Dem pushing law to make sellers criminally liable for buyers' actions

[C-dub]

The stupidity of some never cease to amaze me. Given some of the idiot higher ups in the GOP at this time, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were to somehow become law. However, I seriously doubt it would ever hold up in court. This sounds eerily similar to those that would like to see a business that posts 30.06 signs be held responsible for a CHL that were injured during a robbery because they were left defenseless. Although, we used to say that was never going to happen, a McDonalds had a ruling go against them for something very similar. It did not involve a CHLee and I don't know if this is final yet.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/ ... reck.html/

That one is on the jury.

I didn't remember that. It probably won't hold up on appeal.

[b322da]

The stupidity of some never cease to amaze me. Given some of the idiot higher ups in the GOP at this time, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were to somehow become law. However, I seriously doubt it would ever hold up in court. This sounds eerily similar to those that would like to see a business that posts 30.06 signs be held responsible for a CHL that were injured during a robbery because they were left defenseless. Although, we used to say that was never going to happen, a McDonalds had a ruling go against them for something very similar. It did not involve a CHLee and I don't know if this is final yet.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2014/ ... reck.html/

That one is on the jury.

The description of the case as shown on the subject line of this thread omits one very significant word at its end, and what follows it. That word is "if." That is, as put in the last paragraph of Andy's post, the bill “would make gun sellers criminally liable for a bad sale if they didn’t take reasonable, affirmative steps to determine the customer met federal criteria."

That troublesome word, "reasonable," again.

It may well be that Andy, who we all know to be a very responsible commentator, ran out of room on the subject line, as it is limited in space. On the other hand, omitting the qualifiers, even if unintentional, changes the question posed, which, as usual, may well change the answer ultimately given.

I have inquired into the current status of this local case and will share my answer if I get one.

Jim

[b322da]

Deleted double post.

[b322da]

Double post.

[mojo84]

Jim, In regard to your comments about a lack of the qualifiers, "if" and "reasonable", how much more is a seller reasonably supposed to do above and beyond having the buyer complete the required form and do the background NICS check? The congressman/senator that is pushing this legislation referred to a situation in which the buyer bought from an FFL that followed the proper proceedures in order to help gin up emotional based support.

How much more is reasonable? When a private seller or FFL follows the law when selling a gun, how can they reasonably be held liable for the buyers actions? What am I missing?

[JALLEN]

How about the trial judge, Jim? He must have given the issue to the jury. If McDonald's attorneys did not file a motion for summary judgement before the case went to the jury I would perhaps fault them more than the jury.



Jim

Summary judgment is only available if there are no disputed material issues of fact for a jury to decide. It can be very tough to prevail on such a motion in a case like this.

I think lawyers routinely consider such a motion at various points in the progress of a case. When I was handling claims for a major title insurer, I sometimes found that they would recommend making such motions even when the hope of having one granted was de minimis as the preparation of such a motion can generate hundreds of billable hours, all indoor work and no heavy lifting!

MSJs are not impossible but rarely appropriately granted.

[cyphertext]

Pretty good companion piece to this thread, isn't it?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=79309

It is.... especially considering this gem from the article...

"Breitbart News has previously reported that vast majority of public attackers and alleged attackers pass background checks for their guns. These include Vester Lee Flanagan (Virginia), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta)."

These shooters all passed the NICS background check... So even if private sales were required to be handled via FFL and background check conducted, none of these shootings would have been stopped.

Just more knee jerk reaction from politicians who "have to do something", even though that something has already proven to not work.

[b322da]

Jim, In regard to your comments about a lack of the qualifiers, "if" and "reasonable", how much more is a seller reasonably supposed to do above and beyond having the buyer complete the required form and do the background NICS check? The congressman/senator that is pushing this legislation referred to a situation in which the buyer bought from an FFL that followed the proper proceedures in order to help gin up emotional based support.

How much more is reasonable? When a private seller or FFL follows the law when selling a gun, how can they reasonably be held liable for the buyers actions? What am I missing?

Mojo, frankly I do not have a clue. Jurors, from day to day, are required to decide what "reasonable"means. I have been asked by jurors many times just what "reasonable" means, and I have never been able to come up with a standard answer which satisfied both me and the juror. I have done my best by tailoring my answer to the facts and circumstances of the case before the jury. A judge cannot just say "I don't know -- you are on your own."

Here are a couple of efforts at defining "reasonable."

1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+standard

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Note the words in the latter, "there is no accepted technical definition."

Jim

[JALLEN]

Pretty good companion piece to this thread, isn't it?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=79309

It is.... especially considering this gem from the article...

"Breitbart News has previously reported that vast majority of public attackers and alleged attackers pass background checks for their guns. These include Vester Lee Flanagan (Virginia), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta)."

These shooters all passed the NICS background check... So even if private sales were required to be handled via FFL and background check conducted, none of these shootings would have been stopped.

Just more knee jerk reaction from politicians who "have to do something", even though that something has already proven to not work.

How many of those were later determined to have been mentally incompetent at or before the shooting, or when they acquired the weapons?

It is easy enough to to determine whether someone is disqualified from gun possession by reason of a felony conviction, not so easy when it comes to mental competence. Even psychiatrists can disagree, and make mistakes. If something like this becomes widely used, the Brady Bunch and their sycophants will get psychiatrists, many of whom seem to be as crazy as their patients in my admittedly limited experience, to diagnose gun owners as disturbed, and Bingo! No guns for you!!!

[b322da]

Deleted

[mojo84]

This just seems to be a slippery slope that favors stifling the selling and transferring of guns. In other words, back door to registry and gun control.

There is no reasonable way I can assess someone's current psychiatric status with regard to them being stable enough to own a gun much less their future psychiatric condition. In my mind, this is legislation is itself unreasonable.

[cyphertext]

Pretty good companion piece to this thread, isn't it?

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=79309

It is.... especially considering this gem from the article...

"Breitbart News has previously reported that vast majority of public attackers and alleged attackers pass background checks for their guns. These include Vester Lee Flanagan (Virginia), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta)."

These shooters all passed the NICS background check... So even if private sales were required to be handled via FFL and background check conducted, none of these shootings would have been stopped.

Just more knee jerk reaction from politicians who "have to do something", even though that something has already proven to not work.

How many of those were later determined to have been mentally incompetent at or before the shooting, or when they acquired the weapons?

It is easy enough to to determine whether someone is disqualified from gun possession by reason of a felony conviction, not so easy when it comes to mental competence. Even psychiatrists can disagree, and make mistakes. If something like this becomes widely used, the Brady Bunch and their sycophants will get psychiatrists, many of whom seem to be as crazy as their patients in my admittedly limited experience, to diagnose gun owners as disturbed, and Bingo! No guns for you!!!

That is the point... if they haven't been found to be mentally incompetent prior to the NICS check, or haven't committed any crimes up to that point, they will come back clean. There is no way for you to know what they may do after the sale. Holding the seller responsible for the buyers action is ludicrous. This is just a push to force universal background checks for every gun sale, both through a dealer and private.. but if the system isn't stopping murders with firearms sold by an ffl today, how is it going to be any different for private sales.

All it does is tie a firearm to a purchaser via form 4473... de facto registration.

[MechAg94]

I don't think the McDonald's case is related this law. That was a case where two guys dropped by the McDonalds to use the bathroom and were severely beaten. The people who beat them were there at an event set up by the McDonalds manager and a local radio station if memory serves. I thought there were some other issues with the case as well.