely his insurance company told him to
and he was not negligent since he followed every regulation he was bound to follow
Yes he was negligent and thats why he settled. If he wasnt negligent his attorneys never would have advised him to settle now would they?
Did the attorneys advise the settlement? If they were ethical attorneys, they might have advised just that, if they thought the trial would cost more than the settlement.
Doesnt say. Thats what Skull claims happened.He lost the decision to have the suit thrown out. He settled because his attorneys knew he was going to lose.Pretty sure I would get over it.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
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.
he didn't lose the suit since it never went to trial
he settled because most likely his insurance company told him to
and he was not negligent since he followed every regulation he was bound to follow
Yes he was negligent and thats why he settled. If he wasnt negligent his attorneys never would have advised him to settle now would they?
Did the attorneys advise the settlement? If they were ethical attorneys, they might have advised just that, if they thought the trial would cost more than the settlement.
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.
i suggest they talk to the parties involved to figure out what was going on.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?
Thats a dumb question. Why would I sue Williams and Sonoma?
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.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.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.
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?
No one called every business. Just one identified as posing the danger.
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.
How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.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.
You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?
Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.
Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”
How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.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.
You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?
Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.
Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”
There wasnt much the local police, FBI, and the ATF could do. Their job is not to keep someone from purchasing a fire arm since it was legal for the person to buy it. The only person with the power to stop the sale was the gun store owner. He failed to do that and someone died. He paid for it as he should have.i suggest they talk to the parties involved to figure out what was going on.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?
Thats a dumb question. Why would I sue Williams and Sonoma?
The local police, the FBI and the ATF knew exactly what was going on ....and they didn't do anything...yet the civilian owned gun store is supposed to do the work three government agencies...whose sole job is public safety, didn't do....? That makes sense?
Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.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.
You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?
Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.
Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”
They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....
Even if they did. It doesn't work that way.How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.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.
You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?
Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.
Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”
They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....
