Unpossible
I thought the protection of lawful commerce in arms act was supposed to prevent lawsuits against gun dealers? Even if they’re getting sued because someone walked out of their store with a gun that they did not sell them.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure the PLCAA didn’t say, in effect, “no one can ever sue a gun manufacturer or dealer, for anything, ever.”
It seems to me there are questions of fact here that a jury should be able to decide. If we assume everything that the Plaintiff claims is true (yeah, I know, it’s a stretch, but hang in there with me), then it seems possible that the dealer was negligent in letting this guy get out the door with a gun he wasn’t able to possess legally.
All that being said, this is a far cry from the Bloomberg suits, which I think are pretty clearly prohibited by the PLCAA, and that judge should be kicked off the bench (or more) for his abuse of the defendants.
But this one strikes me as a lawsuit that’s within the realm of reasonability (is that even a word?).
August 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
But that’s what the brady bunch told me it did!!!
August 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
I agree, Uncle…the Brady’s ought to explain how this suit is happening.
What I want to know is, where are the ATF guys who were hammering Red’s Trading Post over irregularities on the forms?
There has to be a good explanation for why the security cameras weren’t working, the guy was left alone with store merchandise, and no paperwork was filled out…
Or, the news people are pulling stuff out of thin air.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
How about 18 encounters with law enforcement in 2 months? I think the police departments should be sued.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m with Boyd, this looks more like a case of suing for negligence than suing because the gun came from the store.
Since I don’t have an FFL, I don’t know offhand what the attached responsibilities of an FFL are, but I would assume one of those attached responsibilities is to make every reasonable effort to secure your stock against theft and illegal transfer. Leaving a customer alone with a un-purchased firearm in their hands is not the smartest move in the world, and then he failed to notice it was missing for several minutes? Every time I’ve gone shopping or browsing for a firearm, I had eyes on me at all times, and if the salesman had to leave, he asked for the weapon back and secured it before walking away.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Ah, I see.
I think we missed Uncle’s point, MRS. The Brady Bunch decried the PLCAA because, they said, no dealers or manufacturers could then be sued under any circumstances. Obviously, they were lying, and they knew they were lying.
And to prove that they were lying, they filed this lawsuit.
Need…more…coffee…
August 1st, 2008 at 11:34 am
From the Brady puppet site “GodnotGuns”
“When our Congressional representatives give the gun industry immunity from prosecution,”
I’m sure w/ a little searching, a similar statement can be found on their site.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Oh, I see, my bad.
Whenever I see or hear words from the Brady site, I get this high-pitched screeching in my head and I tend to turn to activities less painful, like hitting my thumb with a hammer.