[cuchulainn]

from the A.P. via the Louisville Courier Journal

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/08/03ky/met-4-prank08030-3059.htmlCourt says family entitled to trial on gun negligence

By BRUCE SCHREINER
Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. — The family of a woman shot in the face during a prank is entitled to a trial on whether the handgun was sold negligently to the teenage shooter, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.

The three-judge panel Friday sent the case back to Fayette County Circuit Court. The lower court had ruled the victim, Jennifer Hicks, and her family could not press a negligence claim against the Lexington gun shop.

Scott Greer, then 18, purchased the Jennings .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol one day before shooting Hicks in July 1996.

Greer pointed the gun at Hicks' head and pulled the trigger, thinking it was unloaded, to scare her. Hicks was driving a car at the time and Greer was a front-seat passenger. Hicks suffered a serious head injury, and Greer later pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault.

Greer bought the gun at Carol's Sporting Goods. The appeals court said evidence in the case showed that the store failed to follow its rules against selling handguns to 18-year-olds.

It was an employee for a jewelry store at the same location who sold the gun to Greer. The employee was also trained to sell firearms. The jewelry store is a defendant along with the sporting goods store.

Hicks' family claims that the gun sale was a "substantial factor" leading to the shooting. The appeals court ruled that the family could pursue a claim of common law negligence against the defendants.

Writing for the court, Judge Matthew J. Baker said Hicks' family is entitled to a jury trial on whether the sale was reasonable in light of a federal gun law and the gun shop's own rules.

The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits licensed gun dealers from selling any weapon other than a shotgun or rifle to anyone younger than age 21. Kentucky law does not have the same restrictions as federal law, and it is permissible to sell a firearm to someone younger than 21, the court noted.

Judges David Barber and Rick A. Johnson joined in the ruling.

On a separate issue, the appeals court upheld the lower court's decision that the alleged gun law violation did not give rise to a claim of negligence under Kentucky law.

[P95Carry]

Hmmm ....... the one big omission that the store maybe was guilty of was ...... assuming the guy was competant. I would have to assume, as a dealer, that any younger person might be aquiring their very first firearm ..... be it long arm, handgun, whatever.

Concommitant to that then would be a further assumption that said individual was not versed in firearms safety matters. I would feel duty bound to at the very least, explain and repeat several times the four rules of safety ...... the following of any one of those would have made this occurence way less deadly...... if not avoided it.

I would also wish to ensure that the purchaser was sufficiently competant in handling the weapon he was buying ....... meaning that again, I as supplier, would demonstrate basic handling and field strip etc.

These things take time but the ''novice factor'' is the one aspect that always gives me some cause for concern. The gun itself (despite make!!) is blameless ..... but the young guy certainly is not .... and he might have avoided this if he had had a bit of help up front.

Just theorizing ...........

[Standing Wolf]

Greer pointed the gun at Hicks' head and pulled the trigger, thinking it was unloaded, to scare her.

Who did the pointing? Who pulled the trigger? It appears it was the criminal, not anyone at the gun shop.

[jimpeel]

The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits licensed gun dealers from selling any weapon other than a shotgun or rifle to anyone younger than age 21. Kentucky law does not have the same restrictions as federal law, and it is permissible to sell a firearm to someone younger than 21, the court noted.Several years ago, some Supreme Court -- either of a state or the USSC -- ruled that an infant child whose diaper was searched for drugs, where the father had placed them, was entitled to their rights under the Constitution even if those rights were not understood because Constitutional rights are rights from birth. They threw out the conviction.

It seems that the only Constitutional right that has an age limitation -- it says so right there in the text of the Bill of Rights -- is the Second Amendment.