Gun Shop Guilty in Child's Shooting Death?

[JohnRich 4]

Paraphrased from the news:

A gun shop sold a gun to a customer in compliance with all laws. The purchaser of that gun, then re-sold it illegally on the black market to a criminal. The criminal left the gun underneath an abandoned car. A seven-year-old child found the gun underneath the abandoned car. The child then used that gun to accidentally shoot another seven-year-old, killing him.

So who does the family of the dead child sue?

The gun shop!

Full Story

[Gawain 0]

I hope it gets thrown out of court. Unfortunately, civil actions seem to dance all over "legal" stuff...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Kennedy 0]

Another ridiculous lawsuit that goes so far beyond any credible judicial precedent it is disgusting. A criminal act breaks the chain of responsibility.

Another lawsuit going after the deepest pockets and seeking to put all firearms manufacturers and dealers out of business.

Quote

Jefferson's lawyer, Mark J. LeWinter, who has been assisted in the suit by the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

There have been what, fifty or so of these cases now, and not one of them has ever led to a final judgment against manufacturers, distributors, or dealers.

They are just trying to put the firearms industry out of business through repeated court costs - attempting to achieve through the courts what they failed to achieve in the legislatures.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

John,
I am steadfast against the notion of anyone but the shooter being culpable for gun violence... but...

at this point I don't know what details there are about the circumstances surrounding the sale of this gun. There seems to be some fishy shit going on that is simply not listed in the story, but probably is detailed in the lawsuit.

I think it will really come down to "did the dealer know or have reason to know that this straw-purchaser was reselling guns to criminals." I don't know that he did, I don't know that he didn't. If he did, though, he's a scumbag (witness the fact that he DID plead guilty to gun trafficking). If this dealer were one of several who had sold to the trafficker, that would diminish the chance that this dealer knew of his practices, or how many of the same or similar guns he had purchased recently. But if the same exact dealer sold ten identical or similar guns to one guy in a short-ish time, that should raise eyebrows and questions. Not saying that should mean he says, "Sorry buddy I won't sell any more to you," and not saying that means he should be liable as the lawsuit alleges, just that it raises questions.

Now, in cases like the Nathaniel Brazill one here in Florida, the gun shop and distributor were sued (along with the school district where the kid shot his teacher dead), the dealer was clearly removed several times from the eventual possessor of the gun (Brazill) who stole it to commit the murder. There is no question that the dealer has no culpability in such a case.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nbblood 0]

One of the questions I've got is when did the "legal" transaction occur? The guy that bought it was charged with gun trafficking in October 1997 and subsequently found guilty. The incident occurred in April 1999. This guy should not have been authorized a purchase between October 97 and April 99. I'm assuming the transaction had to have occurred before October 97. That's a long time removed from the gun dealership. And if there was something done wrong in the transaction, it should have been identified then. The responsibility lies in the person who made the purchase and resold illegally. And he has given up his right to purchase another firearm.

This is why I'm very careful to whom I sell firearms. It's a shame it's come to this shift of responsibility and blame. I personally would never have sold 10 handguns to someone without knowing personally what the purpose was and being able to justify it in my mind. Then again, I don't try to make a living with my business and have that luxury.

I hope the NRA and the Gun Owners Foundation get all over this one and nip it in the bud.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Kennedy 0]

You missed the facts just a bit my friend. The legal dealer, Sauers, never plead guilty to anything. The black marketeer/straw purchaser was Perry Bruce. He's the one who plead to gun trafficking.

(1) Selling ten guns to one man over at least three years is not unreasonable.

(2) Bruce had a concealed carry permit, so even the cops (sheriff) thought he was ok.

(3) Bruce was not a convicted criminal or barred from purchasing guns.

-- Sauers did nothing wrong in selling to Bruce, he followed all applicable laws. If even the cops didn't know he was doing something wrong, how is Sauers, a shop owner, going to know the guy is doing something wrong?

(4) Why is Bruce guy only going to jail for three years and a few months? What happened to Project Exile being adopted in PA?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Unfortunately, civil actions seem to dance all over "legal" stuff..."
And common sense.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Skyrad 0]

Well if all seven year olds were armed then the child would have been able to defend himself against this child who was carring an illegal firearm. Bloody typical! The parents should there for sue the United States Government because it was them that stopped the dead child from defending himself.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Kennedy 0]

Not funny. We are talking about a dead kid here because of an accident.

You want to talk about what should have been, how about talking about the parents teaching the kids gun safety, or the local school bringing in Eddie Eagle, or anything else involving personal responsibility of the parents. Suggest something that makes sense, not something that makes light of this.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Faber 0]

Quote

So who does the family of the dead child sue?

Quote

The purchaser of that gun, then re-sold it illegally on the black market to a criminal.

bingo there you got your guy...

the shop cant deside what the guy should do whith a weappon he legal got in their shop,but he did somthing illegal..he gave that weappon to a person that shouldnt have a gun....

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Skyrad 0]

'or the local school bringing in Eddie Eagle, or anything else involving personal responsibility of the parents'

Errr..............OK



http://www.thebubbleburst.co.uk/eddietheeagleedwards/

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Jimbo 0]

Eddie Eagle

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Skyrad 0]

LOL................Thought that was a strange comment.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Nightingale 0]

bout the only way the gun shop should be responsible is if they sold it to the man KNOWING full well that he was going to re-sell on the black market.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You want to talk about what should have been, how about talking about the parents teaching the kids gun safety, or the local school bringing in Eddie Eagle, or anything else involving personal responsibility of the parents.

Great idea. Worked for me growing up and it's working for my kids now.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Well if all seven year olds were armed then the child would have been able to defend himself against this child who was carring an illegal firearm. Bloody typical! The parents should there for sue the United States Government because it was them that stopped the dead child from defending himself.

And what about the bloody typical reaction of the brits when you slice an armed burglar in self defence yet they are put in jail?

Then again, not surprising coming from someone who just hates the US.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,131]

>Then again, not surprising coming from someone who just hates the US.

Cut it out. Attack the idea, not the person. The usual one warning.

[TheAnvil 0]

All of these moronic lawsuits are starting to affect me mentally. Just this morning, I dropped some serious ass in a crowded room and was wondering - could any of these people sue me for olfactory assault? Could they sue the liquor store owner who sold me beer/tequila last night? Could they sue the owner of the taco bell that served me the bean burrito?

These anti-personal-responsibility freaks really sicken me.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,174]

"The man who bought the gun, Perry J. Bruce, bought 10 similar small, easily concealed handguns from Sauers between 1994 and 1997. Bruce, of Williamsport, held a permit to carry a gun.

Each time he bought a gun, Bruce illegally resold it. The buyers were criminals who were barred from owning guns, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in its Sunday editions."


So there's a clear problem/loophole here. How do YOU think it should be fixed?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Aggressive prosecution and time served in max and supermax facilities for offenders. That would stem strawpurchasers.

The BATFE is already pursuing this crime. Look into the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign.

Not that I expect any of this will affect your viewpoint, as you seem to think that restricting everyone to prevent anyone's bad act is a better idea, but the issue is being addressed.

Like I've said so many times, everything you can do wrong with a gun is already against the law.

Should it be against the law for me to be a collector, and to want three functioning models each year for three consecutive years?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Aggressive prosecution and time served in max and supermax facilities for offenders. That would stem strawpurchasers.

The BATFE is already pursuing this crime. Look into the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign.

Not that I expect any of this will affect your viewpoint, as you seem to think that restricting everyone to prevent anyone's bad act is a better idea, but the issue is being addressed.

Like I've said so many times, everything you can do wrong with a gun is already against the law.

Should it be against the law for me to be a collector, and to want three functioning models each year for three consecutive years?

Well, I don't wish to pre-judge this case, but what if it is proved that the shop-owner knew what was going on all the time and went along because it increased his business? Is he then culpable?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, I don't wish to pre-judge this case, but what if it is proved that the shop-owner knew what was going on all the time and went along because it increased his business? Is he then culpable?

In that case he is guilty as sin, throw the book at him, and he deserves worse than the POS who sold the guns on the street. (the law agrees with me, if he knew)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well if all seven year olds were armed then the child would have been able to defend himself against this child who was carring an illegal firearm. Bloody typical! The parents should there for sue the United States Government because it was them that stopped the dead child from defending himself.

Comments like this are why leftists are derided as being elitist and atrociously SMUG. I thought you liberals were supposed to be all mush touchy-feely compassionate? I guess that goes out the window when you feel like gloating, huh. Would you make the same crass, smug comments about the kids who died at Columbine High School?

Dance in blood somewhere else.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"The man who bought the gun, Perry J. Bruce, bought 10 similar small, easily concealed handguns from Sauers between 1994 and 1997. Bruce, of Williamsport, held a permit to carry a gun.

Each time he bought a gun, Bruce illegally resold it. The buyers were criminals who were barred from owning guns, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in its Sunday editions."


So there's a clear problem/loophole here. How do YOU think it should be fixed?

There's no "clear loophole problem here." There IS no way to prevent someone who buys something legally from selling it illegally to someone who may not legally purchase it.

How would YOU "fix" this "loophole"? Should a firearm that someone purchases be cable-locked to his body, and the only keys are held by the police, who would then unlock the cable lock only when it came time to sell the gun to a buyer who checks out?

I mean, really. What "mechanism" is in place that would stop a person from illegally reselling prescription drugs after he obtains them legally? Answer: there is nothing that can be done except provide for punishment for those who break that particular law.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

bout the only way the gun shop should be responsible is if they sold it to the man KNOWING full well that he was going to re-sell on the black market.

Correct. And the anti-gun folks want to hold gun shop owners legally liable for not being able to read the minds of their legal customers, and for not predicting the future.