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

[2aguy]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

 

[Asclepias]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

This case ended with close to the best outcome. The only better outcome is if the store owner had fought and lost instead of settling.

 

[2aguy]

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

 

[2aguy]

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

This case ended with close to the best outcome. The only better outcome is if the store owner had fought and lost instead of settling.

They just did....

 

[Asclepias]

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

 

[Asclepias]

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

This case ended with close to the best outcome. The only better outcome is if the store owner had fought and lost instead of settling.

They just did....

Are you saying the store fought and didnt settle? You said a couple of posts back they settled?

 

[Skull Pilot]

doesn't matter what another person wants.

was the person that bought the weapon legally eligible to do so? Yes

that is all that needs to be known

Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.

I would have fought the suit and not settled.

If the cops, FBI, ATF could not prevent the sale legally then I as a private citizen have no power to do so either

I would counter sue the parents for not having their "dangerous" "unstable" daughter committed

You would have been broke and lost your business fighting the suit and still end up losing.

You arent operating as a private citizen. It was a gun store open to the public. You have the power to use your common sense and not sell until you researched,

You would have the right to counter sue but I'm sure after losing you wouldnt want to go through court again only to have your suit thrown out and incur additional court costs.

All the research I have to do is the required background check. If a person passes that check I have no reason not to sell a weapon to him or her

an anonymous phone call is not proof that a person is unstable

I never claimed you were required to do any research. Again you are confusing law with common sense. The store followed the letter of the law but still lost because they didnt employ the common sense most people would have.

he didn't lose he settled or more accurately his insurance company settled

 

[Skull Pilot]

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

which is why we need to change our laws.

If a person sues for damages and loses that person should have to pay all court costs including the defendants legal costs

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your loss I would have been a paying customer

the fact is the shop owner did everything he was required to do he broke no law he was not responsible for what the person did after she left his store

Pretty sure I would get over it.

No one claimed he broke a law. The claim was that he was negligent and thats why he lost the suit. You dont have to be a criminal in order to lose a suit.

he didn't lose the suit since it never went to trial

he settled because most likely his insurance company told him to

and he was not negligent since he followed every regulation he was bound to follow

He lost the decision to have the suit thrown out. He settled because his attorneys knew he was going to lose.

Yes he was negligent and thats why he settled. If he wasnt negligent his attorneys never would have advised him to settle now would they?

Did the attorneys advise the settlement? If they were ethical attorneys, they might have advised just that, if they thought the trial would cost more than the settlement.

Doesnt say. Thats what Skull claims happened.

That's what usually happens

this guy didn't have 2 million in cash he had insurance his insurance company is the one that settled

 

[Skull Pilot]

In this case sounds like the store was warned by a citizen. Anyone with sense would have not sold her the gun without finding out what was going on.

What would you suggest the store owner do to find out "what was going on"? Move in with the family for a month or two to get a better grasp on the situation? The store owner did everything he is required to do by law.

If I was nuts and started stabbing people with a knife, would you sue Williams Sonoma?

i suggest they talk to the parties involved to figure out what was going on.

Thats a dumb question. Why would I sue Williams and Sonoma?

The local police, the FBI and the ATF knew exactly what was going on ....and they didn't do anything...yet the civilian owned gun store is supposed to do the work three government agencies...whose sole job is public safety, didn't do....? That makes sense?

There wasnt much the local police, FBI, and the ATF could do. Their job is not to keep someone from purchasing a fire arm since it was legal for the person to buy it. The only person with the power to stop the sale was the gun store owner. He failed to do that and someone died. He paid for it as he should have.

so now civilians are supposed to stop legal sales?

sorry that doesn't fly. The shop owner did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

by an unknown source with no proof.

if she was as dangerous as her parents said why didn't they get her hospitalized?

 

[Asclepias]

Good thing you didnt own that gun store. You would have lost the suit as well with that attitude.

I would have fought the suit and not settled.

If the cops, FBI, ATF could not prevent the sale legally then I as a private citizen have no power to do so either

I would counter sue the parents for not having their "dangerous" "unstable" daughter committed

You would have been broke and lost your business fighting the suit and still end up losing.

You arent operating as a private citizen. It was a gun store open to the public. You have the power to use your common sense and not sell until you researched,

You would have the right to counter sue but I'm sure after losing you wouldnt want to go through court again only to have your suit thrown out and incur additional court costs.

All the research I have to do is the required background check. If a person passes that check I have no reason not to sell a weapon to him or her

an anonymous phone call is not proof that a person is unstable

I never claimed you were required to do any research. Again you are confusing law with common sense. The store followed the letter of the law but still lost because they didnt employ the common sense most people would have.

he didn't lose he settled or more accurately his insurance company settled

If he paid money he didnt want to pay it was a loss. Sorry but your denial doesnt change the outcome.

 

[Asclepias]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

by an unknown source with no proof.

if she was as dangerous as her parents said why didn't they get her hospitalized?

That has no relevance to the case and thats exactly why the guy lost.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

by an unknown source with no proof.

if she was as dangerous as her parents said why didn't they get her hospitalized?

That has no relevance to the case and thats exactly why the guy lost.

if there was no trial he didn't lose

and it has complete relevance if the shop owner was negligent then certainly this girl's parents were more negligent

 

[Asclepias]

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

by an unknown source with no proof.

if she was as dangerous as her parents said why didn't they get her hospitalized?

That has no relevance to the case and thats exactly why the guy lost.

if there was no trial he didn't lose

and it has complete relevance if the shop owner was negligent then certainly this girl's parents were more negligent

He lost a lot of money. If he didnt lose anything why are you whining?

Has not a bit of relevance. Thats why the guy lost.

 

[2aguy]

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

 

[Asclepias]

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

Yes so what?

Thats the consequences of doing business in our litigious society. I dont see how not selling someone a weapon in the interest of safety can be considered harassment. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

 

[2aguy]

They think selling a gun, legally, to anyone who supplies a gun to a felon fits the category.....and they will push that in any left wing court they can find.....seeking to take gun stores to court so that they will be forced to settle, just like this case, rather than risk losing to a left wing jury.....this case should have been thrown out as a case of legal harrassment.

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

Yes so what?

Thats the consequences of doing business in our litigious society. I dont see how not selling someone a weapon in the interest of safety can be considered harassment. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

They are trying to go after Remington for the Sandy Hook shooting....the company ate the costs of the case...but it cost them a lot of money...they didn't even sell the gun to the woman, and they were still sued, it should never have gone forward.....

 

[Asclepias]

Anyone that buys a gun and sells it to a felon should go to prison. Like I said before you can be sued for anything. That doesnt mean it will stand up in court. You need to understand they can do this no matter what and try to force a settlement. No court is going to allow some "gun grabber" to waste court time with something as silly as you are suggesting.

No.......they are going to go after gun stores that sell a gun to someone who passes a background check, but then gives or sells it to a felon....that is their game....and this case helps that effort....

All it takes is to take someone to court...it costs money to defend yourself from a lawsuit of this kind....and the anti gunners have lots of money to go after gun stores...

So what if they go after the gun store? Doesnt mean they will win. No one is going to see the validity of such a scenario. See above where I said you can be sued for anything. You dont need some random court case to turn out the way you want to do that.

So What? Do you know how much a defense against a harrassment lawsuit can cost?.....10s of thousands of dollars if not more, and these anti-gunners are supported by anti gun groups with millions to throw into these law suits...

Yes so what?

Thats the consequences of doing business in our litigious society. I dont see how not selling someone a weapon in the interest of safety can be considered harassment. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

They are trying to go after Remington for the Sandy Hook shooting....the company ate the costs of the case...but it cost them a lot of money...they didn't even sell the gun to the woman, and they were still sued, it should never have gone forward.....

Doesnt matter who they go after. They have to prove negligence. Remington can counter sue for court costs. You need to speak to an attorney so you are more educated on how this works.

 

[Montrovant]

The hardcore pro gun people want to paint this as some kind of gun grab. It isn't. This is not the argument to support your point of view.

You mean it wasn't a gun grab...considering the Brady Campaign lawyer was her lawyer...?

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

Jonathan E. Lowy, Brady’s legal director who argued Delana’s case, said it sends a “powerful message to the gun industry nationwide, and to the companies that insure them, that if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

How did you interpret that as a gun grab? I honestly want to know.

They see this as a precedent for suing gun stores.....they even stated it....

Suing stores doesnt equal "gun grab". A gun grab would be people confiscating your weapons.

"...if you supply a dangerous person with a gun, you will pay the price.”

They were told the person was dangerous.

by an unknown source with no proof.

if she was as dangerous as her parents said why didn't they get her hospitalized?

Supposedly she was hospitalized multiple times. I don't know if there was a particular reason she wasn't hospitalized at the time of the shooting. She was found not guilty because of her mental problems and sent to a psychiatric hospital after the incident.

Whatever fault the store may or may not have had, clearly the mental health system was a bigger failure in this case.