Trolley Square Massacre: Pawn shop owner hit with lawsuit over gun sale

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Trolley Square Massacre: Pawn shop owner hit with lawsuit over gun sale
By Melinda Rogers
The Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9132140


Updated: 9:47 AM- The firearms dealer who illegally sold Sulejman Talovic a pistol-grip shotgun should have known the 18-year-old planned to use the weapon for murder, a survivor of the deadly Trolley Square shootings claims in a lawsuit.
Stacy Hanson is suing Nevada-based Rocky Mountain Enterprises and a pawn shop chain it owns, Sportsman's Fastcash, for emotional and physical damages he and his wife incurred after the Feb. 12, 2007, shootings, according to documents filed in 3rd District Court on Thursday.
"I think that people who sell firearms need to be held to a higher level of responsibility. Guns do one thing: They're made to kill things," said Hanson, reached at his home on Thursday evening.
"I think I owe something to the people who died," he said of pursuing legal action against the gun sellers. "I made it out of there. I think this is one of those things that I can do to help their memories."
Hanson's suit also names gun dealer Westley Wayne Hill, who pleaded guilty in December to charges that he failed to keep proper records in the November 2006 sale to Talovic.
Trolley Square survivor Carolyn Tuft in February brought a suit against Rocky Mountain Enterprises with similar allegations to Hanson's lawsuit.
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Enterprises and Hill couldn't be reached for comment about either suit late Thursday.

Talovic killed five shoppers and injured four others before he was fatally shot by police. No motive for the shooting spree has been determined.
Hanson was shot three times by Talovic while shopping for a valentine for his wife at Cabin Fever. He was left paralyzed.
He returned to working full time in August at his job as an associate creative director for an advertising agency. Confined to a wheelchair after the shooting, he's regaining the ability to walk with the use of braces, he said. w=8.4
The road to rehabilitation has been a slow one.
"Some days I feel fine and some days I feel like crap," said Hanson, who will spend the rest of his life with shotgun pellets permanently ingrained in his spine.
"My body is still healing."
Hanson's suit states that the pistol-grip shotgun shouldn't have been sold to Talovic because it's not qualified as a rifle or shotgun under the Federal Gun Control Act and can't be sold to anyone under 21. Hill should have known Talovic was 18, the documents state.
Hill also failed to file necessary paperwork required when selling a firearm to a resident alien, making him culpable for selling the gun to Talovic, who was from Bosnia, the suit alleges.
The suit claims the pistol-grip shotgun doesn't serve a purpose other than for "military, law enforcement or criminal activities," and the gun dealer should have known Talovic would use the gun for murder.
Hanson said the amount of damages he is seeking hasn't yet been determined. He and his wife both suffered as a result of the shooting, the documents state.
"It's the right thing to do whether it succeeds or whether it fails," said Hanson of the lawsuit.
"I'm doing it for here and for Omaha, Virginia Tech and every place else."
 
hmmmm

I bought a pistol gripped shotgun once. Am I a Murderer?

I was given a hat once with the name of a famous racing team... does that make me a pro race car driver?

As to the "purpose"? How does home defense grab ya? How about, cuz its a free country, sort of.
 
Is his attorney that incapable of reading the GCA and finding out that his client will be laughed out of court?
 
well, the seller, the man, not the company should be punished for selling to a res. alien.

If he knew he was doing it.

Would they be suing if the kid had run over 18 people with an H2 before being shot by police? I think not.
 
Hill also failed to file necessary paperwork required when selling a firearm to a resident alien, making him culpable for selling the gun to Talovic, who was from Bosnia, the suit alleges.
Click to expand...

Well that should bring trouble if it was an illegal sale - the rest of the law suit is dribble with no basis in fact, but if this is CA - anybodies guess as to how it will go.

I like how they always sue for the good of mankind and all that crap - he's trying to turn it into a money machine . Sorry he got hurt, but it wasn't the guns fault - it was the shooter , and it sounds like he paid the price.
 
but if this is CA - anybodies guess as to how it will go.
Click to expand...

Utah, not California. Odds are, he will not have a good time with the court.

What paperwork, other than the normal, is required for a legal resident alien? I wasn't aware of any.
 
I think there is something about the pistol grip shotgun if it is the pistol grip only (PGO) without a full shoulder stock. I was shocked the first time I heard of this, as it didn't make sense. But I think a shotgun, as defined in federal law, has to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. A PGO is not intended to work that way, but its not a pistol either. What I've heard of dealers doing for people who want these and are under 21, is selling them a full stock shotgun and then selling the pistol grip as an accessory. Then, the new purchaser has to install the PGO stock himself. I don't think it is illegal for a person under 21 to modify a shotgun to PGO, but a dealer can't sell it like this.

Another one of those crazy rules that can get an FFL in trouble.
 
Wow, suing over technicalities. Pistol grips do indeed serve a purpose, they are more comfortable to shoot. Who the heck first thought that a grip design makes a gun more dangerous.
 
Don't rush to judgment *

Wow, suing over technicalities.
Click to expand...

...or possibly...suing over the law. In criminal defense cases, what are often called "technicalities" when a defendant beats a rap, should more properly be called "constitutional rights." :p

It is truly difficult to say that this case has no merit without understanding A) the facts alleged in the complaint and B) the law at issue in the complaint.

What we do know is that the gun dealer has plead out to a failure to keep records. Which is likely a reduced charge negotiated by his lawyers. If the dealer sold the gun in violation of the law...he might be on the hook for some kind of civil culpability. Same goes for his employer; as the individual named in the suit may have been acting as an agent of Rocky Mountain Enterprises. I don't know Utah law and I don't know what the complaint looks like...so I couldn't even begin to answer these questions.

So, if you are Mr. Hanson, and you have been permanently injured by a shooter, who was possibly provided a weapon illegally by an employee of a corporation...you might want to pursue you rights in a court of law against that individual and the company he works for.

It isn't all that different than say Dram Shop or Social Host liability...which in some jurisdictions, might allow a person who is injured by a drunk driver to sue the person and/or corporation that served the drunk driver. You will have to prove up several elements to the jury...but the law gives you a basis for the claim.

It is VERY possible that any of the issues raised by the illegal sale of the firearm (if there was one) will be cut off by the shooter's actions, relieving the dealer and the company of any liability...but who knows till the suit gets filed and the court gets a chance to figure it out?

I'm not saying I agree with the Mr. Hanson's contentions about firearms and/or lax control laws being the problem...but I also wouldn't rush to kick this suit out as frivolous.




* I'm not a lawyer...and I don't even play one on TV. :D
 
As I recall, the dealer was charged with a felony for having sold the guy the weapon.

The 21-for-PG shotty rule isn't all that well known, in large part because it's a sort of reverse loophole technicality in the law. The only real question I'd see that the prosecution needs to prove is that the firearm was sold in a pistol-gripped configuration, without a stock provided. ATF is a bit fuzzy on whether the stock must be attached when the weapon is sold, or merely be present, but either way it's not a crime for a dealer to sell a shoulder-stocked shotgun that includes a pistol grip (because it's legally a "shotgun" at that point).

If the prosecutor proves it, then I don't see any way that the dealer is going to beat the criminal charges. This civil case sounds like money-grubbing to me though, and one can only hope that the judge feels the same way.
 
  • I bought a Japanese Truck.. I guess I support the rape of nanking...
  • I bought a case of beer.. I guess I support underage drinking...
  • I bought pork chops.. I guess I support the cruel treatment of livestock

^
|

The above logic = the fail... bigtime

:barf:
 
Feel free to correct my math here:

"I think that people who sell firearms need to be held to a higher level of responsibility. Guns do one thing: They're made to kill things,"
Click to expand...

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence there are approximately, "283 million privately owned firearms in the U.S". source

According to the FBI, in 2006 there were 10,177 murders committed with a gun. source

That means that of the guns owned in the U.S. in 2006, only about .004% were used to hurt people.

Now, we don't know exactly how many animals are taken while hunting, so for the sake of proving the point we will be more generous to their side than our and only base our calculations on handguns, which make up about 40% of guns owned.

40% of 283 million is 113,200,000, and the number of handguns used in a murder was 7,795. This means that only .006% were used to kill someone.

So, if Mr. Hanson is correct and guns are only made to kill things, then virtually every gun owned in America (99.996%) isn't functioning properly.
 
Hanson's suit states that the pistol-grip shotgun shouldn't have been sold to <name redacted> because it's not qualified as a rifle or shotgun under the Federal Gun Control Act and can't be sold to anyone under 21.
Click to expand...
Is this true? I will give the benefit of the doubt here. But the dealer is responsible for knowing the law, as well as apparent failure to verify the murderer's immigration/citizenship status. If either of both of these things are true, the suit is not without some merit.

The firearms dealer who illegally sold <name redacted> a pistol-grip shotgun should have known the 18-year-old planned to use the weapon for murder ...
[...]
The suit claims the pistol-grip shotgun doesn't serve a purpose other than for "military, law enforcement or criminal activities," ...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: That is completely ridiculous as well as gratuitous, but ...

Hanson was shot three times by <name redacted> while shopping for a valentine for his wife at Cabin Fever. He was left paralyzed.
He returned to working full time in August at his job as an associate creative director for an advertising agency. Confined to a wheelchair after the shooting, he's regaining the ability to walk with the use of braces, he said.
The road to rehabilitation has been a slow one.
"Some days I feel fine and some days I feel like crap," said Hanson, who will spend the rest of his life with shotgun pellets permanently ingrained in his spine.
Click to expand...
:( What can anyone say to that? Let us not be too harsh on him.
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the dealer was charged with a felony for having sold the guy the weapon.
Click to expand...

So I would assume he pled down from the felony charge then. As I said before, this may have opened both him and his employer up to some kind of civil liability. Without knowing the nuts and bolts of the suit that has been brought it is difficult to say the suit is trumped up.

This civil case sounds like money-grubbing to me though, and one can only hope that the judge feels the same way.
Click to expand...

I would hope that the judge and jury would base their decision upon the law and the facts...rather than whether or not they think the claim is "money-grubbing."

can i sue the store that sold me some milk a week and a half back, as it went bad.
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether you can sue, the question is whether you can prevail. Did the bad milk cause permanent damage? Can you prove the store employees were negligent in selling you the milk post date? Were the employees acting in their capacity as agents of the grocery store?

So, if Mr. Hanson is correct and guns are only made to kill things, then virtually every gun owned in America (99.996%) isn't functioning properly.
Click to expand...

Mr. Hanson isn't correct. Guns are tools, or amoral instrumentalities. They are no better or worse than the person wielding them. They can be used to kill things (by things I assume Hanson means living things) and they can just as easily be used to defend things. Amoral. Neither good, nor bad, just present and functional. Sort of like the law in many respects.

Guns are designed to use contained explosions to hurl small chunks of metal at high velocity towards whatever they are pointed at. Which makes them not evil, but dangerous, so it isn't unreasonable to expect that people using them, or selling them, or making them, will act with that inherent danger in mind...and should be held accountable when they do not. So, if you are a gun dealer, who sells a weapon illegally to someone, you may get in trouble. Criminal trouble, civil trouble or both.
 
Wes Janson said:
This civil case sounds like money-grubbing to me though ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But if I were grievously injured, beset with huge medical bills (even insurance doesn't cover everything) and out of work for six months, I might "grub" too.
 
I recall reading that the seller was originally charged with a felony for selling a handgun to someone under age 21. The prosecutor had to drop that one when shown that putting a pistol grip on a shotgun does not make it a "handgun" -- it's still a longarm.

This link (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=459&sid=2247164) says that the seller plead to a misdemeanor for incorrectly marking the paperwork.

In other words: the guy conducted a legal sale but broke the law when recording it. Given that the sale is legal and, therefore still would have happened even if the paperwork had been proper, it doesn't sound like there's much there for victims to go after. It would be a stretch to claim that Talovic wouldn't have shot anybody if the sale had been properly recorded.


On an interesting-yet-totally-unrelated note, the pawnshop where this guy sold the gun to Talovic is Sportsman's Fast Cash, which is one of the many business holdings of the Kingston polygamist group.
 
This will be interesting to see how a court applies the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. The crime to which the seller pled was not that the sale was illegal, but that there was a paperwork error. It seems unlikely that the .gov would have pled the charge down if they could have proved that the sale was illegal.
 
I wonder how much money he plans to give to the estates of the deceased.
Click to expand...

Probably none...but if the case has merit, then estates of the deceased can join on in...and hopefully will. :D
 
This will be interesting to see how a court applies the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. The crime to which the seller pled was not that the sale was illegal, but that there was a paperwork error. It seems unlikely that the .gov would have pled the charge down if they could have proved that the sale was illegal.
Click to expand...
That was my thinking too.Based on the issue being a paperwork error, and that the gun would have been legally sold even if the paperwork were correct, and since the paperwork problem would not have changed the sale at all, I dont see that the suit has legal merit, personally.That said, I wouldnt be at all surprised if a jury sided with the guy and gave him a chunk of money. His injuries, and the fact the deal plead to anythng, regardless of wether or not it would have stopped the sale, will go a long ways in a juries eyes I think.

The dealers only hope in my opinion, is the suit gets tossed before going to a jury, based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act as Henry Bowman mentions.
 
Shotguns with pistol grips attached

In the last ATF Newsletter (August 1998) an
article stated shotguns with pistol grips and no
shoulder stocks attached were restricted to
persons 21 years of age or older if being sold by a
Federal firearms licensee. This requirement is
specified in 27 CFR § 178.99(b) and 18 U.S.C.
922(b)(1) (www.atf.treas.gov/core/regulations/
27cfr178.html), which states that if the firearm to
be transferred is other than a rifle or shotgun then
the purchaser must be 21 years of age. The
definition of a shotgun under the GCA [18 U.S.C.
§ 921(a)(5)] is a weapon "intended to be fired
from the shoulder." With the pistol grip in lieu of
the shoulder stock, this weapon is not designed to
be fired from the shoulder, and therefore is not a
shotgun.
Questions have been raised about those firearms
that are supplied with both a pistol grip and a
shoulder stock. If the firearm is sold with the
shoulder stock then the firearm is intended to be
fired from the shoulder and would be considered a
shotgun. The shoulder stock does not necessarily
have to be attached at the time. Persons 18 years
of age or older may purchase those firearms from
licensees.
Click to expand...
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fflnews_pub/ffl0299.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Q
  • Locked
Four Face Weapons Charges In Trolley Square Attack
Replies
18
Views
899
K-Romulus
K
S
  • Locked
Lawful commerce in arms act protection?
Replies
10
Views
888
OMGWTFBBQ
O
S
  • Locked
Most infuriating gun lawsuit in history
Replies
1
Views
217
Justin
Justin
C
  • Locked
Must be 21 to buy pistol-grip shotgun?
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
AnthonyC.
A
Q
  • Locked
Trolley Square Mall to be used as model for response
Replies
17
Views
1K
Coronach
C
Back
Top