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

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

no. it didn't work but that is not the failure of the shop owner

And no he should not have paid attention to an unknown unidentified person

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no. it didn't work but that is not the failure of the shop owner

And no he should not have paid attention to an unknown unidentified person

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

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

 

[EvilCat Breath]

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

The store settled the case, according to the WP article. They didn't lose the lawsuit.

Also according to the WP article, the "moron judge" that allowed the case to go forward was the Missouri Supreme Court. That court ruled that nothing in federal law prohibited the type of lawsuit Delana was pursuing. Further, under Missouri state law, a gun dealer "can be held liable if they should have known a buyer was dangerous."

This wasn't a criminal case, so there is nothing saying the sale was illegal.

Again per the WP article, Weathers had been hospitalized for mental illness multiple times for bipolar disorder and suicidal behavior, as well as being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. She moved in with her parents after her last hospitalization. Her parents took another gun she had purchased from her because they didn't feel she was competent to own one. Perhaps there was more they could have done, but the HotAir article makes it sound as though the parents weren't giving the daughter proper care. There simply isn't enough information to make that sort of judgement in either article. The information in the WP article makes it sound as though Weathers had been put through the system and, for some reason, that system decided she was not a danger. Perhaps the mother should have directed her anger at the mental health care system, rather than the gun store.

Because this suit was settled, I doubt we will see the evidence in detail. Did the store owner decide it was more cost-efficient to settle, or was he/she concerned there was enough evidence that the seller should have known that Weathers was dangerous? Even if the owner settled because of fear of losing the case, was that fear unfounded? On the surface it sounds as though the store should have been safe from liability, but is there more information that would change that? As happens so often, it's just too hard to tell.

The store owner settled because it was safer than going to trial.....and they did a background check and she came back clear, regardless of her stay in the hospital....

The gun store did not break the law, and this suit should not have gone forward...

 

[2aguy]

Gun shop owners are not psychologists. The problem here is mental illness, not a firearm business. The proof of that lays with all of the customers that bought guns and then killed no one.

The problem is, there was a warning. There was a very specific warning. The gun shop chose to ignore the warning and it cost them.

It is no different than a garden shop getting a warning about a specific person wanting to build a bomb to blow up a school.

It's legal to sell fertilizer. The person comes in makes the purchase and 50 kids are dead. Claiming the legality of a sale of fertilizer won't help. The warning was specific enough to not interfere with the rights of other fertilizer buyers

Why didn't the parents call the police then? If they knew she was dangerous they are the actual step...not the gun store...

 

[2aguy]

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.

no. it didn't work but that is not the failure of the shop owner

And no he should not have paid attention to an unknown unidentified person

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

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.

Why didn't the parents call the police?

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.

no. it didn't work but that is not the failure of the shop owner

And no he should not have paid attention to an unknown unidentified person

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

Yes...they were in a bad position.....but the judge should have stepped in...

 

[2aguy]

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.

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?

 

[2aguy]

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.

And a lot of the time if someone hits you, your insurance company will settle rather than going to court, even though you did nothing wrong.....

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The store settled the case, according to the WP article. They didn't lose the lawsuit.

Also according to the WP article, the "moron judge" that allowed the case to go forward was the Missouri Supreme Court. That court ruled that nothing in federal law prohibited the type of lawsuit Delana was pursuing. Further, under Missouri state law, a gun dealer "can be held liable if they should have known a buyer was dangerous."

This wasn't a criminal case, so there is nothing saying the sale was illegal.

Again per the WP article, Weathers had been hospitalized for mental illness multiple times for bipolar disorder and suicidal behavior, as well as being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. She moved in with her parents after her last hospitalization. Her parents took another gun she had purchased from her because they didn't feel she was competent to own one. Perhaps there was more they could have done, but the HotAir article makes it sound as though the parents weren't giving the daughter proper care. There simply isn't enough information to make that sort of judgement in either article. The information in the WP article makes it sound as though Weathers had been put through the system and, for some reason, that system decided she was not a danger. Perhaps the mother should have directed her anger at the mental health care system, rather than the gun store.

Because this suit was settled, I doubt we will see the evidence in detail. Did the store owner decide it was more cost-efficient to settle, or was he/she concerned there was enough evidence that the seller should have known that Weathers was dangerous? Even if the owner settled because of fear of losing the case, was that fear unfounded? On the surface it sounds as though the store should have been safe from liability, but is there more information that would change that? As happens so often, it's just too hard to tell.

The store owner settled because it was safer than going to trial.....and they did a background check and she came back clear, regardless of her stay in the hospital....

The gun store did not break the law, and this suit should not have gone forward...

As far as I can tell that is an assumption. There was no indication in any article I read as to why the gun store decided to settle the suit.

I don't think the background check was ever an issue.

The store may not have broken criminal law, but it is possible they were civilly liable due to the circumstances. The mother called and told them her daughter was not safe to own a gun, the store manager was reported to have said the daughter appeared "nervous" when she bought the gun, I don't know if there were any other indications that her mental state was unsafe for gun ownership. I also don't know what Missouri law allows for civil liability if a gun seller "should" known that a purchaser is dangerous, so I don't know what the criteria involved are.

As I said before, there isn't enough information to judge why the store decided to settle. Safer than trial, cheaper than trial, or a belief that they would be found liable are all possible.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yeah......and it was wrong.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

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.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The punishment is not for "following a law." If there were punishment (there was not, the suit was settled without trial from all I've read), it would be for selling a gun to someone the seller should have known was unstable or dangerous. Reasonable or ridiculous, the Missouri Supreme Court apparently decided that such a suit is permissible.

Just for more information, according to the following article, the daughter bought her gun 2 days after the mother called the store to urge them not to sell to her daughter. Also according to this article, the daughter ended up being found not guilty because of mental impairment and committed to a mental hospital. The article also says the store's attorney doesn't think there is any precedent set because the store did not admit wrongdoing. A Missouri gun shop agrees to pay $2.2 million to settle wrongful-death lawsuit

According to this article, "The Brady Center says that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has found repeated violations of federal firearms laws by Odessa Gun & Pawn but has not moved to shut it down." Missouri Gun Shop Agrees To Pay $2.2 Million To Settle Lawsuit Over Firearm Sale Again, no idea if it has any basis in truth, but it would provide another impetus for the store to have settled.

This article says the state Supreme Court voted unanimously that the suit could proceed. It also mentions the alleged violations by the gun store, and says the suit used those allegations to claim a history of negligence. Missouri Gun Dealer Settles Brady Lawsuit for $2.2 Million

 

[2aguy]

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.

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?

 

[Montrovant]

As it turns out, he should have. Once the shop owner understood how wrong he was, he settled rather than take it to a disastrous trial.

I am as pro 2A as they come and I can see how bad a position the gun shop was in.

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

It wasn't a judge, it was the state Supreme Court.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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.

 

[2aguy]

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? It still isn't the gun stores job to keep her from getting the gun if she passes a normal background check..it just isn't. It said she bought the gun 2 days after the call.......is it then the gun stores job to monitor every sale from that day forward? When the police could have been called.....?

 

[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.