Court: Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Court: Shooting Victim Can Sue Gun Maker, Distributor.


ERASER
10-06-2012, 12:51
http://www.newsmax.com/US/shot-victim-sue-gunmaker/2012/10/06/id/458898

JBnTX
10-06-2012, 12:54
Then I'm suing Burger King and McDonalds for making me fat.

:eat:

ERASER
10-06-2012, 12:55
Bostic traveled to Ohio, which does not require a license to buy a gun, to procure a large numbers of handguns, including the pistol used to shoot Williams


Can someone here who is from Ohio clear something up for me?

Can an out-of-state- person even buy a gun from a gun dealer in Ohio?

Even if Ohio doesn't require a "license" to buy a gun, aren't they still required to run a background check based on the 4473 form? If so, why didn't that check find out that he was a felon?

oldman11
10-06-2012, 13:01
Boy, the communist blood suckers are at it again.

TheExplorer
10-06-2012, 13:03
Can an out-of-state- person even buy a gun from a gun dealer in Ohio?

That's a federal law, so no.

Even if Ohio doesn't require a "license" to buy a gun, aren't they still required to run a background check based on the 4473 form? If so, why didn't that check find out that he was a felon?

Yep. The Ohio statute prohibits any person with any drug conviction from receiving a license, as well as any person convicted of a felony and those who have been convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes of violence within three years.

vikingsoftpaw
10-06-2012, 13:07
Can someone here who is from Ohio clear something up for me?

Can an out-of-state- person even buy a gun from a gun dealer in Ohio?

Even if Ohio doesn't require a "license" to buy a gun, aren't they still required to run a background check based on the 4473 form? If so, why didn't that check find out that he was a felon?

Only Long Arms. Handguns no. There is boarder state compacts with neighboring states to allow this. This is the case for liecensed FFL holders.

The article is somewhat vague. It implies that someone was moving firearms 'out the back door'.

Sam Spade
10-06-2012, 13:14
Anyone that can tell me how they got around the "Firearms in Lawful Commerce Act"?

Bren
10-06-2012, 14:00
Can someone here who is from Ohio clear something up for me?

Can an out-of-state- person even buy a gun from a gun dealer in Ohio?

Even if Ohio doesn't require a "license" to buy a gun, aren't they still required to run a background check based on the 4473 form? If so, why didn't that check find out that he was a felon?

No. he can't legally buy a handgun in any other state, no matter what state he lives in. 18 USC 922. That includes both dealer and individual sales. You may as well say he went to Ohio to buy crack because they don't require a crack license.

The buy is also suing in New York, even though it looks like none of the parties he is suing had enough contact with New York to allow them to have jurisdiction (personal jurisdiction and service of process being the only issues I have ever litigated in New York).

Not much chance that will stand up in the long run, for several reasons, including an intervening/superseding criminal act, is my guess.

oldman11
10-06-2012, 15:25
IT looks like the attorneys lied to get the judgement through; and either the judge was to dumb to know any better, or just went along with the lie in an attempt to screw gun companies and/or gun dealers and gun owners.

jp3975
10-06-2012, 16:19
Anyone wonder what would happen if Obama got another justice in the supreme court and this case came before them?

IndyGunFreak
10-06-2012, 16:50
Anyone that can tell me how they got around the "Firearms in Lawful Commerce Act"?

Pretty simple just from reading it.... The commerce wasn't lawful.

This sort of activity wasn't intended to be protected by the act (I suspect you know this)... Selling to felons, illegally selling to out of state residents, likely weren't using 4473's (as this is a clear violation)..

I'm not sure the manufacturer is liable, but I'd certainly say there's some culpability on the part of the dealer (again, assuming everything in the article is accurate).

Drilled
10-06-2012, 17:01
Anyone wonder what would happen if Obama got another justice in the supreme court and this case came before them?

This.

VA27
10-06-2012, 19:58
No. he can't legally buy a handgun in any other state, no matter what state he lives in. 18 USC 922. That includes both dealer and individual sales...

You CAN buy a gun in any state, but it has to be delivered to an FFL in your state of residence before you can take possession of it.

boomhower
10-06-2012, 20:19
I can see where they are going with this. I don't completely agree unless they can prove that they knew what the dealers were doing. This isn't the old they made the gun used to shoot me lawsuit. They are saying they knew that the guns were being sold illegally. I can see them being allowed to make that argument. Now whether it's true or not is another animal entirely.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 01:17
I can see where they are going with this. I don't completely agree unless they can prove that they knew what the dealers were doing. This isn't the old they made the gun used to shoot me lawsuit. They are saying they knew that the guns were being sold illegally. I can see them being allowed to make that argument. Now whether it's true or not is another animal entirely.

So let us expand this. Should Gubmint Motors and the dealer be liable if a dealer sells a car to an illegal alien without valid drivers license and injures someone with a car (this happens more than people believe)?

Expanding on this, should there be background check to buy a car (i.e. valid license, no DUIs, etc)?

GAFinch
10-07-2012, 06:19
Anyone wonder what would happen if Obama got another justice in the supreme court and this case came before them?

Bingo. Get the federal law prohibiting lawsuits on gun manufacturers overturned, then get most or all of them sued out of existence.

Sam Spade
10-07-2012, 13:25
Pretty simple just from reading it.... The commerce wasn't lawful.

This sort of activity wasn't intended to be protected by the act (I suspect you know this)... Selling to felons, illegally selling to out of state residents, likely weren't using 4473's (as this is a clear violation)..

I'm not sure the manufacturer is liable, but I'd certainly say there's some culpability on the part of the dealer (again, assuming everything in the article is accurate).

The last is what I was getting at. It's absurd to think that the manufacturer illegally sold to the distributor. Since "distributor" is usually wholesale, it's absurd to think that the distributor illegally sold to the retailer.

So as presented, there should be no suit above retail under the Act.

Fox
10-07-2012, 13:34
Anyone that can tell me how they got around the "Firearms in Lawful Commerce Act"?

Democrats have been packing the courts with liberal activist judges for many decades.

Remember in November.

boomhower
10-07-2012, 13:51
So let us expand this. Should Gubmint Motors and the dealer be liable if a dealer sells a car to an illegal alien without valid drivers license and injures someone with a car (this happens more than people believe)?

Expanding on this, should there be background check to buy a car (i.e. valid license, no DUIs, etc)?

It's my understanding that they are alleging that the manufacturer and distributer knew the dealer was selling illegally and continued selling supply. If they can prove that, then yes they are partially responsible. Your analogy doesn't quite work, it's not illegal for an illegal to posses a car.

Oddly enough it's not illegal for an illegal to posses a gun, at least according to the last ICE agent we contacted.

M&P Shooter
10-07-2012, 13:53
Can I sue Obama for destroying my country?

IndyGunFreak
10-07-2012, 13:58
So let us expand this. Should Gubmint Motors and the dealer be liable if a dealer sells a car to an illegal alien without valid drivers license and injures someone with a car (this happens more than people believe)?

Expanding on this, should there be background check to buy a car (i.e. valid license, no DUIs, etc)?

Interesting argument, but invalid. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

FL Airedale
10-07-2012, 14:03
Judges that allow this are only doing it to pursue their own anti-gun agendas.

Two years ago I was hit by an uninsured drunk driver. He was over 21, so it wasn't illegal for him to drink.

If I filed suit against General Motors, the dealership that sold the car, the liquor store that sold the alcohol and the manufacturer of the the alcoholic beverage, any honest judge would throw it out of court.

You can't hold a manufacturer or distributor responsible unless they did something illegal or negligent.

boomhower
10-07-2012, 14:30
Judges that allow this are only doing it to pursue their own anti-gun agendas.

Two years ago I was hit by an uninsured drunk driver. He was over 21, so it wasn't illegal for him to drink.

If I filed suit against General Motors, the dealership that sold the car, the liquor store that sold the alcohol and the manufacturer of the the alcoholic beverage, any honest judge would throw it out of court.

You can't hold a manufacturer or distributor responsible unless they did something illegal or negligent.

Again, they are alleging they knowingly distributed to a dealer they knew sold illegally. This isn't the I got shot so I'm suing the manufacturer argument. It's a completely different argument and a valid one if they can prove it.

Sporaticus
10-07-2012, 17:20
Wouldn't the BATFE be responsible for licensing "irresponsible dealers"? OR, how is the dealer irresponsible if he is licensed by the BATFE?

ray9898
10-07-2012, 18:25
Again, they are alleging they knowingly distributed to a dealer they knew sold illegally. This isn't the I got shot so I'm suing the manufacturer argument. It's a completely different argument and a valid one if they can prove it.

Yup...people keep overlooking it.

Fox
10-08-2012, 00:26
Again, they are alleging they knowingly distributed to a dealer they knew sold illegally. This isn't the I got shot so I'm suing the manufacturer argument. It's a completely different argument and a valid one if they can prove it.

That the dealer had an FFL is enough to assume that the dealer is compliant with the laws.

This is a junk lawsuit with purely political motivations.

dre23
10-08-2012, 00:55
That the dealer had an FFL is enough to assume that the dealer is compliant with the laws.

This is a junk lawsuit with purely political motivations.

I would like to see more information before deciding if it is a junk lawsuit. The dealer having his FFL does not guarantee that every single transaction has been complaint. I generally believe that a manufacturer or distributor should be exempt from lawsuits, unless it is proven they sold to someone breaking the law. It is doubtful they would. Manufacturer or distributor typically has no contact with the actual retail buyer, but if they have proof the retail seller is in fact selling illegally they should report them, and I feel should refuse to sell to them. The story in the link does not go into enough detail, but my impression is that is the allegation is.

Bren
10-08-2012, 05:58
Again, they are alleging they knowingly distributed to a dealer they knew sold illegally. This isn't the I got shot so I'm suing the manufacturer argument. It's a completely different argument and a valid one if they can prove it.

So they have to prove that a distributor, who sold him stuff by mail, when he called in orders, knew this and ATF didn't. Then they have to prove that a manufacturer who had never heard of the guy knew it.

There is roughly ZERO chance of it being true and about 1% chance of proving it.

Drain You
10-08-2012, 06:50
The headline made sense with reading just reading the first 3 words of the article.

boomhower
10-08-2012, 17:59
So they have to prove that a distributor, who sold him stuff by mail, when he called in orders, knew this and ATF didn't. Then they have to prove that a manufacturer who had never heard of the guy knew it.

There is roughly ZERO chance of it being true and about 1% chance of proving it.

I didn't say they were right or going to win. I said they have the right to try and prove it.

reel1
10-09-2012, 11:53
So if he would've been hit with a rock, is he gonna sue God, too? Stupid.

wjv
10-09-2012, 14:08
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is representing Williams. . .

:upeyes:

Fox
10-10-2012, 22:46
I would like to see more information before deciding if it is a junk lawsuit. The dealer having his FFL does not guarantee that every single transaction has been complaint. I generally believe that a manufacturer or distributor should be exempt from lawsuits, unless it is proven they sold to someone breaking the law. It is doubtful they would. Manufacturer or distributor typically has no contact with the actual retail buyer, but if they have proof the retail seller is in fact selling illegally they should report them, and I feel should refuse to sell to them. The story in the link does not go into enough detail, but my impression is that is the allegation is.


It is the ATF, not a distributer or manufacterer, that must determine if a dealer is not compliant with the laws.