Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Gun Store Sued For Selling Guns Legally
I just caught a story posted at Free Republic about a settlement of $1 million paid by a store that sold a gun that ended up being used to grievously wound two police officers. The story goes something like this:
---
Store sells 12 guns (legally) for around $4,000 to a woman with no criminal record.
Woman turns around and sells those guns (illegally) to people with criminal records and who, therefore, were unable to buy the guns themselves.
The day after the woman buys the guns, the store gets suspicious and reports the sale to the ATF.
The store agrees to cooperate with the ATF in a sting and the next time the woman tries to buy guns for another straw sale she is arrested.
At least one of the guns in question are used to wound two police officers, forcing them to retire.
The store is sued (along with Ruger and the gun distributor, Acusport).
---
Obviously something bad has happened here. Two police officers were shot. That is always a particularly serious situation and must be dealt with severely and completely. However...
On the bright side the person making these illegal straw sales possible was apprehended thanks to the active cooperation of the store where the first sale occurred. You’d almost think that the store would get a thank you card for recognizing the possibility that something fishy was going on. Instead, they get sued and end up settling for a million bucks. Does anyone else see anything inherently wrong with this scenario?
I’ll tell you what it teaches me, if I were selling guns (legally) and suspected that straw sales were being conducted, it might just be better to ‘not notice’ and be ‘completely surprised’ later if there’s ever an investigation.
What was this store supposed to do?
The only answer is to not have made the first straw sale. That’s a serious problem, however, because the woman who bought the guns had every right to do so. Are we going to start setting a de facto limit on the number of guns I can buy in a given day? Humm?
I know all the gun control nuts would just love that, it would be the perfect foot-in-the-door-that-opens-onto-the-slippery-slope, now wouldn't it?
So I’ll ask again: How could the store have avoided litigation?
I, for one, have absolutely no idea.
|
---
Store sells 12 guns (legally) for around $4,000 to a woman with no criminal record.
Woman turns around and sells those guns (illegally) to people with criminal records and who, therefore, were unable to buy the guns themselves.
The day after the woman buys the guns, the store gets suspicious and reports the sale to the ATF.
The store agrees to cooperate with the ATF in a sting and the next time the woman tries to buy guns for another straw sale she is arrested.
At least one of the guns in question are used to wound two police officers, forcing them to retire.
The store is sued (along with Ruger and the gun distributor, Acusport).
---
Obviously something bad has happened here. Two police officers were shot. That is always a particularly serious situation and must be dealt with severely and completely. However...
On the bright side the person making these illegal straw sales possible was apprehended thanks to the active cooperation of the store where the first sale occurred. You’d almost think that the store would get a thank you card for recognizing the possibility that something fishy was going on. Instead, they get sued and end up settling for a million bucks. Does anyone else see anything inherently wrong with this scenario?
I’ll tell you what it teaches me, if I were selling guns (legally) and suspected that straw sales were being conducted, it might just be better to ‘not notice’ and be ‘completely surprised’ later if there’s ever an investigation.
What was this store supposed to do?
The only answer is to not have made the first straw sale. That’s a serious problem, however, because the woman who bought the guns had every right to do so. Are we going to start setting a de facto limit on the number of guns I can buy in a given day? Humm?
I know all the gun control nuts would just love that, it would be the perfect foot-in-the-door-that-opens-onto-the-slippery-slope, now wouldn't it?
So I’ll ask again: How could the store have avoided litigation?
I, for one, have absolutely no idea.
|
