Acera
Member
And he wants to get paid, so you go where the money is. You can bet some lawyer is in his ear telling him: "I'll make you rich!!"
.
Last edited:
Wounded Indianapolis officer confronts law protecting gun sellers
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
And he wants to get paid, so you go where the money is. You can bet some lawyer is in his ear telling him: "I'll make you rich!!"
.
"Then, hours later a dude comes in and buys a gun, you're supposed to sit there and stare at every person that buys a gun and think,..."
Frank made the point a couple of times that these cases depends on the specific facts, which we don't have for this case.
Ryanxia's comment is an example - he's implicitly assuming a set of facts - a busy store, nothing memorable about the customer, etc. That's one of the possible sets of facts, and a set that would argue against liability.
But there are other possible sets of facts. Suppose Alice and Bob visit the store. Alice picks out a gun, while Bob is uninterested - he spends the whole time playing Angry Birds in a corner of the store. When Alice is filling out the 4473 she asks about the 'No convictions' part: "What's this? Are you saying I can't buy a gun because of a bull**** 20 year old 2nd degree murder conviction for killing a dude who totally deserved it?". The clerk says, sorry, that's what it means. She leaves in a huff.
Hours later Bob comes back. It was a slow day, and the clerk instantly recognizes him. Bob says 'Uh, yeah, I decided I want to buy a ...(pulls out a note) 'Glack? Glock? something like that, in ...uh ... 9 caliber'.
Now, I don't think straw purchase laws actually do much good. Even if the clerk sends Bob packing, Bob and Alice have learned, and they'll just visit another store with a more polished act. But I also think that, with those facts, a reasonably prudent clerk ought to refuse to sell to Bob, and if a reckless clerk sells anyway, the clerk can't escape liability. This isn't a gun specific thing; if you loan your car to your obviously blind drunk friend, you should be liable.
It's important to not assume one or another set of facts, and then extrapolate a conclusion to the general case.
Frank made the point a couple of times that these cases depends on the specific facts, which we don't have for this case.
Ryanxia's comment is an example - he's implicitly assuming a set of facts - a busy store, nothing memorable about the customer, etc. That's one of the possible sets of facts, and a set that would argue against liability.
But there are other possible sets of facts. Suppose Alice and Bob visit the store. Alice picks out a gun, while Bob is uninterested - he spends the whole time playing Angry Birds in a corner of the store. When Alice is filling out the 4473 she asks about the 'No convictions' part: "What's this? Are you saying I can't buy a gun because of a bull**** 20 year old 2nd degree murder conviction for killing a dude who totally deserved it?". The clerk says, sorry, that's what it means. She leaves in a huff.
Hours later Bob comes back. It was a slow day, and the clerk instantly recognizes him. Bob says 'Uh, yeah, I decided I want to buy a ...(pulls out a note) 'Glack? Glock? something like that, in ...uh ... 9 caliber'.
Now, I don't think straw purchase laws actually do much good. Even if the clerk sends Bob packing, Bob and Alice have learned, and they'll just visit another store with a more polished act. But I also think that, with those facts, a reasonably prudent clerk ought to refuse to sell to Bob, and if a reckless clerk sells anyway, the clerk can't escape liability. This isn't a gun specific thing; if you loan your car to your obviously blind drunk friend, you should be liable.
It's important to not assume one or another set of facts, and then extrapolate a conclusion to the general case.
Ryanxia said:
On the other hand, in post 22 I cited a case in which the dealer did become suspicious and reported his suspicions to the ATF -- resulting in the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of the perpetrators.
This ^
And this^
But especially this^
kludge said:
kludge said:
All the usual "tin-foil-hat" claims for which no one supplies any substantial evidence. And in fact the federal government does prosecute straw purchase cases.kludge said:
jcwit
member
I've watched straw sales here in No. Indiana. Purchases made for those who have no picture ID.
Did you report each of them? If not, it appears that you violated 18 USC 4:jcwit said:
Of course, maybe we shouldn't necessarily credit your claim. After all, you've told us:
jcwit said:
cjwils
Member
I had been assuming that a gun store in Indianapolis was probably relatively large, as are most gun stores in my area. In that case, the sales person a few hours later could easily have been a different person who did not see the original pair of customers. However, the OP used a quote that mentioned KS&E Sports. If you google that, you get the link below. Looks like a very small place, so I think the likelihood of different employees is reduced.
http://www.hoosiergunworks.com/ks_e_sports.html
http://www.hoosiergunworks.com/ks_e_sports.html
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Hopefully the statute of limitations has run out on your heinous crime. [emoji33]
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
newfalguy101
Member
In a busy shop all faces begin to look alike. Unless the shopper does something unusual to draw attention to themselves, they are just one more face in the crowd
Again, maybe yes, and maybe know. There is no way to make a categorical statement on the point. It is not always true that someone won't remember, nor is it always true that someone will.newfalguy101 said:
Furthermore, how can you assume that in the case being discussed here the shopper(s) didn't do one or more things to make the incident memorable?
We know very little about the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and therefore we can reasonably make any assumptions about what the dealer could or should have noticed or remembered. As I wrote previoulsy:
In general the statute of limitations on federal crimes is five years. That's the default, and some crimes have longer statutes of limitations. But that's pretty much beside the point.X-Rap said:
- The gun shop isn't being charged with a federal crime.
- The guy who wound up with the gun could be charged with the straw purchase as an accomplice/co-conspirator, but he's dead. The guy who made the straw purchase could also be charged with a federal crime, And we don't know what happened to him. For all we know, he could have been prosecuted and convicted; or he could have disappeared.
- In any event, this is neither a criminal case nor a federal case. It is a tort (civil, personal injury case) in Indiana state court under Indiana law. The applicable statute of limitations is two years. Since the case was filed in 2013, it wasn't time barred.
jcwit
member
Well it's definitely been over the time limit.
Myself, I have never been a party to a straw purchase.
Last edited:
jcwit
member
YUP! Thats how it works. I've worked retail for years, and other than the same customers who come in often, you pay little to no attention, unless like you say something unusual happens to draw attention to them.
Heck our store was even broken into and robbed, and I was questioned as to whether I locked certain doors, I locked them every night for over 10 years, could I swear to it? Not really! Everynight looked the same!
So that's how it worked for you, in your experience. But you are not everyone, and others may well have had different experiences. And different situations are different situations.jcwit said:
And for the purposes of this discussion, your experiences are irrelevant. What would be relevant would be information about exactly what happened that day at KS&E Sports. And since we don't have that information we have no basis upon which to assume that what did happened wasn't sufficiently significant to be memorable.
Twiki357
Member
My first question is the size of the store and the number of people working the counter. I have a couple of gun stores near me that have anywhere from two to six people working the counter at any given time depending on the number of customers. So, was it the same clerk in which case maybe he should have been suspicious? Or was it someone else on the counter when the purchaser bought the gun? No indication in the news article.
To many questions with answers not addressed in the news article.
To many questions with answers not addressed in the news article.
jcwit
member
I'm beginning to think someone has an axe to grind with me in regards to my posts and experience in the retail world.
Ah well,may it be what it will be, I guess!
In regards as to what actually happened that day at that particular store, there is no one posting here that has any idea, as no one here was there!
Therefore most of this thread is irrelevant, at least IMO.
Ah well,may it be what it will be, I guess!
In regards as to what actually happened that day at that particular store, there is no one posting here that has any idea, as no one here was there!
Therefore most of this thread is irrelevant, at least IMO.
Yes, so it's fatuous to discuss it, and folks' theories about why someone won't remember something have nothing to do with the lawsuit.jcwit said:
Well, at least this thread tells us that many folks who posted here hadn't bothered to actually read the article. The article tells us almost nothing about the substantive allegations of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, i. e., what went on in the gun shop. Yet most posters seem to want to focus on that.jcwit said:
But the article focuses on the issue currently before the courts, i. e., whether the allegations made by the plaintiff get around certain protections the gun shop has against civil liability.
According to the article, the gun shop asked the trial court to toss out the lawsuit at the very start. The trial ruled that the lawsuit could continue, and the Indiana court of appeals agreed. The question is now before the Indiana Supreme Court, and oral arguments were just held in the case.
So what could we be discussing based on what the article tells us:
- First, there's the question of what law or laws the gun shop says should prevent the lawsuit from going forward. There's federal law -- the Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). And apparently there's also an Indiana law which the gun shop claims immunizes it against the lawsuit. So what do those laws provide and how can they or can they not protect the gun shop?
- There was apparently a ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals in this. Perhaps someone could have found that ruling and provide a citation or link, so that we could have read and discussed what the court of appeals said about the immunity issue.
newfalguy101
Member
Well...........based on the fact I made no mention of the case at hand and was replying in a general way to a question asked in a general way:
I would say my reply was generally accurate
CoalTrain49
Member
How do you determine if the person not buying the gun isn't a qualified purchaser? They aren't the one who is filling out the paperwork and getting the NICS check.
The person who is filling out the paperwork is the one that is fraudulently filling it out and getting a proceed.
Mostly, I think something would have to be said by the purchaser that would indicate a straw purchase or possibly money trading hands at the point of sale, something like that.
The NICS check is a bunch of hokus pokus BS. I think if a system like that is to work a through BC needs to be made over a period of weeks and a card issued that is good for 5 years or until it is revoked like a DL or passport.
NICS is an abject failure. Even the FBI admits it.
Red Wind
Member
An abject failure is putting it kindly. As with all gun control laws instituted since the Founders, it has again been proven that only law abiding citizens are affected by the Byzantine labyrinth of over 22,000 worthless infringements of the Second Amendment.
- Status