Posted on Oct 13, 2015
Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers. Thoughts?
7.31K
52
67
7
7
0
Could this set the bar for further lawsuits against other gun stores that fail to follow the law?
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms Sales
Police
Firearms Sales Police
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 29
5
5
0
Alright... so before we get too up in arms about this. There is a "chain of events."
1) Cops Arrest "Thug" and get shot. - Crime #1
2) Thug was prohibited from owning firearm. He rolls on "straw purchaser." Straw Purchasing is a FELONY. - Crime #2
3) Investigation into Straw Purchase lead back to Gun Store, which has a "history" of Straw Purchases. They have changed Corporate Names & Businesses (but not owners) X times over the last few years to limit their Personal Liability. - Enter Civil Case
Judge Realizes that Gun Store OWNERS are Sleazy as hell, and are using Corporate veil to protect themselves from criminal activity. Says "Nope" and allows CIVIL CASE to move forward.
What this means is that you have an Accessory Before the Fact, since the Dealer was NOT acting in "good faith" (within the law). This opened them up to Civil Action.
It doesn't mean that the "Thug" wasn't responsible, but it does mean that "through an unlawful act" the store was ALSO "partially responsible" and can be held liable.
Honestly, I can't see fault in this particular case.
Remember, we're dealing with the difference between Civil & Criminal law here. It's like OJ. Different rules.
1) Cops Arrest "Thug" and get shot. - Crime #1
2) Thug was prohibited from owning firearm. He rolls on "straw purchaser." Straw Purchasing is a FELONY. - Crime #2
3) Investigation into Straw Purchase lead back to Gun Store, which has a "history" of Straw Purchases. They have changed Corporate Names & Businesses (but not owners) X times over the last few years to limit their Personal Liability. - Enter Civil Case
Judge Realizes that Gun Store OWNERS are Sleazy as hell, and are using Corporate veil to protect themselves from criminal activity. Says "Nope" and allows CIVIL CASE to move forward.
What this means is that you have an Accessory Before the Fact, since the Dealer was NOT acting in "good faith" (within the law). This opened them up to Civil Action.
It doesn't mean that the "Thug" wasn't responsible, but it does mean that "through an unlawful act" the store was ALSO "partially responsible" and can be held liable.
Honestly, I can't see fault in this particular case.
Remember, we're dealing with the difference between Civil & Criminal law here. It's like OJ. Different rules.
(5)
(0)
CPL Scott Krause
The difference is negligence, doesn't have to do with shootings or anything, the bad business practices is what they were found guilty of, they did not do their due diligence while selling guns.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 (Join to see) - "If" Car Dealerships had a Legal Responsibility to ensure that the people they sold cars to were not Prohibited from owning them, and the forms they filled out, didn't specifically ask if the Cars were intended for a "Prohibited Person."
This is more akin to Alcohol or Tobacco. If a convenience store sells booze to someone who is underage (illegal act), and that person gets into a collision, you can then go after them, because they violated the law. If they carded the person, and the ID was "good" no foul. If the ID was "bad" it opens up liability.
This is more akin to Alcohol or Tobacco. If a convenience store sells booze to someone who is underage (illegal act), and that person gets into a collision, you can then go after them, because they violated the law. If they carded the person, and the ID was "good" no foul. If the ID was "bad" it opens up liability.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S This dealership (FFL Holder) had been previously investigated for "widespread" issues.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S I've heard in the realm of 500~. The ATF had them on their radar for revocation under one of their previous "incarnations" (previous owner, previous "company," same location). I give a better decription in my response to CPT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I am probsecond amendment and a retired cop. If their not following the laws and someone is injured or killed because of their improper actions they should be sued.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
They must have had evidence to support their claim of the owners or operator at the time having knowledge that the person who was purchasing the weapon was a "straw buyer". If the Gun shop was knowingly participating in this type of activity then they deserved to loose this civil suit. Keep in mind the requirement for a civil suit regarding proof is not the same standard as a criminal case.
Next question is where are the Feds on this case? ATF?
Next question is where are the Feds on this case? ATF?
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
I agree. I hate the analogy, but I am going to use it anyway. If a person drives drunk, they face consequences. IF that same person does it repeatedly, they lose their license. Why? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Selling firearms is a privilege, not a right. If these people are constantly violating the rules for selling firearms, they should lose their license, not be allowed to re-open under a new name.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) It looks like the ATF was actually doing "some" due diligence on this, however they have legal and bureaucratic constraints.
The problem you run into is the "Corporate Veil" and how it affects things. This case highlights how "bad players" can manipulate things, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Here is the sequence of events:
1) Father is FFL holder. ATF is going to "revoke" his FFL license.
2) He decides he is going to shut down shop (before revocation). No revocation, no foul.
3) Son applies for own FFL, and opens up shop, at SAME LOCATION. Different company name.
The ATF "can't" consider that. They are different people, and different companies. The location is technically irrelevant. It's just a good spot for a gun store.
Make sense?
CC: PO3 Steven Sherrill
Now, the Judge (Civil Case) CAN look at that, and realize there is "shady" things happening.
The problem you run into is the "Corporate Veil" and how it affects things. This case highlights how "bad players" can manipulate things, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Here is the sequence of events:
1) Father is FFL holder. ATF is going to "revoke" his FFL license.
2) He decides he is going to shut down shop (before revocation). No revocation, no foul.
3) Son applies for own FFL, and opens up shop, at SAME LOCATION. Different company name.
The ATF "can't" consider that. They are different people, and different companies. The location is technically irrelevant. It's just a good spot for a gun store.
Make sense?
CC: PO3 Steven Sherrill
Now, the Judge (Civil Case) CAN look at that, and realize there is "shady" things happening.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - CPT (Join to see)
After re-considering this case, I think the civil penalties are going to be more painful than any criminal penalties could be. If the family cared about obeying the law, then they would have prevented the illegal sales. Their unwillingness to deny the sales shows that they are only interested in the money. So by taking mass quantities of money in civil penalties, they are actually being punished in a far more personal manner.
After re-considering this case, I think the civil penalties are going to be more painful than any criminal penalties could be. If the family cared about obeying the law, then they would have prevented the illegal sales. Their unwillingness to deny the sales shows that they are only interested in the money. So by taking mass quantities of money in civil penalties, they are actually being punished in a far more personal manner.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Steven Sherrill I'm a big proponent of "escalating self interest." In this specific case, the Civil Route does that.
I'm not saying that is always the correct action, but if you want to stop someone from doing something, figure out how to hurt them. The wallet is an effective means. If you want someone to do something... figure out what motivates them...
I'm not saying that is always the correct action, but if you want to stop someone from doing something, figure out how to hurt them. The wallet is an effective means. If you want someone to do something... figure out what motivates them...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google