Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
We've refused service to people who ask about buying a gun for someone who cant otherwise buy one, despite having the "Dont Lie for the Other Guy" posters around the store.

Filling out the 4473 incorrectly/lying is a felony. This FFL was an idiot. You dont have to take drastic measures in order to lower your level of liability, what this guy did was negligent bordering on unethical/criminal behavior.

I saw something in a gun store once, where someone with badly done jail house tats was in with his mother. He was there in his wife beater, sagging pants, bandana and she was prim and proper. He was leading the transaction on purchasing an AR15 but he kept saying that it was for her. She had no idea what she was buying, no idea what she was going to use it for, and had no interest in the rifle at all. The fella behind the counter was having a great time stringing them along but refused the sale.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't think that there is any law against selling someone a car when they are drunk. You might be able to suggest that the contract is invalid due to the purchaser being drunk and therefore potentially lacking capacity. There is not even any legal requirement (as far as I am aware) to not hand over the keys and give them a cheery wave as they drive off.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not illegal for someone who is drunk to own a vehicle. Its only illegal for them to operate one.

Bingo

 Ouze wrote:
I agree they're probably dirty, but this seems like a dangerous precedent. However, I don't know what the jury knew.

I think I'd want to hear what specifically they counseled them on regarding the NICS form.

All of this. As Cuba Gooding, Jr. once said "Show me the [evidence]."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/badger-guns-to-surrender-license-police-say-132048768.html
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518507.html
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518507.html

]Here are some articles from our local newspaper written in 2006 and 2010. it goes over a little more about their involvement in straw purchases and also notes that in 2006 with a license change it wiped the slate clean of the 17 years previous that they had been under investigation. like I said in my last post I new this was the place to illegally purchase a gun in the early 90's. every time the cops get close the guy with the license gives it up and another family member or acquaintance gets one, changes the name, and hits the reset button.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Bingo

So how exactly is it more like the issue with selling and purchasing guns if there is absolutely zero onus on the car dealer not to sell and hand over the keys to and watch drive off a drunk person?

While a gun seller can (potentially) be in hot water for selling a gun to someone for a straw purchase?

How big a problem is the sale of cars to drunk people? I mean, what are the numbers per 100,000 population per year?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
So how exactly is it more like the issue with selling and purchasing guns if there is absolutely zero onus on the car dealer not to sell and hand over the keys to and watch drive off a drunk person?

While a gun seller can (potentially) be in hot water for selling a gun to someone for a straw purchase?

There seems to be a misunderstanding in that you are focused solely on the criminal law. This was a civil action that was taken owing to the negligence of Badger Guns.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669538.page#8240578

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Your analogy would be better if you considered that the car dealer was selling a vehicle to someone who was intoxicated. Both cases concern negligence by the seller.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/669538.page#8241142

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Is it a dangerous precedent? This looks like the application of pre-existing tort law. The defendants at the time they were in business owed a duty of care when carrying out these transactions, and prima facie it appears that they were negligent on an almost industrial scale.

Cars is a really silly example. The laws concerning their sale and ownership are very different.

A closer example would be porn. To buy porn, you need to be 18 years old (by law) but we all know that the industry just doesn't give a gak, and neither does anyone else

 LordofHats wrote:
Cars is a really silly example. The laws concerning their sale and ownership are very different.

We are discussing the tort liability of the sellers, and negligence when selling a product to others when you have reason to believe that person should not own/operate the item.

 LordofHats wrote:
A closer example would be porn.

It really wouldn't.

In terms of negligence and selling things to people who aren't legally supposed to have them, it totally is

 LordofHats wrote:
In terms of negligence and selling things to people who aren't legally supposed to have them, it totally is

Please state the harm caused to third parties that the seller ought to have reasonably known by willfully selling porn to an ineligible person.

Maybe Cigarettes are a better example. Its illegal to buy them for people who are underage, and to knowingly sell them to someone who will in turn give them to someone who is underage.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
In terms of negligence and selling things to people who aren't legally supposed to have them, it totally is

Please state the harm caused to third parties that the seller ought to have reasonably known by willfully selling porn to an ineligible person.

Mom could have had a heart attack when she finds the porn. Or that poor guys girlfriend could have been hurt when he thinks it's normal to skip foreplay

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Please state the harm caused to third parties that the seller ought to have reasonably known by willfully selling porn to an ineligible person.

That's not what I'm getting at. The Law says only people of X age can buy porn, and sellers can be sued/charged for knowingly or negligently selling to minors (but never are, because for all the outrage about porn, reality is very few people are surprised or care that 16 year olds look at porn).

Grey Templar is right though. Cigarettes are a much more comparable example (or beer cause the same thing often happens).

 LordofHats wrote:
That's not what I'm getting at.

That's what I have been getting at. Consistently. Because that was the basis for this lawsuit. And the basis for why I am saying that your comparisons leave something to be desired.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Law says only people of X age can buy porn, and sellers can be sued/charged for knowingly or negligently selling to minors (but never are, because for all the outrage about porn, reality is very few people are surprised or care that 16 year olds look at porn).

Reality is that very few people do not care when a seller provides a weapon to someone he reasonably ought to have known was ineligible.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
That's not what I'm getting at.

That's what I have been getting at. Consistently. Because that was the basis for this lawsuit. And the basis for why I am saying that your comparisons leave something to be desired.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Law says only people of X age can buy porn, and sellers can be sued/charged for knowingly or negligently selling to minors (but never are, because for all the outrage about porn, reality is very few people are surprised or care that 16 year olds look at porn).

Reality is that very few people do not care when a seller provides a weapon to someone he reasonably ought to have known was ineligible.

Actually a lot of people do care about a seller providing weapons to someone who he legally cannot sell to.

Guns are not the same thing as cars or cigarettes or porn.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Actually a lot of people do care about a seller providing weapons to someone who he legally cannot sell to.

Please re-read what I said - "Reality is that very few people do not care when a seller provides a weapon to someone he reasonably ought to have known was ineligible."

If very few people do not care about something then the obvious conclusion from the sentence is that more people care than don't.

Yeah I always got the sense people cared a lot about this whole 'gun' thing. It's not like we literally have bi-weekly threads on the subject around here or anything