Milwaukee gun shop must pay ~$6 million to cops wounded by gun bought there

[Hkindiana]

So I guess when I get in an accident I'll blame the dealer I bought my car from. This is some ****ed up logic in today's society. Wow we really are headed in a bad direction here.

I think this is more akin to a car dealer knowingly selling a car to a minor, and the minor driving away causing a major accident and/or death. Yes, the car dealer SHOULD be liable for the damages/actions of the minor because it was ILLEGAL to sell the car to them. The same goes for this firearm transaction. Neither of these "examples" should set A PRECEDENT for ANYTHING other than being liable for ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess nobody here remembers bars being sued for over serving then the drunk hurting someone. The liquor industry still exists, as do bars. So something you know raises the odds of people being hurt, you have SOME liability when they do. How much is fact dependent.

 

[chipbennett]

I guess nobody here remembers bars being sued for over serving then the drunk hurting someone. The liquor industry still exists, as do bars. So something you know raises the odds of people being hurt, you have SOME liability when they do. How much is fact dependent.

How does an LGS making a sale of a firearm constitute "raising the odds of people being hurt"? What specific knowledge did the LGS have that would lead him reasonably to believe that selling a firearm to a specific purchaser would lead to people being hurt?

This is where I'm struggling. I get where the LGS potentially incurred some criminal liability, by conducting what he reasonably would conclude to be an illegal straw purchase. But that just means that the LGS would reasonably conclude that the firearm would be possessed by a "prohibited person". But there's a pretty far leap from "knowingly selling to a prohibited person via straw purchase" and "reasonably knowing that the specific prohibited person would use the specific firearm to harm someone".

There's the "common sense"/intuition perspective, and then there's the due process perspective. It is the latter that gives me pause.

 

[HoughMade]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think there should be a bright line that if the gun shop complied with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, lawsuits are preempted. Their only source of civil liability should be failure to comply with the applicable law. If the gvt. is going to highly regulate an industry, the benefit to the industry should be that compliance with the regulation insulates them from lawsuits claiming they should have gone above and beyond the regulation.

That's not a novel concept in the law and, in reality, is much how dram shop liability works.

In this case, that still may not have helped the store because it looks like there was some hinky stuff going on, but opening up gun stores for liability if they follow the law just because they "should have known" the gun was going to end up being used in a crime (which is ultimately the goal of this type of litigation) is a bad, bad thing for our rights.

I guess the ant-gun people are OK with profiling then?

 

[foszoe]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think there should be a bright line that if the gun shop complied with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, lawsuits are preempted. Their only source of civil liability should be failure to comply with the applicable law. If the gvt. is going to highly regulate an industry, the benefit to the industry should be that compliance with the regulation insulates them from lawsuits claiming they should have gone above and beyond the regulation.

That's not a novel concept in the law and, in reality, is much how dram shop liability works.

I would stand out on that limb with you but I don't know if it could hold the weight.

If a shop knowingly aids a purchaser to break laws specifically passed for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of a prohibited person, then they forfeit protection of law.

The burden of deciding the constitutionality of prohibited persons does not rest on the local gunshop owner

 

[silverspoon]

When I read the Second Amendment there is no mention of "prohibited persons". Therefore, I conclude this is bull chips covered with many flies. I guess it's hard to get blood out of a turnip {ie the broke SOB that done the shooting} so let's go after the poor SOB that has insurance that might cover this sort of false liability {ie the gun shop}.

 

[TTravis]

One time I was in a local gun store and it was obvious someone was wanting to make a straw purchase. The store was owned by a friend and he explained what happened later as we watched the security video. It went like this.

Gang banger in his pimped out car walks in store with his crack whore. He points out several 9 mm pistols, basically all in the showcase, and they both walk outside.
A few minutes later crack whore comes back in with a wad of cash wanting to purchase the guns. Crack whore does not have any idea what she is buying or anything at all about guns in general.

Store manager says no sale.

Stores have to be careful that they also do not get sued for some legitimate person being denied a sale. Profiling customers can be dangerous business.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

With that in mind, is it up to the judgement of the store to decide not to sell to someone that says they're buying it as a gift?

I bought one at Bradis once, and I'd briefly mentioned it was going to be a gift. They looked at me and said "don't say that."

The sale continued, I got the gun, and I gifted it.

They don't know who I was going to give it to. Would they be required to continue the sale, or are gun shops even allowed to sell if they know it's a 'gift'?

 

[T.Lex]

Gifts are not forbidden. Tricky, potentially, but not forbidden.

The problem becomes if the recipient is not allowed to have the gun.

If the gun shop has no reason to believe the recipient is a prohibited person, then there is no problem.

If the gun shop has a reason to believe the recipient is a prohibited person, then there is a problem. There are in infinite number of ways the person behind the counter might have reason to believe the person is a prohibited person.

 

[bigbaloo95]

The stores own video shows the kid apparently picking the gun he wants and his friend fills the paperwork out.I dont care if both were legal buyers this is still a no no in the eyes of the law.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The concept of prohibiting "straw purchases" is unconstitutional, because the concept of "prohibited persons" is unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural and civil right that is constitutionally protected against infringement.

My thinking on this is that if a person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they should be in prison. If the person is "safe enough" to be turned loose on the public, how can they be denied a basic human right? A person is either a danger to the public or they are not; ownership (or non-ownership) of a firearm does not change who a person is and does not change their natural inclinations. If a person is inclined to violate the rights of another, then keep him locked up, but if he is to be set free, then let him truly be free and rejoin the ranks as a full citizen who has been reformed.

Of course, this is how it SHOULD work, but I know that will never happen...so, since dangerous scum does freely walk among us (even though they clearly shouldn't be out and about), I think Hughmade is quite reasonable when he said:
"I think there should be a bright line that if the gun shop complied with applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, lawsuits are preempted. Their only source of civil liability should be failure to comply with the applicable law. If the gvt. is going to highly regulate an industry, the benefit to the industry should be that compliance with the regulation insulates them from lawsuits claiming they should have gone above and beyond the regulation."

I guess the bottom line is fix the justice system and the "prohibited person" baloney can go away, but since that will never happen (imperfect society) we are stuck with an imperfect 2A situation.

 

[HoughMade]

Where's the "prison" exception in the 2d Amendment?

 

[foszoe]

Hmm. Arm them all in prison, turn the guards into snipers, air drop in rations. The gang population would reduce the cost of the prison system. Sure I h a vent full fleshed this out, but it just might reduce costs! My pro death penalty position is one that has changed over the years, but this may be a way around it.

Where's the "prison" exception in the 2d Amendment?

 

[actaeon277]

Hmm. Arm them all in prison, turn the guards into snipers, air drop in rations. The gang population would reduce the cost of the prison system. Sure I h a vent full fleshed this out, but it just might reduce costs! My pro death penalty position is one that has changed over the years, but this may be a way around it.

Ever read any Heinlein. He had a concept called Coventry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)

Coventry by Heinlein reviewed

 

[HoughMade]

Hmm. Arm them all in prison, turn the guards into snipers, air drop in rations. The gang population would reduce the cost of the prison system. Sure I h a vent full fleshed this out, but it just might reduce costs! My pro death penalty position is one that has changed over the years, but this may be a way around it.

I see the attraction, but I'm not advocating it.

It's just that I keep hearing that the 2d Amendment has no exceptions..."what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" and other simplistic statements, yet no one has been able to accord this with prohibition of guns in prison, which most people seem to think is okey dokey.

 

[Woobie]

I see the attraction, but I'm not advocating it.

It's just that I keep hearing that the 2d Amendment has no exceptions..."what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" and other simplistic statements, yet no one has been able to accord this with prohibition of guns in prison, which most people seem to think is okey dokey.

We are also accorded property rights, freedom of speech, etc. All of these things can be taken away through due process. Why is it so many ignore due process when they say such things? I guess it's just easier to repeat a meme.

 

[chipbennett]

I see the attraction, but I'm not advocating it.

It's just that I keep hearing that the 2d Amendment has no exceptions..."what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" and other simplistic statements, yet no one has been able to accord this with prohibition of guns in prison, which most people seem to think is okey dokey.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by denying the possession of firearms to prisoners. It is not the "shall not be infringed" that is at issue in this circumstance; rather, it is "the people" - which reasonably includes free people, responsible for themselves.

Someone who is incarcerated is not a free person, responsible for himself. Rather, someone who is incarcerated is a ward of the State, and the State is responsible for that person. As such, the State gets to decide whether the incarcerated person may possess a given object or not.

 

[jamil]

 

[HoughMade]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by denying the possession of firearms to prisoners. It is not the "shall not be infringed" that is at issue in this circumstance; rather, it is "the people" - which reasonably includes free people, responsible for themselves.

Someone who is incarcerated is not a free person, responsible for himself. Rather, someone who is incarcerated is a ward of the State, and the State is responsible for that person. As such, the State gets to decide whether the incarcerated person may possess a given object or not.

So you would agree that it is not per se unconstitutional to restrict the rights of people to "keep and bear arms" even though such restrictions are not explicitly in the 2d Amendment? I would agree.

Oh, and the "the people" distinction, that's not the reason the prison restriction is constitutional. Prisoners still have most of their constitutional rights intact. It's constitutional because no constitutional right is absolute and they can all be restricted based upon the history, tradition and context of the rights when they were enshrined in the Constitution (how the right was understood when the Constitution was ratified). Also, restrictions on "fundamental" rights have been upheld when there is a strong, legitimate governmental interest that the restriction is closely related to and the restriction is narrowly tailored (no broader than necessary) to advance that interest. I am not as big a fan of this analysis as the "history, tradition and context" analysis, but it's the world we live in.

 

[chipbennett]

So you would agree that it is not per se unconstitutional to restrict the rights of people to "keep and bear arms" even though such restrictions are not explicitly in the 2d Amendment? I would agree.

Oh, and the "the people" distinction, that's not the reason the prison restriction is constitutional. Prisoners still have most of their constitutional rights intact. It's constitutional because no constitutional right is absolute and they can all be restricted based upon the history, tradition and context of the rights when they were enshrined in the Constitution (how the right was understood when the Constitution was ratified).

I disagree. Lawbreakers, after being found guilty through due process in which all of the rights of the accused are maintained, forfeit their freedom to exercise their rights unless and until their duly given sentence has been completed - including liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and even life. Prisoners are entitled to little more than basic human dignity (punishment cannot be cruel or unusual). Otherwise, there would be no means by which a duly instituted government, with the consent of the governed, can secure the individual rights of the (law-abiding) people.

In other words: a prisoner's rights have not been alienated (i.e. violated/infringed by another); rather, the prisoner has forfeited his rights, by virtue of having violated (i.e. alienated) the rights of another.

Also, restrictions on "fundamental" rights have been upheld when there is a strong, legitimate governmental interest that the restriction is closely related to and the restriction is narrowly tailored (no broader than necessary) to advance that interest. I am not as big a fan of this analysis as the "history, tradition and context" analysis, but it's the world we live in.

I'll consider that argument when the right to keep and bear arms is afforded the same deference of judicial scrutiny as all other constitutionally protected, individual rights: that is, strict scrutiny.