Seattle judge rules that firearms deals should pay for crimes committed with weapons they sold

[Wry Catcher]

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?

Don't know. I suppose the parents or close friends who see changes in someone ought to talk / listen to them carefully, and if they are concerned make a report to the local authorities.

Well, local authorities can't do much about that.

A few years ago I was in my driveway cleaning up. A strange woman was walking on the sidewalk, stopped and started spitting in my direction. She was screaming something about her daughter or something. She was way to far for her spit to reach me, but I became concerned.

Immediately I could tell this was a person not of sound mind. This was an emotionally disturbed woman who obviously was hallucinating.

By the time the police go there, she had entered her van and that's where the police stopped her. From my dining room window, I could hear her screaming at them. A minute or two later, the police walked away from the van and she drove off.

So I went back outside to question their actions. They told me she had a legal drivers license, and she really broke no law, so there was nothing they could do to her. I expressed concern about her mental state, and the police told me it was not theirs to judge. She broke no laws.

Your point?

 

[Coyote]

I wonder if car dealers should be responsible for crimes committed by the cars they sold?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's true, so what's the solution, make all guns illegal?

No, making all guns illegal is not something I have or ever will advocate.

There are some who would support such a policy, I'm not one of them, and the fact is total gun banishment or gun grabbing is the rhetoric of people like you not people like me. It is a slippery slope argument and a means to deflect reasoned discussion on reasonable gun control.

Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?

Don't know. I suppose the parents or close friends who see changes in someone ought to talk / listen to them carefully, and if they are concerned make a report to the local authorities.

Well, local authorities can't do much about that.

A few years ago I was in my driveway cleaning up. A strange woman was walking on the sidewalk, stopped and started spitting in my direction. She was screaming something about her daughter or something. She was way to far for her spit to reach me, but I became concerned.

Immediately I could tell this was a person not of sound mind. This was an emotionally disturbed woman who obviously was hallucinating.

By the time the police go there, she had entered her van and that's where the police stopped her. From my dining room window, I could hear her screaming at them. A minute or two later, the police walked away from the van and she drove off.

So I went back outside to question their actions. They told me she had a legal drivers license, and she really broke no law, so there was nothing they could do to her. I expressed concern about her mental state, and the police told me it was not theirs to judge. She broke no laws.

Your point?

My point is you can't revoke somebody's constitutional right based on a hunch by somebody else. In our legal system, you have to commit a crime before authorities are even interested in the problem yet alone do something about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?'

Comprehensive mental healthcare treatment for minors – early detection is key, with therapy appropriate to address the mental illness; indeed, many mental disorders begin during childhood.

Mass shootings are committed by those who are mentally ill, not just those with criminal records.

And mass shootings can be addressed by means other than 'gun control.'

The problem, of course, is that we as a Nation refuse to make the commitment necessary to institute a comprehensive mental healthcare treatment program for minors.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wonder if car dealers should be responsible for crimes committed by the cars they sold?

They shouldn't.

Just as Seattle gun dealers aren't 'responsible' for the crimes committed by those who purchase guns from them.

 

[Dana7360]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

You need to learn the whole situation.

That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.

All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.

Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?

That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.

I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.

By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.

The damage isn't by guns...it is by criminals. What you are doing is taxing law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting people or using their guns to commit crime to pay for the crimes of the guilty, the ones who do use their guns to commit crime and murder people....where is the sense in that?

in this country there are 357 million guns in private hands and only 8,124 gun murders...so you are saying that it is fair for the owners of 356,991,876 guns to pay for the criminals who use guns to murder 8,124 people.....even those 356,991,876 guns were never used to commit murder......

You guys don't care about crime, or criminals....you can see in your posts you just hate the people who own guns. The real problem for you guys, those gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns...ever...so you can't punish them. By taxing their ammo.....you get a little feeling of lashing out at them for the sin of owning a gun......you are pretty pathetic.

It doesn't matter what you think or want.

What you want means nothing to those who pass those laws and our judicial system.

You posting on a message board will change nothing. The judge who ruled in this case could careless what you think and want. That judge doesn't even know you exist and if you voiced your opinion to that judge you would probably be laughed out the court.

I get it, you need a gun to compensate for other short comings you have. That's fine. Those who buy guns and ammunition in Seattle will be paying more in taxes for it.

It costs money to compensate for your short comings. Countless people dead and countless more injured.

Stop trying to pass off the expense of those crimes on those of us who want nothing to do with guns and don't have to compensate for any short comings.

You may not live in Seattle but I do and I know that a majority of people support this tax. So be happy that you get to live and buy guns the way you want to. We who live in Seattle want to live the way we choose and we choose to make those who buy/sell guns and ammunition to pay a tax that will pay expenses of the results of those guns.

I believe you right wingers call it "states rights." I guess that only applies to what you want and not to what other people want no matter if you live in that area or not.

Don't like it? Then don't come to Seattle. You're not welcome here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

'Okay, so what "reasonable" gun control measures would stop somebody who's never so much as had an outstanding traffic ticket from getting a gun and committing a mass shooting?'

Comprehensive mental healthcare treatment for minors – early detection is key, with therapy appropriate to address the mental illness; indeed, many mental disorders begin during childhood.

Mass shootings are committed by those who are mentally ill, not just those with criminal records.

And mass shootings can be addressed by means other than 'gun control.'

The problem, of course, is that we as a Nation refuse to make the commitment necessary to institute a comprehensive mental healthcare treatment program for minors.

Oh, you mean taxpayer paid for?

If your child has a mental illness, it's up to the parents to get help for that child.

And so, if somebody determines the child has mental problems, he or she should be restricted from owning a firearm? Sounds good to me, but where is the line drawn and who draws it? I think that if somebody tries hard enough, they could say that everybody on this message board has some kind of mental problems. Could be OCD, could be ADD, could be temporary depression, could be alcoholism, could be drug addiction. It could be a number of things.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If we can sue gun sellers for the crimes committed with them then why can't gun sellers refuse to sell to ethnic groups who happen to commit more crimes than average? Why can't we stop selling to Muslims?

 

[Freewill]

OK, someone explain it to me.

It appears to be a tax on guns at 25 dollars/gun. And a few cents per round. While I don't like taxes it is what government does to raise revenue. Since guns sales are sky rocketing it seems like the natural target for a tax increase. So the judge, in my opinion, ruled properly, although I don't like putting anymore taxes on the people.

The legitimacy of a tax is not based on an items popularity. That would be a form of price gouging, good grief.

The hell it ain't. What world do you live in? They tax the crap out of cigarettes on the premise of health concerns then make MJ legal so they can tax that also. Wouldn't make much sense to tax something unpopular.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

OK, someone explain it to me.

It appears to be a tax on guns at 25 dollars/gun. And a few cents per round. While I don't like taxes it is what government does to raise revenue. Since guns sales are sky rocketing it seems like the natural target for a tax increase. So the judge, in my opinion, ruled properly, although I don't like putting anymore taxes on the people.

The legitimacy of a tax is not based on an items popularity. That would be a form of price gouging, good grief.

The hell it ain't. What world do you live in? They tax the crap out of cigarettes on the premise of health concerns then make MJ legal so they can tax that also. Wouldn't make much sense to tax something unpopular.

Cigarettes are not popular dumbfuck. In case you haven't noticed smokers are treated like second class citizens. Besides only a moron equates one to the other. Guns are not nor have they ever been bad for your health.

 

[Rustic]

Everyone who wants to drive a car has to fill out an application, pay for a test and a license. They have not broken a law.

Anyone who buys a car, pays a sales tax, pays a fee for a license and pays a fee for registration. They have not broken a law.

Driving a car is not an right, owning a gun(law abiding citizens) is... Dumba$$

You can drop the name calling, I'm not impressed since I have degrees from two universities.

Having a license to drive is a privilege, not a right. Even though the 2nd is written that it is a right to bear arms, the reality is that right is a privilege in practice.

Only fools believe every person has the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody or control a firearm, in spite of their past behavior, mental state or threats of violence.

Many mass murderers were law abiding until they shot their first victim.

Never said that, of course I mean law abiding. They fact remains your talking about apples to oranges when compairing auto and firearms.
Only a fool would think they should be treated the same.

 

[Rustic]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

You need to learn the whole situation.

That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.

All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.

Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?

That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.

I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.

By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.

The damage isn't by guns...it is by criminals. What you are doing is taxing law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting people or using their guns to commit crime to pay for the crimes of the guilty, the ones who do use their guns to commit crime and murder people....where is the sense in that?

in this country there are 357 million guns in private hands and only 8,124 gun murders...so you are saying that it is fair for the owners of 356,991,876 guns to pay for the criminals who use guns to murder 8,124 people.....even those 356,991,876 guns were never used to commit murder......

You guys don't care about crime, or criminals....you can see in your posts you just hate the people who own guns. The real problem for you guys, those gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns...ever...so you can't punish them. By taxing their ammo.....you get a little feeling of lashing out at them for the sin of owning a gun......you are pretty pathetic.

It doesn't matter what you think or want.

What you want means nothing to those who pass those laws and our judicial system.

You posting on a message board will change nothing. The judge who ruled in this case could careless what you think and want. That judge doesn't even know you exist and if you voiced your opinion to that judge you would probably be laughed out the court.

I get it, you need a gun to compensate for other short comings you have. That's fine. Those who buy guns and ammunition in Seattle will be paying more in taxes for it.

It costs money to compensate for your short comings. Countless people dead and countless more injured.

Stop trying to pass off the expense of those crimes on those of us who want nothing to do with guns and don't have to compensate for any short comings.

You may not live in Seattle but I do and I know that a majority of people support this tax. So be happy that you get to live and buy guns the way you want to. We who live in Seattle want to live the way we choose and we choose to make those who buy/sell guns and ammunition to pay a tax that will pay expenses of the results of those guns.

I believe you right wingers call it "states rights." I guess that only applies to what you want and not to what other people want no matter if you live in that area or not.

Don't like it? Then don't come to Seattle. You're not welcome here.

A foolish tax... So called gun violence is an nonissue.

 

[2aguy]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

You need to learn the whole situation.

That tax is to pay for the cost of the damage the guns have done to people.

All that expense isn't free. The taxpayers of the city have to pay for it.

Why should the taxpayers of the state and city pay for the damage done by guns? Why shouldn't those who buy & sell guns & ammunition pay for it?

That tax isn't meant to prevent any crime. It's meant to pay for the results of crime which I believe is a great idea. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. The gun crazy people should. If you want a gun then pay for the damage the guns cause.

I also believe that people who own guns should have insurance to pay for the damage they do with that gun. If you put someone in the hospital or kill them, the insurance will pay for what you have done instead of the taxpayers of the state or city.

By the way, I was born and raised in Seattle. I've lived in the Seattle area all my life. I'm among the majority here who supports this tax.

The damage isn't by guns...it is by criminals. What you are doing is taxing law abiding gun owners, the ones not shooting people or using their guns to commit crime to pay for the crimes of the guilty, the ones who do use their guns to commit crime and murder people....where is the sense in that?

in this country there are 357 million guns in private hands and only 8,124 gun murders...so you are saying that it is fair for the owners of 356,991,876 guns to pay for the criminals who use guns to murder 8,124 people.....even those 356,991,876 guns were never used to commit murder......

You guys don't care about crime, or criminals....you can see in your posts you just hate the people who own guns. The real problem for you guys, those gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns...ever...so you can't punish them. By taxing their ammo.....you get a little feeling of lashing out at them for the sin of owning a gun......you are pretty pathetic.

It doesn't matter what you think or want.

What you want means nothing to those who pass those laws and our judicial system.

You posting on a message board will change nothing. The judge who ruled in this case could careless what you think and want. That judge doesn't even know you exist and if you voiced your opinion to that judge you would probably be laughed out the court.

I get it, you need a gun to compensate for other short comings you have. That's fine. Those who buy guns and ammunition in Seattle will be paying more in taxes for it.

It costs money to compensate for your short comings. Countless people dead and countless more injured.

Stop trying to pass off the expense of those crimes on those of us who want nothing to do with guns and don't have to compensate for any short comings.

You may not live in Seattle but I do and I know that a majority of people support this tax. So be happy that you get to live and buy guns the way you want to. We who live in Seattle want to live the way we choose and we choose to make those who buy/sell guns and ammunition to pay a tax that will pay expenses of the results of those guns.

I believe you right wingers call it "states rights." I guess that only applies to what you want and not to what other people want no matter if you live in that area or not.

Don't like it? Then don't come to Seattle. You're not welcome here.

Yes..exactly how you democrats felt about denying blacks the right to vote. when you deny human beings a right everyone else should just accept it...right? You should be left alone to attack fundamental rights and everyone else should leave you alone.....sadly for you....people are watching......and just like when you denied blacks the right to vote, people are going to resist you...even people not in your screwed up state.

 

[2aguy]

The liberals have found yet another excuse for transferring wealth (even a little). A judge in Seattle has ruled that gun dealers may have to pay for crimes others commit, using a weapon the dealer sold.

Soon the judge will probably rule that Ford and Chevrolet must pay for people who drive their cars and run over pedestrians or commit hit-and-run crashes.

Lakeisha Holloway might get a break after running down thirty-plus people on the Las Vegas strip, killing one, if she can successfully pretend that the manufacturer of her car was partly to blame.

The liberals' solution to this is, of course, to raise taxes yet again.

Half the price of a gun is taxes already. Now Seattle will raise taxes on them even more, and put a tax on ammunition as well. Apparently ammunition makers are also being blamed somehow.

None of this will prevent crimes, of course. But the liberals are happy to raise taxes, even for useless programs and purposes, to punish those who haven't done anything wrong.

Only in America.

------------------------------------------

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

Judge Rules Gun Dealers May Have to Pay For Crimes Committed With Weapons They Sell

By Marie Solis
December 23, 2015 4:44 PM

Seattle will be ringing in 2016 with new gun control legislation.

On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson ruled that a new tax on guns and ammo would go into effect on Jan. 1, in a case gun rights activists brought against the city. Robinson's decision aligned with City Council's unanimous vote in August, approving a tariff of $25 per gun and 2 or 5 cents per round of ammunition for sellers.

In the eyes of NRA members — the plaintiffs, alongside the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — Robinson's ruling flouted the law. But during the case's hearing, a lawyer defending the city testified that the levy is perfectly kosher. The key is the difference between taxation and regulation, the Seattle Times reported.

Attorney William Abrams stated, "Taxation is to raise revenue, and cities have broad powers to raise revenue through a variety of taxes."

This simple fact doesn't mean the NRA will stand down. "This is not the final word," NRA spokesperson Lars Dalseide said in a statement to the Examiner. "We will keep fighting until all legal avenues are exhausted and the people of Seattle are free to exercise their Second Amendment rights without persecution from their elected officials."

The argument for the tax the city council gave was, "Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot," said Council President Burgess. "It's time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs." As a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to the pay for the medical costs of victims of gun crimes. Maybe the gun industry has little responsibility but they have more responsibility than I do.

No, they don't....those guns are being used illegally by people who cannot legally own them....they have no more responsibility than the guys who make your SUV......

 

[jillian]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

the gun industry is the only industry shielded from liability for the misuse of its inherently dangerous products if you're a bartender and sell a drink to someone drunk, you're liable if they get into a car accident in many states.

minimally, the discussion should be about holding dealers liable for their negligent sales.

i know you're underdeveloped mentally, but even you should understand that.

 

[jillian]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.

So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?

The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.

no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

the gun industry is the only industry shielded from liability for the misuse of its inherently dangerous products if you're a bartender and sell a drink to someone drunk, you're liable if they get into a car accident in many states.

minimally, the discussion should be about holding dealers liable for their negligent sales.

Wrong.
The gun industry has the same standards as everyone else. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a gun. It works exactly as it's designed to work. Why should manufacturers be liable because some idiot misuses their product? We dont impose that standard on any other product.
There are no negligent sales by dealers. Every sale must be approved by NICS or the state authority. A dealer selling guns without that approval is committing a crime and will be shut down. And that seldom happens btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.

So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?

The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.

no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?

They do proper background checks. If the straw purchase is done right the dealer will have no way of knowing that's what it is.

 

[2aguy]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.

So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?

The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.

no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?

So...someone comes in to buy a gun, and passes a background check...you understand that they are have mandatory background checks...right? the individual passes the check........so now you guys who sue any business because of discrimination want them to deny a legal individual a gun.........since a majority of criminals in these war zones are minorities...and that is okay with you...really?

 

[2aguy]

I don't think it's that sinister. I think the judge is just underdeveloped mentally like all the other liberals. They blame the gun so the person that sold it is evil and should pay. Any firearm dealer in Seattle these days gets what they deserve.

Every time a dealer sells a firearm to a guy, they must first call the Fed Govt who does a background check (NICS check). The govt issues a "Yes" or "No" on whether the guy is allowed to buy a gun.

So, shouldn't the Fed govt be as liable as the dealer was? If not more so?

The dealer is supposed to look into his soul and see the potential evil. That's why they go to Gun Violence Recognition Academy.

no. they are supposed to do proper background checks and not allow straw purchasers for felons as was recently done in one of the mass shootings. is anyone suggesting strict liability and not a negligence standard?

Tell us...which mass shooter was a felon who got their gun legally? do you mean the South Carolina church shooter? he was arrested for drugs and could not pass a background check........yet he did...why? Because two people failed to submit his record to NICS.....and he passed the federally mandated background check.

Can you tell us which one you are referring to?