Judge rules in gun store's favor...you can't sue someone for something they can't legally do.........

[2aguy]

Two cops were shot by a criminal....the cops who were injured sued the gun store because they didn't do more than they legally could to deny the gun sale....

The judge made the right rulilng....joe131 breaks down in tears.....

What the officers alleged in their lawsuit was that the gun store should have access to more information so as to make a better determination with regard to who can buy a gun and who can’t.

While that may or may not be true, the truth of the matter is that no gun store gets to make that call. As the judge pointed out, that’s a legislative issue, not a civil one.

You can’t reasonably sue someone because they didn’t take steps they’re legally not allowed to take.

That’s what this lawsuit was really about, at its core.

Of course, it likely wouldn’t have mattered.

You see, while the individual had a history of mental illness and criminal history, none of it appears to have been sufficient to make him ineligible to own a firearm.

Judge rules in favor of gun store in shooting of two cops

This week hasn’t been the best when it comes to the Second Amendment and courtrooms. After all

bearingarms.com

 

[Donald H]

You see, while the individual had a history of mental illness and criminal history, none of it appears to have been sufficient to make him ineligible to own a firearm.

Is that going to become the new normal?. The shooter was only a little bit crazy and a little bit of a criminal.

This would seem to have the effect of turning the police against gun stores and their owners.

 

[Ringtone]

Is that going to become the new normal?. The shooter was only a little bit crazy and a little bit of a criminal.

This would seem to have the effect of turning the police against gun stores and their owners.

The judge's decision was a no-brainer.

 

[Donald H]

The judge's decision was a no-brainer.

Actually it appears that way.
The gun lobby is doing harm to it's own cause with it's extremist dogma in control of their minds and compromising their rational positions.

Just a little bit crazy and a little bit criminal isn't going to sit well with police that need to make a decision on their use of lethal force.

Perhaps some of the extremists of the pro-gun lobby are hoping for more use of lethal force?
That's like telling the police not to hesitate, but just kill!

 

[Ringtone]

Extremist is a term used to demonize those with whom one disagrees.

 

[miketx]

Nazi cops.

 

[Donald H]

Extremist is a term used to demonize those with whom one disagrees.

In this instance it's just that, and it's a challenge to everybody to make their opinions known. But they just better be careful if they take up the challenge!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is that going to become the new normal?. The shooter was only a little bit crazy and a little bit of a criminal.

The law specifies who is not legally able to own a gun
If you do not fall under those specifications, you are legally able to own a gun.
If a person is legally able to own a gun, the NICS check will (normally) result is a "proceed".
There's no "little bit" involved here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The gun lobby is doing harm to it's own cause with it's extremist dogma in control of their minds and compromising their rational positions.

Why would anyone compromise a rational position?
Why would anyone compromise when there is no compromise to be had?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually it appears that way.
The gun lobby is doing harm to it's own cause with it's extremist dogma in control of their minds and compromising their rational positions.

Just a little bit crazy and a little bit criminal isn't going to sit well with police that need to make a decision on their use of lethal force.

Perhaps some of the extremists of the pro-gun lobby are hoping for more use of lethal force?
That's like telling the police not to hesitate, but just kill!

Explain in great detail how a Firearms seller can do something not allowed legally? Explain how a store can refuse to sell to someone LEGALLY allowed to buy a firearm?

 

[Donald H]

The law specifies who is not legally able to own a gun
If you do not fall under those specifications, you are legally able to own a gun.
If a person is legally able to own a gun, the NICS check will (normally) result is a "proceed".
There's no "little bit" involved here.

2A said:

You can’t reasonably sue someone because they didn’t take steps they’re legally not allowed to take.

He gets that right too. The prospective gun owner who desires a gun can be frothing at the mouth and covered in blood up to his elbows, with a smoking handgun in his pocket, and the store owner can't refuse him another gun, due to the seller's inability to judge the buyer's mental state.

The pro-gun lobby don't want it any other way!

The gun store bears no responsibility in the least!

And if there's no mentally ill person disqualified from owning a gun then the gun store owner could maybe be sued for refusing to sell a gun to a crazy person!

It's not my country Shooter, so I'm good with that!

 

[Donald H]

Explain in great detail how a Firearms seller can do something not allowed legally? Explain how a store can refuse to sell to someone LEGALLY allowed to buy a firearm?

Actually I just gave a detailed analysis of the question to 14Shooter. The firearms seller bears no responsibility in the least, even if he was a trained psychiatrist. That would require an in depth professional diagnosis.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He gets that right too. The prospective gun owner who desires a gun can be frothing at the mouth and covered in blood up to his elbows, with a smoking handgun in his pocket, and the store owner can't refuse him another gun, due to the seller's inability to judge the buyer's mental state.

This is incorrect.
Federal law makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person if the seller has “reasonable cause to believe” he or she falls within one of the categories of prohibited persons.
So, a gun seller might see the person you describe and decide his condition is reasonable cause to not sell the gun.

The pro-gun lobby don't want it any other way!

You speak from ignorance.

The gun store bears no responsibility in the least!

Again,, you speak from ignorance.

And if there's no mentally ill person disqualified from owning a gun then the gun store owner could maybe be sued for refusing to sell a gun to a crazy person!

Yet again, you speak from ignorance.

It's not my country Shooter, so I'm good with that!

But it -is- you, speaking from ignorance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually I just gave a detailed analysis of the question to 14Shooter.

Yes. One based on your ignorance.

 

[Donald H]

2A walked right into the trap with this pro-gun hit and run!

It's as good as an endorsement of all mentally ill people to go to the nearest gun store and buy up a few!

And so the logical question has to be: Is that what the pro-gun lobbyists like 2A really want in the final analysis?

 

[M14 Shooter]

2A walked right into the trap with this pro-gun hit and run!
It's as good as an endorsement of all mentally ill people to go to the nearest gun store and buy up a few!
And so the logical question has to be: Is that what the pro-gun lobbyists like 2A really want in the final analysis?

You say, from ignorance.

 

[Donald H]

This is incorrect.
Federal law makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person if the seller has “reasonable cause to believe” he or she falls within one of the categories of prohibited persons.

You walked right into the doggy do on this one Shooter, There is no possibility of the seller ever having 'reasonable cause' to refuse the gun! That's the whole question that's doubled back on you to bite you ass. The seller would need to be a mental health professional and have conducted an examination of the prospective buyer.

So, a gun seller might see the person you describe and decide his condition is reasonable cause to not sell the gun.

And the seller could be sued for refusing to sell the gun, based on the fact that the seller isn't capable of making the decision not to sell the gun.
Why Shooter, that's what the judge said!

Don't try to reply until your brain isn't so full!

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no possibility of the seller ever having 'reasonable cause' to refuse the gun!

If only you could support this opinion - right?

The seller would need to be a mental health professional and have conducted an examination of the prospective buyer.

If only you could support this opinion - right?

And the seller could be sued for refusing to sell the gun, based on the fact that the seller isn't capable of making the decision not to sell the gun.

The federal law on this is clear - he need only have a suspicion, and it only needs to be "reasonable"

Thus, you continue to speak from ignorance.

Don't try to reply until your brain isn't so full

Warning!

 

[miketx]

You speak from ignorance.

no, he speaks from a lying mouth.

 

[Donald H]

If only you could support this opinion - right?

If only you could support this opinion - right?

The federal law on this is clear - he need only have a suspicion, and it only needs to be "reasonable"

Thus, you continue to speak from ignorance.

Warning!

Both 2A and I might be lying to you. 2A says, and I back him up:

While that may or may not be true, the truth of the matter is that no gun store gets to make that call. As the judge pointed out, that’s a legislative issue, not a civil one.

You're done like dinner Shooter!

I warned you to not say anything more while your brain was full.

LOL.

I think you've just become responsible for one of the biggest gungoon smackdowns this forum has seen for years! Maybe ever?