PhillyKev 0 #51 August 26, 2004 Ok, here's some more info for you guys. the ATF traced a crime gun to a 1995 Sauers-Bruce transaction and subsequently notified Sauers. The suit alleges the shop's negligence includes continuing to sell firearms to Bruce even after receiving notification of a trace. Former ATF agent Joe Vince, who developed the bureau's gun tracing unit, also gave a deposition in which he said the roughly 50 crime guns traced to Sauers between 1987 and 2002 far outpaces the majority of gun stores in Pennsylvania, where 86 percent of licensed dealers never received a single trace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #52 August 26, 2004 Sounds to me like the guy ought to have had his license yanked a long time ago.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #53 August 26, 2004 QuoteOk, here's some more info for you guys. the ATF traced a crime gun to a 1995 Sauers-Bruce transaction and subsequently notified Sauers. The suit alleges the shop's negligence includes continuing to sell firearms to Bruce even after receiving notification of a trace. Former ATF agent Joe Vince, who developed the bureau's gun tracing unit, also gave a deposition in which he said the roughly 50 crime guns traced to Sauers between 1987 and 2002 far outpaces the majority of gun stores in Pennsylvania, where 86 percent of licensed dealers never received a single trace. Knowing that - he should have his liscense revoked and thrown in jail.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #54 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe outcome of the trial? The gun store owner must pay $850,000. No, that was a settlement. You can call it whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that the gun store owner must pay $850,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #55 August 26, 2004 I know I'm usually on the other side from you guys on a lot of issues, but I'd think you'd know by now that we're on the same side in terms of gun rights. I wouldn't say hold the guy responsible unless there was a hell of a good reason. I don't recall all the details and don't have all the links, but there's been plenty of crap about this guy that's ocme to light over the years to know he wasn't an innocent business man that heppened to sell guns. I go camping in the area where this gun shop is and I've been in there a couple times. The place seemed shady to me and that was before I knew anything about this suit. I'm sure you guys have been in shops where you got the feeling the proprietor was involved in some shady dealings. That's how I felt about this place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #56 August 26, 2004 QuoteYou can call it whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that the gun store owner must pay $850,000. And from the facts that came to light after your first post, that doesn't really seem to be such a bad thing. A "reasonable" man should have known something wasn't right. Hence, he bears some liability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #57 August 26, 2004 QuoteA "reasonable" man should have known something wasn't right. Hence, he bears some liability. I reasonable man wouldn't do lots of things that are perfectly legal. Some would say jump out of a perfectly good airplane. But, the question isn't about whether it is reasonable or not; it's about whether you have a DUTY to someone not to do it. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #58 August 26, 2004 QuoteBut, the question isn't about whether it is reasonable or not Yeah, actually it is. This was not a criminal case, it was a civil suit. And determining what a resonable person would do is all that is required when the determination is based on a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #59 August 26, 2004 QuoteWell, most of us except for Ron, who, given the way you incessantly bait him, And for the record, Tom, I don't bait Ron. I just throw the bait out there. Ron just happens to jump all over it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #60 August 26, 2004 QuoteI reasonable man wouldn't do lots of things that are perfectly legal. Some would say jump out of a perfectly good airplane. But, the question isn't about whether it is reasonable or not; it's about whether you have a DUTY to someone not to do it. Actually the "resonable" man theory is abig part of civil law and is exactly what applies here. he reasonable should ahve known something wasn't right. Since he reasonable should ahve known that, he had the duty not to sell the weapon. He did anyways and therefor bears a portion of the liability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 August 26, 2004 Quotethe ATF traced a crime gun to a 1995 Sauers-Bruce transaction and subsequently notified Sauers. The suit alleges the shop's negligence includes continuing to sell firearms to Bruce even after receiving notification of a trace. Former ATF agent Joe Vince, who developed the bureau's gun tracing unit, also gave a deposition in which he said the roughly 50 crime guns traced to Sauers between 1987 and 2002 far outpaces the majority of gun stores in Pennsylvania, where 86 percent of licensed dealers never received a single trace. Okay, it's time for some facts about "trace" data. First of all, the FBI personally approves every gun purchase through the instant-check system. If they saw the purchaser of a previous crime gun, repeatedly buying yet more guns, then why didn't the BATF step in and investigate? Second, a trace means nothing by itself. I could have a gun stolen during a burglary, and the gun could later turn up in a crime. I would be the last known owner of the gun. But that doesn't mean that I'm the one who used it in the crime. Next, the number of traces that go back to gun stores can be related purely to the volume of the business. A shop that sells 1,000 guns per month, will get more trace hits than a shop that sells 100 guns per month. That doesn't mean that the high-volume shop is knowingly selling to criminals. Finally, geography is a factor too. A gun shop in a big, inner city area, will have more crime traces than a gun shop in a rural area. Even though all the sales in both are perfectly legal. It's a function of the type of people who use the gun store. Here's a better review of the problems with this data, than I can provide: The Misuse of BATF Firearms Tracing Data Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #62 August 26, 2004 QuoteActually the "resonable" man theory is abig part of civil law and is exactly what applies here. he reasonable should ahve known something wasn't right. Since he reasonable should ahve known that, he had the duty not to sell the weapon. He did anyways and therefor bears a portion of the liability. [torts 101] You and Kev kinda need to learn a little more about the law before you start practicing. Negligence requires: 1) a DUTY, 2) a breach of duty (reasonable person), 3) causation & 4) damages. You can't skip the first. [/torts 101] -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #63 August 26, 2004 >But, the question isn't about whether it is reasonable or not; it's > about whether you have a DUTY to someone not to do it. Actually it often is. In a court case, for example, it might be determined that a reasonable driver would slow down if he saw a minivan stopped by the side of the road, two parents searching for something frantically, and toys strewn about. It might also be determined that a reasonable person would see a man who slurred his speech, stumbled about, and smelled like a pina colada might be drunk - even though those might also indicate diabetic ketoacidosis. In such a case, a bartender might be held liable for serving an intoxicated person, even if he had no hard evidence that the man was drunk. A reasonable person should have suspected that he was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 August 26, 2004 I believe you are talking about criminal negligence, not civil negligence. "a party is to be considered negligent if he or she failed to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person, possessed of the same knowledge, would have exercised under the same circumstances." Yes, duty is an element as well, but there is no definition of duty, or requirement that an oath or other pledge was taken to indicate the existence of that duty. Oh, and look at Hoosier v. Lander et al. regarding the duty of gun dealers to the general public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #65 August 26, 2004 QuoteActually the "resonable" man theory is abig part of civil law and is exactly what applies here. he reasonable should ahve known something wasn't right. Since he reasonable should ahve known that, he had the duty not to sell the weapon. He did anyways and therefor bears a portion of the liability. If businessmen are going to be prosecuted for not being able to read the minds of their customers, then free enterprise in general is in big trouble. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #66 August 26, 2004 QuoteIf businessmen are going to be prosecuted for not being able to read the minds of their customers, then free enterprise in general is in big trouble. Looks like this businessman didn't have to read his mind. Looks like there were abundent other signs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #67 August 26, 2004 QuoteThe guy who bought the guns was a frequent customer who used a welfare card for id, then paid cash for guns. He would usually make arrangements to come and buy them after hours. And the guy only bought small, cheap, concealable hand guns. It seems stupid to me that a welfare card is enough ID to purchase a firearm. You should at least need to have a FID or other 'I am able to purchase firearm ID' before you can purchase (from a legal gun shop). Gun shop sales should be randomly audited to make sure they are following the rules. Gun manufactures should require a 'code of ethics' to be followed before distributing guns to a gun retailer. Everyone is out to make a quick buck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 August 26, 2004 Ummm, what kind of federal id card do you have? Last I checked, there wasn't one. And that's not an issue anyway, the guy's identity was not in dispute. What the hell is an "I'm able to purchase firearm Id"? The qualifications for purchasing one are be an adult without a criminal or mental hospital confinement history. QuoteGun shop sales should be randomly audited to make sure they are following the rules. They are. QuoteGun manufactures should require a 'code of ethics' to be followed before distributing guns to a gun retailer. Many do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #69 August 26, 2004 QuoteWhat the hell is an "I'm able to purchase firearm Id"? The qualifications for purchasing one are be an adult without a criminal or mental hospital confinement history. Hmmm. What's that thing the state of California made me get before I could buy guns there? It sure looked like an "I'm able to purchase firearms ID" from where I was standing. I don't necessarily think it's such a good idea, but there are states that do that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #70 August 26, 2004 QuoteHmmm. What's that thing the state of California made me get before I could buy guns there? It sure looked like an "I'm able to purchase firearms ID" from where I was standing. I don't necessarily think it's such a good idea, but there are states that do that. Well that's fucked up. But we were talking about PA where we have a constitutional right to purchase and carry firearms and where the state is prohibited from keeping records of firearms purchases and ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #71 August 26, 2004 QuoteI believe you are talking about criminal negligence, not civil negligence. No, it's the black letter definition of negligence. Hoosier is from California -- a state that is generally out to lunch. It says it that a 19 year old kid's grandmother can't buy a gun for him. [I have no idea why she's not the one liable here for giving it to him.] But, remember, you can't get your kid a hunting rifle until he's 21 years old, although the Army will be happy to. Have you been reading from a Brady website? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #72 August 26, 2004 QuoteHey, who needs personal responsibility when you've got lawyers? Who do you want to need personal responsibility? For a little money, I'll argue whomever you want. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #73 August 26, 2004 QuoteUmmm, what kind of federal id card do you have? Last I checked, there wasn't one. And that's not an issue anyway, the guy's identity was not in dispute. What the hell is an "I'm able to purchase firearm Id"? The qualifications for purchasing one are be an adult without a criminal or mental hospital confinement history. So in this instance a state or federal firearm ID could have helped. Assuming of course that the buyer who was using a welfare ID would not qualify for an official firearm ID in the first place. Isn't selling a gun to a criminal a crime? Didn't the welfare dude sell to a criminal? Doesn't that mean he committed a crime and he is now a criminal? So, he shouldn't have been able to purchase the gun in the first place. If there was some method of tracking purchases there would be potential for his ID to be rejected. I don't own a gun, not because I'm against owning guns, I just don't need one. I was under the impression that I would need to get a firearm ID here in Massachusetts before I could purchase/own a gun. Is my MA drivers license enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #74 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteHey, who needs personal responsibility when you've got lawyers? Who do you want to need personal responsibility? For a little money, I'll argue whomever you want. That is Kerry/Edwards stance as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #75 August 26, 2004 QuoteLooks like this businessman didn't have to read his mind. Looks like there were abundent other signs. So what about all those skydivers who are always pushing the limits and pushing their luck? Should drop zone owners ban them from skydiving, because everyone knows they are just an accident waiting to happen? After all, there are abundant signs that they might hurt themselves, therefore, according to your theory, the drop zone owners have a duty to ban them from their airplanes. And if the DZO's don't ban people who perform high-speed hook-turn landings, then they are personally responsible, and can be sued for the resulting injuries incurred. And then all our drop zones go out of business, and we all take up bowling as our weekend sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
