It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Store Fined $6 Million For Selling Gun Used To Shoot Cop

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: pcgamer11
dailycaller.com...


I think honestly this is crap. How is the Dealer supposed to know? There are many times, when a new gun owner will go into a store with an experienced one, to help coach him on his first purchase. That does not mean it is a straw purchase. I fail to see the evidence that this gun dealer was responsible. Your thoughts?


Pcg


Well, bartenders can be held accountable if someone drinks and drives.

If law enforcement starts to hold stores who sell guns liable for the actions of their patrons, it would make people a lot more reluctant to sell guns without checks (especially at gun shows etc)
edit on 13-12-2015 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
If law enforcement starts to hold stores who sell guns liable for the actions of their patrons, it would make people a lot more reluctant to sell guns without checks (especially at gun shows etc)


You cannot hold people liable for illegal use of products that they sell. The dealership in question is being held liable because they sold the product to someone illegally and without properly vetting the purchase.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies


Well, bartenders can be held accountable if someone drinks and drives.

Posted on the first page. We could also add that stores can be fined for selling cigarettes to minors, and/or anyone buying cigarettes for minors can be arrested and fined.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Businesses take out liability insurance for problems that their services and products cause.

Guns are the only product in the world that are designed to KILL PEOPLE when used CORRECTLY.

The is NO reason that businesses that sell guns shouldn't be held responsible when their products are used in exactly the manner intended for them.

Professional people around the world have insurance for things that occur when their services don't work properly, it's time that when products are DESIGNED to KILL that people who sell them have some responsibility for the actions of the items that they sell.

If a bartender can be sued if someone has a drink and kills someone when they drive afterwards, a gun shop owner can certainly be held responsible if they sell someone a gun that's then used in a crime.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: babybunnies
If law enforcement starts to hold stores who sell guns liable for the actions of their patrons, it would make people a lot more reluctant to sell guns without checks (especially at gun shows etc)


You cannot hold people liable for illegal use of products that they sell. The dealership in question is being held liable because they sold the product to someone illegally and without properly vetting the purchase.


It's may be an illegal use, but it's definitely the INTENDED use.

Guns are DESIGNED to KILL PEOPLE.

It's the use for which they were intended, therefore the person selling them should be held responsible for their use.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux

Every person in the world with a kid has the a child point at things and say, "That's the one I want."

Every group of people in the world who window shops will point to things and say to one another, "That's the one I want."

It could mean everything, and it could mean nothing.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
(especially at gun shows etc)


There really is no gun show crime problem and person to person sells are minimal at these events. So you pass a background check and buy a gun then go home and shoot your hubby, is the store liable?



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

So, you are basically saying that if I buy a gun and go hunting with it or simply target shoot, I'm doing it wrong?



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
It's may be an illegal use, but it's definitely the INTENDED use.

Guns are DESIGNED to KILL PEOPLE.


Firearms are designed to expel a projectile at high velocity, what you point them at is your prerogative.


It's the use for which they were intended, therefore the person selling them should be held responsible for their use.


Sorry, the law disagrees with you.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Xtrozero

Personal responsibility is paramount.



I truly wish everyone in America would agree with that too. It seems everything is the systems fault and never the individual who did the screw up or failure.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You cannot hold people liable for illegal use of products that they sell. The dealership in question is being held liable because they sold the product to someone illegally and without properly vetting the purchase.


But the guy was legally able to buy it though the paperwork was screwed up. The guy giving the gun to a minor is not something a background check will catch. The store should lose their licence, and most likely get a fine, but they should not be held fully accountable for what the buyer and kid did.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
But the guy was legally able to buy it though the paperwork was screwed up.


If a legally eligible purchaser was making a straw purchase and it can be established that the dealer in question was aware then I do not have an issue with them being fined. They give legal firearm purchasers a bad name and they broke the law.





edit on 13-12-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Xtrozero

Personal responsibility is paramount.



I truly wish everyone in America would agree with that too. It seems everything is the systems fault and never the individual who did the screw up or failure.


If we shifted blame on to the individual, then we wouldn't have any reason to ban people from having guns in general.

Think about it; if we can prove that the system can't ensure that the guns stay out of the hands of the "wrong people," then we can indict the system itself which means it needs to go because it doesn't work. No system = no guns because there just isn't any way to keep those guns in the right hands. Safer no to try.

And on the other end, we work really hard to make the system so restrictive no one can have guns legally.
edit on 13-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

If a bartender can be sued if someone has a drink and kills someone when they drive afterwards, a gun shop owner can certainly be held responsible if they sell someone a gun that's then used in a crime.



How about bullets? How about a bat used to kill, or selling a car to someone who is a poor driver? So the Bartender makes the drink and hands it to the guy, so how about if the shop owner loads the gun and hands it to the kid to shoot the cops...
edit on 13-12-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

If a legally eligible purchaser was making a straw purchase and it can be established that the dealer in question was aware then I do not have an issue with them being fined. They give legal firearm purchasers a bad name and they broke the law.



I'm just saying that would be pure conjecture and almost impossible to prove. The 6 million fine was pure emotions with no real empirical facts involved, not the way I want my legal system to work.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm just saying that would be pure conjecture and almost impossible to prove. The 6 million fine was pure emotions with no real empirical facts involved, not the way I want my legal system to work.


I will be honest and say that I am not familiar with all the details of this case but if the purchaser was selecting a handgun that the person unable to obtain one was pointing at, the dealer was able to see this and subsequently sold that firearm to the purchaser who then gave it to the one not able to purchase I would say it was pretty compelling the dealer knew what was going on.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Think about it; if we can prove that the system can't ensure that the guns stay out of the hands of the "wrong people," then we can indict the system itself which means it needs to go because it doesn't work. No system = no guns because there just isn't any way to keep those guns in the right hands. Safer no to try.


We can never do that without losing a lot of freedoms. We can lower all speed signs to 15 MPH to reduce the 30,000 killed every year too. We can do lot's of things too in reducing major numbers of deaths like put everyone on a healthy diet and ban all foods that are not 100% healthy for a person, but no matter what we do it will not stop 2.5 million people dying every year in the US.

When we come down to it we are debating about 8,000 murders out of 330 million people with the vast majority of them done in about 25 places in America. People do evil stuff and people die, but is that 8,000 the #1 thing we need to fight over all the other stuff that adds to the 2.5 million deaths?



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I will be honest and say that I am not familiar with all the details of this case but if the purchaser was selecting a handgun that the person unable to obtain one was pointing at, the dealer was able to see this and subsequently sold that firearm to the purchaser who then gave it to the one not able to purchase I would say it was pretty compelling the dealer knew what was going on.


But did the dealer see it, did the dealer know anything other than the guy was helping the buyer to pick out a gun. If the two walked up to the dealer and said I'm buying a gun for my friend here who can not buy a gun and they have proof of this then the store is fully to blame too. If they do not have that then as I said it is pure assumptions based on nothing but emotions...



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: pcgamer11

From the source:



Jason Collins, the “straw buyer,” purchased the gun for Burton, who was underage. A video of the purchase shows Burton and Collins at the store together as Burton obviously points at one of the guns and says “that’s the one that I want.”





Prosecutors pointed out that in the last decade, the store has been among the worst in the nation for selling guns that would later be used in crimes, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


My thoughts: If true, it seems quite clear that a) it should have been obvious that it was a straw purchase and b) that this is not just a fluke.


I'm with you but,

I couldn't help but to think,

Then the dude woulda sued the gun shop
for not selling him the weapon.

Either way...
Looks like that shop was going down ffinancially.




What a train wreck,
Before a train wreck.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I understand that.

You understand that.

But there are a lot of people who, even if they see it, frankly don't care because they think somehow the world will magically become a better place.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join