Posted on Oct 13, 2015
Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers. Thoughts?
7.21K
52
67
7
7
0
Could this set the bar for further lawsuits against other gun stores that fail to follow the law?
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms Sales
Police
Firearms Sales Police
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
0
0
0
So I have a question for the group that is relevant to the discussion. From my understanding of the term, a straw buyer is a person who purchases a firearm solely for another individual. So if I as a parent decide I want to buy my daughter a pistol, would that not fall under that as well? What about buying someone a gun as a gift? I mean come on, who wouldn't like to receive that kind of a gift?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Not exactly.
A Straw Purchaser is a Purchaser is someone who purchases a Firearm on behalf of someone who is legally PROHIBITED from purchasing on, or with the intent of bypassing existing law.
Depending on state you may be allowed to purchase and give a firearm as a gift.
Things to keep in mind (not all inclusive). You mentioned pistol, so daughter would need to be 21. She would have to be a resident of the same state as you (FL). Person to Person transfers would have to be not prohibited in FL.
As an example, I live in Virginia. I can buy a handgun for my wife as a birthday present, because my wife is not prohibited to possess one (if she went to the store, she could get it herself). Make sense?
A Straw Purchaser is a Purchaser is someone who purchases a Firearm on behalf of someone who is legally PROHIBITED from purchasing on, or with the intent of bypassing existing law.
Depending on state you may be allowed to purchase and give a firearm as a gift.
Things to keep in mind (not all inclusive). You mentioned pistol, so daughter would need to be 21. She would have to be a resident of the same state as you (FL). Person to Person transfers would have to be not prohibited in FL.
As an example, I live in Virginia. I can buy a handgun for my wife as a birthday present, because my wife is not prohibited to possess one (if she went to the store, she could get it herself). Make sense?
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Thanks for the information. My daughter is turning 18 this month. I know she cannot have the gun until she turns 21. She wants to learn to shoot, so I bought a .22 pistol so I can teach her to shoot with something that is going to have little if any recoil. I sincerely hope as a parent that when she turns 21, she is able to legally own a handgun. If not, then I have failed.
(0)
(0)
Cpl James Waycasie
PO3 Steven Sherrill - My daughter is 19. She recently asked me to teach her how to shoot bows ( Both recurve with no sights and fully loaded compound), firearms and hand to hand. I agreed. We have covered both bows so far and just now started firearm safety. She hasn't begun range time yet but will soon. My daughter asked about having a pistol and I explained to her she had to be 21 but her 22 yr old husband could purchase one for her. I also explained it would be illegal for her to carry right now. I suggested a .22 LR Taurus snubnose as a personal beginners weapon for her. I plan on starting her out shooting a Rutger .22 target pistol that is very accurate. We will cover .22 cal, 9mm, .40, and maybe .45. She will learn proper sight alignment and the brass system. Proper disassembly and maintenance of various pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I think it's great when your children ask to be taught these things. You know they will be taught right if you do the teaching. I don't think we need more gun control, we just need gun owners to have had parents who will properly educate them or insure they are educated before ownership. I salute you for going to teach your child and God bless.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The article states that this store was cited by the FBI as a large 'crime dealer', ie a lot of guns sold legally there ended up on the streets in crimes. That said, unless they didn't run the background check, I don't see how they can be held liable.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
The straw purchaser rolled, showing criminal negligence. That in turn allowed a Civil Case, but not a criminal case to move forward.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSgt David Tedrow From what I have seen of this so far (I know that the media only shows what suits their agenda), it looked like the guy buying the gun made no effort to hide that he was buying it for the other guy. While I don't agree with the law suit, I do agree that gun sellers, especially in this time of "take all the legal guns away," need to be far more vigilant in who they sell to. It is sad that it has come to this, but when Swillary gets up during the debate and calls out the NRA (an organization that supports the constitutional ownership of firearms) as the enemy, the only way to combat that is extreme vigilance. As a responsibly armed American, I take for granted that every time I am in direct control of a firearm, I am responsible for anything that happens due to that weapon. That means at the range, in the car, in my home, or when I am carrying for personal defense I am responsible for that gun and need to pay attention. I think that is a huge part of the problems we are facing as a nation. Americans love the idea that we are free, but as of late are not interested in taking responsibility for those freedoms. The preamble to the United States Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It starts by stating who is responsible for this nation. It is us. All of us. It is time that we start acting like we are responsible for our freedom.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is like blaming the automobile manufacturer for drunk drivers it makes absolutely no sense
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The shop bare no responsibilities for the shooting. Yes they may have break firearms sales law, but that is a whole different issue! Jurors had brainwashed so much ... now if the gun shop break any rules, and that make them liable for the crime committed by the criminal.
Under informed citizens ...
Well ... at least it is by their peers ... sigh ... this is going to be very bad ... eventually.
Under informed citizens ...
Well ... at least it is by their peers ... sigh ... this is going to be very bad ... eventually.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
So... If we can't blame the guns for killing, then lets blame the facility that houses the guns and the owners who owns the facility... There is no way that the person could ever be at fault of his own actions enough to fully enforce, without plea bargains, current laws on the books...
(0)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
MAJ (Join to see) - Not exactly in all (most) cases... He sold many to people who could legally purchase them “straw buyer” and they, the “straw buyer”, were actually purchasing the weapon for the (suspected/possible) felons...
But that neither here nor there, we're still placing more blame on everyone but the shooter... If no one see's the "Big Picture" issue with this, then maybe it is time to take our 2nd A rights away...
But that neither here nor there, we're still placing more blame on everyone but the shooter... If no one see's the "Big Picture" issue with this, then maybe it is time to take our 2nd A rights away...
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
He knowingly sold them to a straw buyer was the allegation. I'm about the biggest 2nd A supporter around but when a store owner is willing to ignore laws to gain a buck time for them to lose their business. (good laws that is)
(0)
(0)
MSgt Curtis Ellis
MAJ (Join to see) But the straw buyer is/was not a felon...
We will have to agree to disagree on this as I clearly see different ramifications from this than you do, but this is a good post and I hope many read it!
We will have to agree to disagree on this as I clearly see different ramifications from this than you do, but this is a good post and I hope many read it!
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The evidence demonstrated the preponderance of evidence that he should have known the gun was not for the purchaser (there is a comment about the individual checked the "this is not for me box" and the owner had him correct the box) I certainly agree this is a slippery slope, but it seems the prosecution did a good job demonstrating that the owner knew the intended receiver was not the buyer. The appeal decision will be interesting to read. If the evidence wasn't so clear I'd be really worried especially with the radical left's stated agenda to shut down gun manufacturers through similar lawsuits, I see a clear line between the two.
(2)
(0)
TSgt David L.
MAJ (Join to see) - Understood, CPT, but the felons still have to bear SOME responsibility I would think. Even if the shop OWNER was at fault. Maybe I missed something in the article.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
TSgt David L. - The shooter is serving an 80-year sentence. The buyer is serving a 2-year sentence. They are being held criminally responsible, but just not financially liable (you can't squeeze blood from a turnip) in this civil case.
I was listening to a story about this on NPR yesterday and the reporter said that video evidence existed showing the shooter and the buyer were in the store together when the purchase was made. The shooter was even looking over the buyer's shoulder as he was making the purchase. The buyer didn't even have enough money to make the purchase, so both of them left the store together, and then eventually came back together to complete the purchase. Plus, the buyer initially indicated on the purchase form that he wasn't buying the gun for himself, but then changed the form once the seller pointed it out.
I think this is a clear case where the seller knew that he was selling a weapon to a straw purchaser. That means the gun store intentionally circumvented the law and set themselves up for this civil lawsuit. I'm generally supportive of gun rights, but in this case, the seller appeared to knowingly enable this kid to acquire a gun that he couldn't legally purchase himself.
I was listening to a story about this on NPR yesterday and the reporter said that video evidence existed showing the shooter and the buyer were in the store together when the purchase was made. The shooter was even looking over the buyer's shoulder as he was making the purchase. The buyer didn't even have enough money to make the purchase, so both of them left the store together, and then eventually came back together to complete the purchase. Plus, the buyer initially indicated on the purchase form that he wasn't buying the gun for himself, but then changed the form once the seller pointed it out.
I think this is a clear case where the seller knew that he was selling a weapon to a straw purchaser. That means the gun store intentionally circumvented the law and set themselves up for this civil lawsuit. I'm generally supportive of gun rights, but in this case, the seller appeared to knowingly enable this kid to acquire a gun that he couldn't legally purchase himself.
(2)
(0)
TSgt David L.
LTC Kevin B. - I hadn't heard about the sentencing so at least they collectively are serving time.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
MAJ Matthew Arnold
I am a member of the NRA. The NRA is a association of weapon owners, not a monolithic "iRobot" seeking to take over and control government and human life. I hope the NRA does get involved in the appeal to the next higher court. This case sets a precedent that will have every gun owner paying for every gun injury, a illogical and truly unfair position.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Matthew Arnold - This is more a Good Faith / Bad Faith case. By not operating within the Law, they bring Civil Liabilities. Had they been within the Law, there would have been no issues.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google