Court allows suit against gun dealer who sold to straw buyer before 2013 homicide

I have bought dozens of guns for my kids over the years here in California and we have registration. I go down, find the gun I want, have the clerk total up the price, tax, fees, and a few boxes of ammo. I then purchase an in store gift card for that amount and give it to my kid with along with the tally. They go down and make the purchase.[/QUOTE]

can I call you dad?

 

Except that isn't the only evidence. If you follow the links in the story to earlier stories and keep doing it a few times back you will see that one of the guns was paid for with her son's credit card. Since credit cards have names printed on them and the name on that one wasn't hers then they had should have known it was a straw purchase.

 

That's likely the type of evidence that allowed the lawsuit to go forward.

 

More or less. In a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view all facts in favor of the non-moving party. That would be a pretty tough fact to overlook. Now it is possible down the road the testimony at trial will be she lied and said it was her husband's or they had a machine and never looked at the card she swiped or something, but for now, the case marches toward trial.

 

Pray tell how would such prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that a straw purchase is transpiring rather than a legitimate transaction?

 

They shouldn't have taken the credit card anyway if not was not hers if they actually handled it in any way. Since I don't buy weapons, I don't know if they are required to handle plastic any different than the grocery store does, but at the end of the day, it is evidence that they should have known and the rest will come down to mom to close or open the gate for the defense.

 

Credit cards among family members are hardly regarded as being unusuable by anyone other than the one whose name is actually on the card.

 

Doesn't matter. Did they see the card and were they required to verify she was able to use it? Did they see the card and ask if she was buying for the person whose name was on the card? Did she say yes and explain he couldn't buy himself because he was nuts? You would be amazed by how many lawsuits turn on fine print in a footnote or subsection (f) of some law or regulation, and if you can find any violation, no matter how trivial, then it is damages damages damages and legal fees, legal fees, legal fees. They would do well to settle this thing if at all possible if there were any technical violations of any law or regulation.

 

Pray tell how would any of the above actually be proven? The only evidence that physically exists is a sales receipt, which shows the credit card company did not regard the purchase as being suspicious, and a federal form upon which the individual affirmed that she was the actual purchaser of the firearm. there is no way to prove any of the above hypotheticals, as the only ones who know what transpired at the federally licensed firearms dealer, and the individual who not only committed federal perjury, but apparently credit card fraud as well.

 

You don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial. Meh probably can be good enough for a jury.

 

Even if a jury agrees, the matter will be quashed on appeal by the courts once again reaffirming that the federally licensed firearms dealer did nothing legally wrong. Nothing of substance will ultimately come about of this, other than the plaintiffs once again being force to pay the court expenses of the dealer.

 

Well you can hope that is what will happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Appeals courts tend to like to uphold jury decisions.

 

Pretty sure none of us will be called to testify. This is definitely a "wait and see" case.

 

Sure. The reality is that the complainant still has an uphill battle. I despise the industry and would like nothing more to bankrupt them, but even if I were on the jury, you would have a tough time getting me from the transaction to the killings as far as liability short of mom saying, "Well they didn't even bother to ask about why I was using his credit card but I told them anyway I don't know nothing about no guns but this is the one my mentally unstable homicidal child wanted me to pick him up while I was out so I figure why not, at least he won't be trying to stab me with a butcher knife while I'm asleep...yet again."

 

....And here we have the heart of it. Deckel and his ilk "despise" a Constitutional right and all that's related to it, and will gladly do everything in his power to destroy the ability of the American people to exercise the right he finds so offensive. He's got no legitimate reason to "despise the industry" but he does it anyway.

Obvious totalitarian and hoplophobe.

 

To be frank, he's never tried to hide that position.

 

There is a section of the 4473 that is known as the qualifying questions. The first question asks whether the purchaser is buying this firearm for themselves. Any of the questions that are answered incorrectly is a reason to deny the purchase of a firearm. As someone who formerly sold firearms and did this paperwork, I will tell you that you can only tell them that they answered a question incorrectly and that you would not be able to sell them a firearm and that they would not be able to purchase a firearm from this store or any other in the chain for 30 days...That was company policy, not federal law. They went into our database which put them on a list with every store.

We also did this for suspected straw sales. The store is Academy Sports and Outdoors, and any sales associate can deny a sale for any reason that they feel disqualifies the purchaser...under the influence of alcohol or drugs, talking on the phone to another person about what gun to buy, etc.

The 4473 gives the dealer probable deniability...

 

Well nice of you to try to cherrypick a clause out of a wider argument on the merits of this case to divert the conversation away from the case at hand, but sorry if you think you found an aha! moment as in my twelve billion posts at this site, I have been very clear about this position I hold at least 500 million times.

 

And again, the question of the Century and yet unanswered by anyone, even if it was a strawman sale, why is the Gun distributor that sold the Gun to the F.F.L. that sold the Gun to his Mother, also named in the strawman suit ?

How is the distributor complicit ?

How could the distributor know a strawman sale would be conducted ?

Is a crystal ball required ?
A fortune teller ?
A psychic ?
What then ?

 

Your arguments have no merit. They are anti-constitutional and based in authoritarian control over the people by the State. As such, they have no place in discussion of policy in a nation dedicated to the protection of individual rights and personal liberties.

 

The discussion is about a lawsuit in Oregon not "policy as a nation" "individual rights" or "personal liberties". You should try to read the OP in threads at the very least before embarrassing yourself with straw man proclamations from atop Mount Olympus.

 

Get over yourself. I am dismissing your arguments in general, which includes discussions of policy at the national level. Your entire philosophy is corrupted, and frankly I think you'd be happier living someplace like North Korea; where you can revel in the government having complete control of every aspect of your life and nobody but the State has access to them eeeeeevil guns....

 

Yes. It means if it goes through that we can sue the car dealer for selling a car to someone in good faith and then that person let some drunk driver drive the car.

 

Evidence?