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

[2aguy]

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

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

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

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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

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

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

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell you what the day you start listening to and doing whatever every anonymous caller tells you to do is the day you can say that anyone should do the same.

You are holding this store owner to a higher standard than is required by the law and you are also holding him to a standard you do not practice

Of course I would practice such a standard. If I had a gun shop and someone called to give me specific information on a dangerous person I would take it exceedingly seriously.

This wasn't an anonymous caller. It was the girl's mother. If the whole thing was bogus, no one died.

People take anonymous calls seriously all the time. An anonymous call can empty a mall, ground a flight or cancel classes for an entire school.

It goes without saying that the store owner was wrong and it cost them.

Of course it was anonymous
there was no way to verify who a voice on the phone is

The shop owner did absolutely nothing wrong. If the mother was so worried about her daughter Who was an adult then she should have gone to the cops, conformed her identity and filed a report saying she was a danger to herself or others she should not have expected a gun shop owner to do that for her

so just to reiterate the gun shop owner did absolutely nothing wrong

It certainly cost him to be right.

The point of the thread is that it shouldn't have.
The judge should have thrown out this ridiculous law suit and charged the plaintiffs for wasting the court's time and the taxpayers' money

Now why do you think that wasn't done?
The gun store settled rather than take it to trial.

The point of the thread should be that reliance on the law when circumstances have changed the outcome will be punished.

He learned a very expensive lesson.

Why any other person or company settles rather than going to trial his insurance company crunched the numbers and decided it was cheaper to settle

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

it wasn't evidence it was a request from an unknown person who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

They obeyed the law.....they didn't know who the mother was....

How is obeying the law something to be punished for...that opens a can of worms you don't want to open....

No it doesn't. Following the law is clearly being used by the gun shop to hide behind. It didn't work, nor should it have worked.

The balance was the woman's inconvenience balanced against a known risk of harm. The gun shop bet wrong. There are plenty of times when "I was following the law" turns out to be last words.

Sorry.......you can't punish people for following a law, considering there are contradictory laws that would have punished them had they gone the other way.

I would say that paying off that settlement was punishment.

his insurance company did that not him personally

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

did the woman buying the gun who passed all the required background checks say she was going to kill anyone?

I don't think so

 

[Skull Pilot]

so what if the mother called? How is the shop owner supposed to know a voice on the phone is who she says she is and why should he take an unkown person's word for anything when he has access to the federal background check system?

The purchaser was 21 years old

She passed all the necessary checks

And it didn't work did it?

The gunshop should have paid attention to that unknown voice on the phone because the risk of harm outweighed the inconvenience.

As was pointed out.....if you call the police and they will do nothing ...then how do you hold the gun store liable for the problem? Can you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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

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

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

it wasn't evidence it was a request from an unknown person who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

it wasn't evidence it was a request from an unknown person who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So?

so don't say it was evidence

it wasn't

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

did the woman buying the gun who passed all the required background checks say she was going to kill anyone?

I don't think so

Yet the store knew she was going to inflict harm because her mother told them.

Try this

Can Gun Stores Play a Role in Suicide Prevention?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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

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

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

it wasn't evidence it was a request from an unknown person who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So?

so don't say it was evidence

it wasn't

The mother's warning was evidence.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

did the woman buying the gun who passed all the required background checks say she was going to kill anyone?

I don't think so

Yet the store knew she was going to inflict harm because her mother told them.

Try this

Can Gun Stores Play a Role in Suicide Prevention?

They "knew" no such thing.

All they knew is some person called them and told them something and offered absolutely no proof of their claim

so as I said before when you start taking orders from random people who call you on the phone let me know

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

it wasn't evidence it was a request from an unknown person who offered absolutely no proof of her claims

So?

so don't say it was evidence

it wasn't

The mother's warning was evidence.

No it wasn't. The shop owner had no way of knowing who the person on the phone was or whether or not her claim was true

 

[Skull Pilot]

So here's an analogy

I see Tipsy buying a handle bottle of vodka at the liquor store. I call the store owner and tell them I'm her father and she should not be able to buy that bottle because she's a habitual drunk driver and I'm afraid she's going to kill someone.

Is the store owner responsible when she runs down an old lady?

 

[2aguy]

The mother worked for Missouri social services...and she called the police, the ATF, and the FBI.....and none of them could do anything to stop that woman...yet the gun store was supposed to take the blame.....

Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.

She called the police. Then ATF. After that, the FBI.

----------

Delana doesn’t want to take guns away from everybody — just from people like her daughter who are struggling with mental illness. After a career in state government helping other people navigate Missouri’s social services system, she is frustrated she couldn’t do more to stop her daughter from getting a gun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The mother worked for Missouri social services...and she called the police, the ATF, and the FBI.....and none of them could do anything to stop that woman...yet the gun store was supposed to take the blame.....

Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.

She called the police. Then ATF. After that, the FBI.

----------

Delana doesn’t want to take guns away from everybody — just from people like her daughter who are struggling with mental illness. After a career in state government helping other people navigate Missouri’s social services system, she is frustrated she couldn’t do more to stop her daughter from getting a gun.

seems to me she sued have sued the cops. the FBI and the ATF

 

[Montrovant]

And it didn't work did it?

The gunshop should have paid attention to that unknown voice on the phone because the risk of harm outweighed the inconvenience.

As was pointed out.....if you call the police and they will do nothing ...then how do you hold the gun store liable for the problem? Can you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

As was pointed out.....if you call the police and they will do nothing ...then how do you hold the gun store liable for the problem? Can you explain that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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