Author Topic: Pawn Shop Resposible (Read 2085 times)

wmenorr67 · « **on:** April 06, 2016, 01:40:31 PM »

http://www.kctv5.com/story/31656137/missouri-supreme-court-rules-for-suits-against-gun-dealers

Missouri Supreme Court ruled that some suits against gun dealers are ok.

Based on the information in the story I would have to say that the pawn shop was wrong. Sometimes common sense has to play into your decision to sell or not to sell.

We all know that the NICS is flawed.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:22:52 PM »

Quote

At the center of the lawsuit is Colby Sue Weathers, who is schizophrenic. Her mother says Weathers bought a gun from Odessa Gun & Pawn in May 2012 and tried to kill herself.

According to court records, Delana called Odessa Gun & Pawn the next month and warned the store against selling Weathers another firearm. Two days later, the store sold her daughter a gun, which she within an hour used to fatally shoot her father and attempt suicide again.

The state has since committed Weathers to a mental institution.

Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/31656137/missouri-supreme-court-rules-for-suits-against-gun-dealers#ixzz454VoVhbu

It seems to me there is/was a process through the courts to get the woman declared incompetent and make her ineligible to own a gun. Calling up the gun shop is not the proper process. Do you really want the gun store to ban you from gun purchases because someone called and said you were a danger?

Gun stores sell to people they don't know all the time. I dislike this idea that gun stores are supposed to evaluate their customers for any bad intentions or craziness.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:25:56 PM »

I bet the entire story isn't told. Not reported what steps if any were taken to make her ineligible. Plus we all know as I stated in the OP, the NICS is flawed and not everything is reported.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:28:25 PM »

Even if there aren't more details, sometimes bad stuff happens and more laws or lawsuits are not the answer.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:31:53 PM »

So even if a shop knew someone is bad or going to do bad things, as long as the buyer passes the NICS, you'd be fine with that?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2016, 02:55:03 PM »

Quote

While the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that law and said it does block some legal action, judges also ruled that certain negligence lawsuits can be brought under state law against gun sellers.

The judges cited an exemption in the federal law, which allows for lawsuits if the seller knows, or reasonably should know, that the buyer likely will "use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others," and then does that.

Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/31656137/missouri-supreme-court-rules-for-suits-against-gun-dealers#ixzz454XU3xKG

Oh. So Hillary Clinton was wrong.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2016, 03:54:05 PM »

Quote from: wmenorr67 on April 06, 2016, 02:31:53 PM

So even if a shop knew someone is bad or going to do bad things, as long as the buyer passes the NICS, you'd be fine with that?

I give another quote from the article:

Quote

"The average gun shop employee is not a psychiatrist and cannot tell who's crazy and who isn't," Jamison said.

Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/31656137/missouri-supreme-court-rules-for-suits-against-gun-dealers#ixzz454svio8c

Define what you mean by "knew someone is bad or going to do bad things"? Do you mean some person called up and said so-and-so is crazy? Does it mean the police contacted them and said so-and-so was committed to a mental hospital or was a felon? At what point are you saying the gun store is supposed to "know"? Maybe we should make a procedure for this. We'll call it a competency hearing. Maybe it should be overseen by a judge. Kind of like what already exists. (please understand that I am thinking beyond this one story) We have a judicial process for this and supposedly a background check process for this. They should make that work instead of opening up liability to thousands of small businesses.

If there is more here to this, I would like to know it. If there was some specific fact that the judge used to jump to this ruling, it would be interesting to know.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:00:35 PM »

Just to state positions here, I would like to see NICS checks go away. I would also like to see that requirement that gun stores determine who okay with owning a gun go away. At least narrowly define it so it isn't some wide open requirement that opens them up to unlimited liability.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:06:14 PM »

Be nice to know what was done after her suicide attempt. Was there anything that should've been reported that wasn't, or reported and not shared?

Quote

"The average gun shop employee is not a psychiatrist and cannot tell who's crazy and who isn't," Jamison said.

True, but sometimes there are warning signs that shouldn't be ignored.

Once again not all the facts are present.

What about the gun shop employee a couple of weeks back that refused to sell a gun to a person, even though said person passed the NICS, just because he had a feeling. Was he wrong to deny the sale?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:34:05 PM »

I don't think anyone suggested it would be wrong to decline to sell to someone.

MechAg seems to be concerned with holding someone accountable for whether they did or did not sell to someone who's legally eligible.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:48:10 PM »

Quote from: fistful on April 06, 2016, 04:34:05 PM

I don't think anyone suggested it would be wrong to decline to sell to someone.

MechAg seems to be concerned with holding someone accountable for whether they did or did not sell to someone who's legally eligible.

Pretty much. If the woman killed her father with a hammer, I really doubt anyone would be talking about suing the hardware store for selling a hammer to someone they knew was crazy. The gun store shouldn't be treated any different.

My problem is partly with liability without defined action/proof. I don't like that some seem to think a gun shop should be penalized in civil court or shut down because they sold something they were legally able to sell to someone who was apparently legally able to possess it without verifiable knowledge that it was wrong. That liability is too arbitrary IMO. Something bad happened so people want to blame someone else since they are incapable of blaming themselves.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2016, 04:59:58 PM »

Let's not forget the upside here. If this story gets any traction, it will be a nice counterpoint to the claims that gun stores/manufacturers are (literally) getting away with murder. That has been one of Mrs. Clinton's favorite talking points.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2016, 05:18:18 PM »

I'd like to see Hyundai get sued for this tragedy

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage3/osu-homecoming-parade-what-we-know/article_4b3ba105-a496-5166-a46c-d013194a4b63.html

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2016, 08:52:25 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on April 06, 2016, 02:22:52 PM

It seems to me there is/was a process through the courts to get the woman declared incompetent and make her ineligible to own a gun. Calling up the gun shop is not the proper process. Do you really want the gun store to ban you from gun purchases because someone called and said you were a danger?

I agree completely. Anybody can call a store and tell them all kinds of stories.

In a sort of reverse way, in fact the pawn shop seems to have been deprived of due process, in that they have now been found negligent and liable for something that should have been taken care of by the process of adding the nutcase to the NICS list of prohibited persons.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2016, 09:12:13 PM »

Quote from: wmenorr67 on April 06, 2016, 02:31:53 PM

So even if a shop knew someone is bad or going to do bad things, as long as the buyer passes the NICS, you'd be fine with that?

I'd be fine with them selling it after the buyer declared they're headed to a school to shoot it up. And there not being a NICS check.

French G. · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2016, 09:18:15 PM »

Quote from: jamisjockey on April 06, 2016, 09:12:13 PM

I'd be fine with them selling it after the buyer declared they're headed to a school to shoot it up. And there not being a NICS check.

Well, if we're going to be that serious about freedom.... I'd hope I was the clerk. Because in that scenario I should be able to shoot said would be buyer DRT.

lupinus · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2016, 02:55:25 PM »

Quote from: jamisjockey on April 06, 2016, 09:12:13 PM

I'd be fine with them selling it after the buyer declared they're headed to a school to shoot it up. And there not being a NICS check.

Annnnnnnd Reasons libertarians can't get elected dog catcher for 200 Alex.

I'm getting your principle there, but ya really gotta work on that delivery

MechAg94 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2016, 03:09:52 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on April 07, 2016, 02:55:25 PM

Annnnnnnd Reasons libertarians can't get elected dog catcher for 200 Alex.

I'm getting your principle there, but ya really gotta work on that delivery

The unstated assumption is that the seller KNOWS the buyer is about to commit murder. How often does that happen? I am sure FFL's refuse to sell to people all the time for various reasons. However, saddling them with a bunch of liability because they couldn't read the mind of a legal purchaser is nuts.

Maybe they should bring back waiting periods so suicidal murderers can't just go buy a gun. What other freedoms do you want to restrict to so we can have perfect security?

lupinus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2016, 03:21:27 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on April 07, 2016, 03:09:52 PM

The unstated assumption is that the seller KNOWS the buyer is about to commit murder. How often does that happen? I am sure FFL's refuse to sell to people all the time for various reasons. However, saddling them with a bunch of liability because they couldn't read the mind of a legal purchaser is nuts.

Maybe they should bring back waiting periods so suicidal murderers can't just go buy a gun. What other freedoms do you want to restrict to so we can have perfect security?

And I said that...where? Exactly?

It was a little jab at the delivery, not the underlying message.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2016, 10:53:33 PM »

That last should have been directed elsewhere. Sorry.

never_retreat · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2016, 11:34:54 PM »

So anyone should be able to just call gun stores and give them names of people that are nuts? Or they think are nuts?
Jesus the nut job brady idiots would be calling gun stores and be using the phone book for a list.

Is there more than one gun store in the area? Did the concerned person call everyone within 100, 200, 500 miles?
Did the concerned ever bother to call the freekin cops?

Not the stores fault.
Had the police actually been involved and had they stopped by the store with a picture and name and said don't sell to this nut that would be a tiny bit different.

Triphammer · « **Reply #21 on:** April 08, 2016, 10:00:47 AM »

Typical news item leaves many unanswered questions. Either way this is found in court I would expect an appeal. What are the chances that Missouri allowed this , in my opinion weak, case to move forward in hopes it makes it to the Supreme Court?

News:

Author Topic: Pawn Shop Resposible (Read 2085 times)