Gun Shop Guilty in Child's Shooting Death?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Each time he bought a gun, Bruce illegally resold it. The buyers were criminals who were barred from owning guns...

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

Old-fashioned law enforcement.

Any time a gun is found by police at a crime scene, they trace it to see what the chain of custody is. If multiple crime guns keep getting traced back to the same individual, then maybe they should investigate that individual.

Gun dealers are already required to report any sales of two or more guns to the same person within a five-day period. If the ATF keeps receiving these little report cards, for the same person, buying the same kinds of cheap handgun, then maybe they should investigate that individual.

The information is there. It just takes someone in law enforcement to follow-up on it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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?

I don't believe he would be culpable in the shooting of the child. But he would be guilty of violating the laws against "strawman" purchases, and that involves some hefty penalties in itself.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

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)

And what if the plaintiff believes that they can indeed prove to a jury that this is the case? Is the lawsuit then frivolous? Do they have a right to a hearing?

...

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

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)

And what if the plaintiff believes that they can indeed prove to a jury that this is the case? Is the lawsuit then frivolous? Do they have a right to a hearing?

That possibility is the reason why in my first reply I said that I don't know enough details to be able to tell if this dealer was selling to a guy he could reasonably suspect was a straw-purchaser.

MOST, if not all of the other lawsuits against various gun makers and dealers do not involve any such malfeasance on the part of the defendants. They simply have the bad luck to be at the root of the gun's origins, and the gun was used in a crime. That is not enough of a reason to sue the companies or dealers. And the reason we need tort reform and lawsuit "bans" to deal with this is the fact that those bringing these suits are doing so KNOWING they will lose -- but they're sponsored by George Soros, the multibillionaire anti-gun crusader, with infinitely-deep pockets, and their goal is not actually to win judgments but to force the gun companies to pay their lawyers OVER and OVER again to KEEP winning judgments for defendants OVER and OVER again. Doesn't matter if they keep winning, if it costs them a few million every time they're forced to win again. And then Soros gets his "victory" over gun companies by forcing them to go bankrupt defending against baseless lawsuits.
-

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

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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)

And what if the plaintiff believes that they can indeed prove to a jury that this is the case? Is the lawsuit then frivolous? Do they have a right to a hearing?

That possibility is the reason why in my first reply I said that I don't know enough details to be able to tell if this dealer was selling to a guy he could reasonably suspect was a straw-purchaser.

MOST, if not all of the other lawsuits against various gun makers and dealers do not involve any such malfeasance on the part of the defendants. They simply have the bad luck to be at the root of the gun's origins, and the gun was used in a crime. That is not enough of a reason to sue the companies or dealers. And the reason we need tort reform and lawsuit "bans" to deal with this is the fact that those bringing these suits are doing so KNOWING they will lose -- but they're sponsored by George Soros, the multibillionaire anti-gun crusader, with infinitely-deep pockets, and their goal is not actually to win judgments but to force the gun companies to pay their lawyers OVER and OVER again to KEEP winning judgments for defendants OVER and OVER again. Doesn't matter if they keep winning, if it costs them a few million every time they're forced to win again. And then Soros gets his "victory" over gun companies by forcing them to go bankrupt defending against baseless lawsuits.
-

That problem would be solved if the loser paid the winner's costs. That is a better solution than exempting some favored businesses from lawsuits.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Not to nit-pick, but in many states the winner can get a judgment against the losing party for "costs."

"Costs" is a term of art. "Costs" usually do not include "attorneys fees." What is the difference?

"Attorneys' fees" are the money spent for the time of the attorney spent working on the case (i.e., 150 dollars per hour).

"Costs" are other expenses outside of paying the attorney for his or her time. It includes filing fees, photocopies, fax charges, investigators, expert witnesses (like the 5k per day MD testifying about medical causation and damages, or the gun marketing expert), and anything else that doesn't pay the attorney.

So, you can get costs in many, if not most or all states. It's the attorneys' fees you can't get.

I got an $87k cost judgment against a plaintiff when we successfully defended a case. They paid what they could, when they could, and will do so for many many years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

That problem would be solved if the loser paid the winner's costs. That is a better solution than exempting some favored businesses from lawsuits.

Ohhh, okay.
Don't you think it might have a "chilling effect" on even the justifiable and righteous lawsuits when the plaintiff knows that if he sues, say, Phillip Morris, and loses, he will have to pay the MILLIONS of dollars that P.M. paid its lawyers to win the case?

There are no guarantees of victory when you bring a lawsuit. When Joe Nobody has reason to sue a huge corporation, whose "legal costs" will consist of millions of dollars to a huge team of high-priced corporate lawyers, that means, in your "loser pays" system, that bringing suit at all exposes Joe to having to pay P.M.'s bill to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Remember how much it cost Bill Clinton to defend against whatsername with the big nose? (Of course, his political cronies got supporters to pony up donations to the "Clinton Legal Defense Fund" and Billy didn't have to shell out a cent, I'm sure.

It's not hard to imagine a corporation that gets sued, but wins the judgment, presenting a bill of $15,000,000 to the "loser."

Is that the system you recommend? How would you alter it so that this doesn't happen?
-

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And what if the plaintiff believes that they can indeed prove to a jury that this is the case? Is the lawsuit then frivolous? Do they have a right to a hearing?

Then take it to a prosecutor. They are the one who brings criminal charges.

This lawsuit is frivolous, and malignant. How do I know? (A) they are suing the dealer for doing everything the FBI and BATFE and the law say he is allowed to do (B) they are not suing on those grounds (C) they are going on about how the prosecutor is soft on gun crime (D) it is supported by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership.

This suit fits the pattern for dozes of other lawsuits that have all been thrown out. Jeffrey explained to you the theory behind the lawsuits (legal fees as a penalty, not legal judgments). This is nothing more than asking for legislation from the bench.

Quote

friv·o·lous .... (frv-ls) .... adj.

1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial: a frivolous novel.
2. Inappropriately silly: a frivolous purchase.

Syn: Trifling; trivial; slight; petty; worthless.

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

[Skyrad 0]

Would you like me to? The Columbine kids mean no more or less to me than the children that have been killed in Falluja in the last couple of weeks. Or the children that were killed on the streets of france last week while crossing the road. As for the dead seven year old thats sad for his family and friends but it means nothing to me personaly.

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