Despite a mother’s plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm. Here’s why she sued.

[MilesTeg]

Eagle I understand what your saying about having the ability to turn down a sale at anytime for any reason. I feel like this is double edged sword here. It can be used to really stop a bad situation, but misused could have just as deadly results. Let's say the mother called the FFL saying the daughter was suicidal because of a recent break up. Then the daughter get hints from her ex that he plans on killing her. She then goes to the gun store to purchase a gun for self defense. The FFL turn her away then her ex murders her. Now is the FFL liable for arbitrarily denying her right for self defense?

 

[Snappo]

The transfer was not unlawful.

You can debate whether it was unwise or not, but it was not unlawful, and the seller correctly indicated that on the forms.

TBH, being a woman, it would have been far more likely for her to have used poison than a firearm. I'm sure we would not be having this discussion if the mother called walmart and asked them not to sell her anything poisonous.

I agree it's unwise (as opposed to unlawful), but a civil court said it was unlawful and awarded $2.2M as a penalty, right?

 

[GOPerfect]

I agree it's unwise (as opposed to unlawful), but a civil court said it was unlawful and awarded $2.2M as a penalty, right?

Not being an ass, a civil court did not say his actions were unlawful. they awarded based upon feelings, nothing more and nothing less.

Feelings hurt need to be taken out of the court system, both criminal as well as civil.

 

[eagleridge357]

The transfer was not unlawful.

You can debate whether it was unwise or not, but it was not unlawful, and the seller correctly indicated that on the forms.

TBH, being a woman, it would have been far more likely for her to have used poison than a firearm. I'm sure we would not be having this discussion if the mother called walmart and asked them not to sell her anything poisonous.

I agree with you about the lawfulness of the transfer. I stated that 2 or 3 times. When the dealer made the decision to transfer, it became a lawful transfer. HOWEVER, the plaintiff does have legal standing in the lawsuit, regardless of the legality of the transfer (Legal standing is required to be present in order for the court to allow the lawsuit to proceed-without legal standing, no lawsuit). IE, EVEN IF the transfer is completely LEGAL, the decision by the dealer to make the transfer can be legally challenged on the basis of the information provided to him. This IS THE PLAINTIFF"S LEGAL STANDING, the decision-making process in light of available information made by the dealer when he made a professional evaluation of the fitness for possession of this firearm by this woman.

The legality of the transfer is NOT being questioned by plaintiff. Any FFL should keep this point in mind when they have information BESIDES what has been stated on the Form 4473 and the NICS response. Your signature to section D means you are accepting legal responsibility for the transfer. Selling poisonous chemicals at Walmart is NOT the same because there is no accepted liability by the clerk or the company's buyer, as long as the product is legally bought and sold according to federal law. The FFL dealer is in a UNIQUE position in having to make final evaluation of the legality of the transfer, like it or not. This case proves just that. This lawsuit would not have made it before a judge unless the court saw legal standing of the plaintiff.

 

[GOPerfect]

Your signature to section D means you are accepting legal responsibility for the transfer.

You are accepting legal responsibility of the TRANSFER. Not for the actions of the killer.

If this were true, each and every FFL or dealer that sold a gun that was used in a crime SHOULD be accountable for each and every action of the criminal.

One more very slippery slope.

 

[eagleridge357]

Eagle I understand what your saying about having the ability to turn down a sale at anytime for any reason. I feel like this is double edged sword here. It can be used to really stop a bad situation, but misused could have just as deadly results. Let's say the mother called the FFL saying the daughter was suicidal because of a recent break up. Then the daughter get hints from her ex that he plans on killing her. She then goes to the gun store to purchase a gun for self defense. The FFL turn her away then her ex murders her. Now is the FFL liable for arbitrarily denying her right for self defense?

Must stay with the legal aspects. If the FFL has no reason to believe that the transfer is unlawful, and is able to defend that position, then he can make the transfer responsibly. In this case, FFL cannot defend his decision, therefore loses the suit.

 

[MilesTeg]

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just having a hard time coming up with the same conclusion as you. So if someone calls you and tells you not to sell a gun to someone as an FFL you wont? We don't know what was said between the FFL and the murder, maybe she convincingly talked about target shooting. Personally I think its wrong to require a FFL to be the judge here. I can understand refusing a sale I think any business own has that right, but to be held liable for a "legal" sale is crazy. Let me follow up with legal meaning of proper age, qualification(i.e. a pistol permit in this crap hole of a state), and pass federal check.

 

[eagleridge357]

You are accepting legal responsibility of the TRANSFER. Not for the actions of the killer.

If this were true, each and every FFL or dealer that sold a gun that was used in a crime SHOULD be accountable for each and every action of the criminal.

One more very slippery slope.

With all due respect, your logic in that comment is quite faulty. The FFL was penalized for a faulty decision-making process in evaluating the legality of the fitness for possession of the firearm, not for killing someone. The lawsuit would be appropriate even if no murder or even no shooting took place. The FFL made a very bad decision. This court views it as a SERIOUSLY bad decision. Just making an observation based on what took place.

 

[eagleridge357]

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just having a hard time coming up with the same conclusion as you. So if someone calls you and tells you not to sell a gun to someone as an FFL you wont? We don't know what was said between the FFL and the murder, maybe she convincingly talked about target shooting. Personally I think its wrong to require a FFL to be the judge here. I can understand refusing a sale I think any business own has that right, but to be held liable for a "legal" sale is crazy. Let me follow up with legal meaning of proper age, qualification(i.e. a pistol permit in this crap hole of a state), and pass federal check.

If the ATF decides that it is wrong for the FFL to make final evaluation as to the legality of the fitness for possession, then ATF should modify their policy and change the 4473. That is not in the works. So, yes, like it or not, the FFL is forced to make a final evaluation of fitness.

 

[eagleridge357]

I'm not saying your wrong I'm just having a hard time coming up with the same conclusion as you. So if someone calls you and tells you not to sell a gun to someone as an FFL you wont? We don't know what was said between the FFL and the murder, maybe she convincingly talked about target shooting. Personally I think its wrong to require a FFL to be the judge here. I can understand refusing a sale I think any business own has that right, but to be held liable for a "legal" sale is crazy. Let me follow up with legal meaning of proper age, qualification(i.e. a pistol permit in this crap hole of a state), and pass federal check.

The caller made a statement to the effect that her daughter was seriously mentally ill and should not be allowed to possess. The dealer admitted to having that conversation. The dealer had a choice to 1) take the call as a complete hoax and BS and therefore ignore it completely, or 2) take the caller seriously and act accordingly, using that information as a basis to refuse (or postpone) the transfer. He/she opted for #1, and made the sale. That is a professional evaluation of information given to him (besides the replies in Form 4473 and the NICS response) that he used to make his professional determination that this woman was, indeed, fit to possess a firearm. His "GUESS" that the caller was not being truthful, was lying, was drunk, was kidding, was hoaxing, etc etc is what the plaintiff is focusing on, NOT THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE. Again, NOT THE LEGALITY OF THE SALE. The incompetence of the FFL in making such an egregious evaluation when the opposite evaluation had just as much weight in favor of it, is what this is about. It was a coin toss, not a professional evaluation. I would have sued also. This dealer made a BIG mistake. Think of it this way. FFL could have played safe and told woman that he had to check on the verity of the caller's information before making the transfer. "Please come back when I have obtained confirmation that this information is correct (or incorrect)" would have saved him a lawsuit and higher insurance rates on his business, no doubt, and he still would have made the $60 profit had the caller been BSing. Very simple and professional. You may think otherwise, no problem. I just cannot see it any other way. NO, I do NOT think the FFL is responsible for the murder, just plain stupidity and incompetence that cost several people considerable heartache and pain.

 

[MilesTeg]

If the ATF decides that it is wrong for the FFL to make final evaluation as to the legality of the fitness for possession, then ATF should modify their policy and change the 4473. That is not in the works. So, yes like it or not, the FFL is forced to make a final evaluation of fitness.

Honestly FFL's are really stuck in hard place here. Too bad it never went to court and had a precedence set. I still lean on the side the FFL is in the right. Should a car salesmen be held liable if someone's mom call and says don't sell my daughter a car she's the she had found suicide note about her killing herself in a car? I think its ridiculous to hold the FFL liable as long as the sale is legal as stated.

 

[GOPerfect]

This is another one of those, we'll never know. We were not at the store at the time of sale. Sure, the dealer said she was a bit off, but who's to know exactly how she was acting. As for the phone call, whatever, maybe she just didn't like guns. The mother said she called the Police, FBI and others; none of them took it seriously. How come?

Maybe the mom is a bit nuts as well.

Sure the dealer had the choice not to sell, but he was NOT required not to sell. This is a tough decision to make by the seller; sell and hope nothing bad happens, don't sell and get sued for some sort of discrimination.

BTW, I am 100% against the 4473 and Background Checks. Whole different subject, but why do we need them for only one Constitutional Right?

I digress......

 

[Bob]

I agree it's unwise (as opposed to unlawful), but a civil court said it was unlawful and awarded $2.2M as a penalty, right?

Incorrect. It did not go to trial. There was no verdict. He settled without an admission of responsibility.

 

[Snappo]

Not being an ass, a civil court did not say his actions were unlawful. they awarded based upon feelings, nothing more and nothing less.

Feelings hurt need to be taken out of the court system, both criminal as well as civil.

Never sued or been sued, so I am not exactly pro at that shit. But I do know OJ was referred to as being guilty (by the fake news of course) based on being found guilty in that civil case.

 

[GOPerfect]

Never sued or been sued, so I am not exactly pro at that shit. But I do know OJ was referred to as being guilty (by the fake news of course) based on being found guilty in that civil case.

Yep, and that was wrong as well. None of are pros, just a bunch of guys bitching about life around us.

 

[spat]

With all due respect, your logic in that comment is quite faulty. The FFL was penalized for a faulty decision-making process in evaluating the legality of the fitness for possession of the firearm, not for killing someone. The lawsuit would be appropriate even if no murder or even no shooting took place. The FFL made a very bad decision. This court views it as a SERIOUSLY bad decision. Just making an observation based on what took place.

Except you have already admitted that the sale was perfectly legal, so the FFLs judgement about it being a legal sale was completely correct.