| Author | Message | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 635 Registered: 5-2002 |
You guys must not be NRA members and never read the fine print in the American Rifleman Magazine. Towns and counties all across the country try the old "sue the gun manufacturer" stunt all the time. And when it gets to court, the courts always toss it out. But the liberal mass media will never tell you THAT part of the story. The mass media only tells you about the latest assault on the "evil" gun industry. But they conveniently forget to tell you when the whole case gets tossed because it's such a farce. They only want to tell about "successful" anti-gun news, and leave any pro-gun truth to the fine print in the NRA magazine which, of course, they would never read or tell the public about. | ||
| Jeff B. (Miltonian)
Junior Member Username: Miltonian Post Number: 61 Registered: 12-2002 |
Re Tyler's input: I see what you are saying, but if you are talking about employee theft, there is a big difference between stealing paper clips, or cigarettes and candy, or money, or whatever, and having an employee steal a deadly weapon and NOT EVEN NOTICING IT!! To be (slightly) fair about this, at this point it has not been proven beyond doubt that the gun was really stolen from Bulls Eye, just that the manufacturer says it was shipped there, and that the store has no record of what became of it. Also, there was a story in the press indicating that the State had failed to enter some of their records into the database on time, and that there was a possibility that the sniper's information would not have been present had a background check been done on him (his application to buy any firearm would have been rejected). But there is no record of a background check having been performed on the suspect. If someone steals my assault rifle from my home, that would be classified as a burglery, and would be reported to the police. I think I would notice if someone broke into my closet and removed or broke into my locked safe. If the investigation into the sniper case revealed that they used MY rifle, and I hadn't taken steps to account for its safekeeping, then yes, I would hold at least partial liability in my opinion. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 372 Registered: 8-2001 |
Well acccording to the article the gun was stolen but it does not state from whom. If indeed the gun was stolen or disappeared from the gun shop then maybe they have some liability depending on Washington state law. However the article does not state that it was not purchased there, merely that they have no record of the guns sale. It could be possible that they did the required backgound checks and other paperwork and lost them. If that was the case and the gun was sold legally to someone else and then stolen the gun shop has no liability in my case. The fact that they lost track of or did not document 200+ guns that came in their store is in and of itself not a reason to sue them over this incident in my opinion. However if the gun disappeared from their shop without current laws on the books for selling guns being enforced, then the prior record of the store (200+ guns lost) could be used to show negligence in this particluar case. Just my non-lawyer opinion. Where is Art when we need his advice. Art chime in on this! Regards, Jon | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 2347 Registered: 9-2001 |
when you allow people to sue Mc Donalds for serving fast food - which is not healthy if eaten everyday (duh) you really can sue anyone - I don't agree with it but that is what is comes too. What most people don't realize is we all pay for it in the end - higher costs for everything | ||
| Tyler (Bahiaau)
Member Username: Bahiaau Post Number: 463 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Unless the snipers (alleged?) just walked in the door, picked out a rifle, and walked out the door with it with no one noticing (not likely), then an employee of the store put it into their hands. Either way, that store doesn't have any excuse for letting that gun get away." Jeff are you suggesting that if a company suffers from employee theft they should be held liable for anothers action? Theft is theft. If someone steals your assualt rifle(no dig intended, I have them too) from your home and kills someone are you then liable because you allowed it to be stolen? I understand what your saying. I think the loss of over 200 guns in the last three years is crazy. That the ATF(another incredibly effective agency as you can see) turned a blind eye is also crazy. These guys should certainly have been asked to have a more accurate accounting of their inventory, but to suggest that these people are responsible for the deaths of the sniper is equally crazy. As far as the death penalty. Right on. | ||
| Jeff B. (Miltonian)
Junior Member Username: Miltonian Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2002 |
Some of you apparently didn't read the article. The gun store didn't sell the assault rifle to the snipers or to anyone else - they friggin' LOST IT!! They have lost hundreds of firearms! They have been audited by the ATF and allowed to remain in business despite total failure to keep records of their inventory! They have failed to pay income taxes for several years! I live in this area (near Tacoma) and it has been a big story around here since it came down. I have guns myself. I have an AR15 assault rifle myself. Any proper gun store has enough security to keep guns from disappearing. These guys are totally irresponsible and deserve to be sued, no matter how you feel about gun control! Unless the snipers (alleged?) just walked in the door, picked out a rifle, and walked out the door with it with no one noticing (not likely), then an employee of the store put it into their hands. Either way, that store doesn't have any excuse for letting that gun get away. The snipers? Death penalty - no brainer. | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Intermediate Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 1280 Registered: 8-2002 |
Yes, Jon and you'd also have to prove that the gun shop neglected its legal responsibilities to do what's legally required of them to find out if they're giving a gun to a psycho, too... (of course, if you prove that the seller knew the guns were gonna be used to kill people, everything else isn't really useful...  ) | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 369 Registered: 8-2001 |
Hey, Des, You forgot the bullet manufacturer as well. I would think (and I am no lawyer) it would be pretty hard to prove the gun shop was negligent if the parties involved passed a background check, 7 day waiting period and so on. Wouldn't you ahve to prove the gun shop knew the guns would be used to kill people? Jon | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Intermediate Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 1277 Registered: 8-2002 |
i didn't have to go any further after reading this paragraph: "The claim, filed in Washington state for an unspecified amount, charges that the defendants "have intentionally and willfully chosen to sell and distribute firearms in a grossly negligent manner that circumvents established laws and policies of the United States and the State of Washington that are intended to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous persons." If someone sold the gun to the killer and broke a law doing it, the individual who physically sold it should be charged with something. HOWEVER, going after the gun manufacturer is insane. Guns don't kill people, people kill people (Or as it said on my sketch pad two years ago: Guns don't kill people, COPS kill people ). If they successfully sue the manufacturer, they might as well sue the person or people who physically put the gun together, whether they're in this country or not...! And if they're gonna go that far, they might as well sue the manufacturer who made the tools that people used to put the gun together. Then they should sue the people who made the various parts of the gun, before the manufacturer received them and had them put together. While you're at it, why don't you go spill hot coffee in your lap and sue the fast food establishment that you purchased the- oh, wait... we're passed that, aren't we...? i'm just as itchy to sue a big corporation for some high dollars, just as much as the next person who's still irate, just like me, that companies like Enron doggy-styled our IRAs- but some lawsuits are just plain ridiculous... Jon, be firm on this, i think most of us agree with you... | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Junior Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 199 Registered: 9-2002 |
Is it fair to go after a car company if a owner killed some one with their car on purpose (ran them down)? Is it fair to go after the dealer who sold the car? Replace car with SUV and repeat. Replace SUV with knife and repeat. Replace knife with pencil and repeat.... | ||
| Tyler (Bahiaau)
Member Username: Bahiaau Post Number: 460 Registered: 12-2001 |
I agree that it is insane to hold the manufacturer or the retailer liable. But I'm sure it will be a successful law suit. Hell, most states hold bars accountable if one of their patrons goes out and gets in an accident if they are DUI. People need to take a little personal resonsibility and quit trying to point the finger on every issue. At the rate our litigious society is going you'll soon be able to sue auto companys when you are involved in an accident because if they had not produced the car then it would not have struck you. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 368 Registered: 8-2001 |
Just wondering what everybody thinks on this issue. Most of you will remember the big debate on gun control and the subsequent heated arguements about the issue with neither side budging from their respective positions. I don't want to rehash that debate nor start a 100+ thread that has everyone fighting over. Just want some opinions! My wife and I had some good friends over for dinner and we got into a discussion over the issue reported by CNN news that some of the sniper vicitms are suing the gun manufacturer for their loved one's death. My wife says I am totally biased and blinded by the gun control debate and am missing the real picture. Question: after reading the link below from CNN do most of you think it's fair and just to go after the a) gun shop that sold the weapon and b) the manufacturer who sold the gun to the gun shop. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/16/sniper.lawsuit/index.html Warning: this is not a "Gun Control" issue to debate so please don't start one, this is an issue of liability over who is to blame for the deaths of innocent people. My view is that neither the gun shop, nor the manufacturer is responsible. The two defendents are. But no one in the room totally agree with me. Keep in mind that only one person out of the four of us could be described as a democrat/liberal and the rest of us were conservatives. My response is the following. If we allow the gun manufacturers to be assigned liability what to stop us from assigning liability to the local authorities in Washington for not enforcing the local laws against selling arms to the wrong people. Or how about suing the Washington state government legislature for not passing more stringent laws to prevent this or how about.....and on and on and on. To me liability stops with the two defendents who directly killed the victims. Imagine I am at a track event and I hit the wall hard and my wheel fliess off the car and hits an inocent bystander near the pit wall. Can his family sue Ferrari for not making the car safer by teathering the wheel to car in the event of an impact even though I made a stupid pass in a turn where I shouldn't have and crashed. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 |