Cabela’s Faces Lawsuit After Man Who Purchased Antique Firearm Committed Murder

[Aim1]

According to the article Bass Pro is gonna have to pay out.

From the article:

"So why did Cabela’s sell Claren the firearm, despite his criminal record and violent past? It appears the retailer made the sale because it complied with federal law rather than Ohio state law.

As a police officer and chief investigator for the Stark County Coroner’s Office explained, federal law did not require Claren to undergo a background check to purchase the replica of the antique firearm. However, Ohio’s state law did require a background check."



https://bearingarms.com/micah-r/2018/08/08/cabelas-facing-lawsuit/amp/

Cabela’s Faces Lawsuit After Man Who Purchased Antique Firearm Committed Murder

Posted at 3:00 pm on August 08, 2018 by Micah Rate

Outdoor retailer Cabela’s is facing a lawsuit after one of its stores sold a firearm to a man prohibited from owning one. The man, now 69-year-old Paul Claren of Ohio, later used the gun to murder 21-year-old Bryan Galliher in 2016.

According to The Columbus Dispatch, Cabela’s sold Claren an 1858 Army .44-caliber black powder revolver in 2014, along with a black powder loading kit nearly a year and a half later:

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh, wonderful .... now some dingbat politico is no doubt going to subject blackpowder firearms to modern NICS check laws.


I hope none of those politicos discover that BP guns can be ordered over the 'net and be delivered to one's front door via UPS!

But I hold out no hope such luck will apply ......

 

[ontarget]

Is the next panic buying going to be 1851 Colt repros? Or maybe Brown Bess repros. Now that would be interesting.

 

[troy fairweather]

if they can take one they an take them all up to us to stop it.

 

[AlexanderA]

Oh, wonderful .... now some dingbat politico is no doubt going to subject blackpowder firearms to modern NICS check laws.

It should go in the other direction -- "antiques" should be redefined as anything over 100 years old. After all, the present 1898 cutoff was only 70 years prior to 1968, the year it was instituted.

Then "curios and relics" would be anything less than 100, but more than 50, years old.

 

[Pat Riot]

The knucklehead bought the gun in 2014. Committed the crime in 2016. They are suing in 2018. If I were on the jury these dates and the time span would play a big part in my thinking that the family is out for a pay off.

http://www.the-daily-record.com/new...las-for-selling-gun-to-killer?template=ampart

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I agree it fails the smell test!

 

[ATLDave]

The knucklehead bought the gun in 2014. Committed the crime in 2016. They are suing in 2018. If I were on the jury these dates and the time span would play a big part in my thinking that the family is out for a pay off.

http://www.the-daily-record.com/new...las-for-selling-gun-to-killer?template=ampart

NOT LEGAL ADVICE: Of course the plaintiffs are out for money. That's what 99% of lawsuits are about. Since courts don't have the power to bring people back to life or regrow severed limbs or make people young again or any of that stuff, they have to use money to compensate people when bad stuff happens that is someone else's (legal) fault.

As for the time, that's what statutes of limitations are for. The legislature of each state decides how long is "too long" to bring certain kinds of claims. It often takes people quite a while to make the psychological commitment to the immense hassle of being a plaintiff, find the right lawyer, and then for that lawyer to research the facts and law in order to prepare a complaint to initiate the suit. 2 years from an injury is not an exceptional amount of time.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I agree, it shouldn't be a surprise that the plaintiffs want a payout.

I was at a gun show in April and there was a guy selling black powder guns. The first thing he said was the price and "You can walk out of here today with it. No background check." I don't know if I was looking particularly shady that day and that avoiding a background check would be appealing, but I didn't care about that fact at all.

However, given the laws in place around curios and relics and black powder guns, I kind of think it was only a matter of time before it happened. If Cabela's broke Ohio laws well then yeah I guess they're in deep doo doo.

By the way I'm not saying I think those laws are too lax, only that it was bound to happen eventually. Gun grabbers may glom on to this one. Or not. The real question is, was it a scary assault blackpowder pistol?

 

[Skgreen]

Always figured if for some legal reason I couldn't get a 'smokeless powder' firearm, I'd look into BP revolvers.

However, I do agree with Pat above,,, Someone's fishing for cash. Had the original Merchant been 'of lesser wealth', we wouldn't be reading this now.

 

[Sistema1927]

Just another example of the fact that anybody can sue for anything.

 

[BilliamB.]

Oh, wonderful .... now some dingbat politico is no doubt going to subject blackpowder firearms to modern NICS check laws.


I hope none of those politicos discover that BP guns can be ordered over the 'net and be delivered to one's front door via UPS!

But I hold out no hope such luck will apply ......

I fear you're correct, especially if those BP firearms are of the "full semi-automatic" variety, and hold "high-capacity magazine clips." (Some of the really old ones, I'm told, actually do have those awful "bayonet mount" thingies. Horrors!)

 

[ATLDave]

I'm especially worried about the paratrooper models of the the 1855 Springfield Rifled Muskets... those have the "shoulder thing that goes up," which we all know is the real killer.

 

[AlexanderA]

The law treats two distinct categories of guns the same: (1) bona fide antiques (those actually made before 1899) regardless of ignition system, and (2) currently-made guns that don't use cartridges. (A case can be made that the ignition system shouldn't be the determinant, but rather simply the age.) This whole area can be confusing, especially when we overlay the different "antique" rules that apply to NFA items. And then we have state-level rules that are different from the federal rules. It seems that Cabela's can use this confused state of affairs, at least in mitigation of any damages. It wasn't "gross negligence" to sell the gun since the sale complied with the federal rules.

 

[alsaqr]

Cabela's violated Ohio state law.

Some states outlaw the possession of muzzleloading long guns and revolvers by convicted felons. When a company does business on one of those states their employees must abide by state law.

 

[ATLDave]

It wasn't "gross negligence" to sell the gun since the sale complied with the federal rules.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE: One of the drawbacks to our federal constitutional system is that individuals and businesses have to pay attention to both federal and state law. Complying with one while violating the other is not good enough (except in cases of preemption, which doesn't appear to apply here). Cabela's held itself out in the business of selling firearms - modern and antique/black-powder alike - in the state of Ohio. A defense that they were confused as to the law seems unlikely to go well for them, either in front of the judge or the jury. A more-plausible defense might be centered around the intervening criminal act and proximate cause, but that would depend (again) on the specific statutory and case law of Ohio.

 

[Bandit67]

I'm just glad the liberals haven't seen my crossbow. It kinda sorta looks like a rifle. It's black, and it has a 6 bolt high capacity quiver.

 

[ATLDave]

All one has to do is pay attention to the UK's current push against knives to see that, once you buy into the notion that violence is caused by availability of weapons and/or restricting weapons is the best way to reduce violence, there's no logical end. After the UK bans sharp knives and some level of violence persists, they will logically turn to banning bats, sticks, crowbars, and the real threat - boards with a nail in them.

 

[BilliamB.]

I'm especially worried about the paratrooper models of the the 1855 Springfield Rifled Muskets... those have the "shoulder thing that goes up," which we all know is the real killer.

I remember the news clip in which the gun grabber made that "shoulder thing" remark. It would be funny, except these people too often have their way.

 

[BSA1]

According to the article Bass Pro is gonna have to pay out.

From the article:

"So why did Cabela’s sell Claren the firearm, despite his criminal record and violent past? It appears the retailer made the sale because it complied with federal law rather than Ohio state law.

As a police officer and chief investigator for the Stark County Coroner’s Office explained, federal law did not require Claren to undergo a background check to purchase the replica of the antique firearm. However, Ohio’s state law did require a background check."



https://bearingarms.com/micah-r/2018/08/08/cabelas-facing-lawsuit/amp/

How about posting what Ohio law says and how the "background test" is to be done?

How is Ohio law different than Federal law?

Otherwise this is a case of anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason.

 

[ATLDave]

I remember the news clip in which the gun grabber made that "shoulder thing" remark. It would be funny, except these people too often have their way.

For anyone who hasn't seen it:



Unintentional comedy gold.

 

[ATLDave]

How is Ohio law different than Federal law?

Otherwise this is a case of anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason.

The article states that Ohio law does not draw the same distinction between non-cartridge black powder/antique firearms and other firearms that federal law does. Is that wrong? Or are you suggesting that Ohio itself has no background check requirement at all?

If Ohio has no actual BGC requirement, then the plaintiff here would be making an analytical leap or two that might be defended against.

 

[JONWILL]

The article states that Ohio law does not draw the same distinction between non-cartridge black powder/antique firearms and other firearms that federal law does. Is that wrong? Or are you suggesting that Ohio itself has no background check requirement at all?

If Ohio has no actual BGC requirement, then the plaintiff here would be making an analytical leap or two that might be defended against.

None that is posted anywhere or widely known. Anyone can walk into any gunstore in the State and buy a black powder gun without a background check. Even a Local place Vances, who even does a background check on people with a concealed carry permit, which is not required does it anyway, sells them without a background check.

I think they will be able to make a case that it is so obscure and not enforced that it will be thrown out.

 

[troy fairweather]

they were trying to pass something here in ny when i was a kid in the early 2000s. it was to make it so that people that own pb pistols can shot them with a permit. right before the case the first murder in 75 years with a bp pistol happens the case was thrown out.

 

[ATLDave]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE: I'm not an Ohio resident nor an Ohio lawyer. My brief look into this suggests that Ohio may not have a background check requirement. It prohibits possession of firearms (including black-powder firearms) by convicted felons. Federal law, OTOH, does require dealer-sellers to conduct a BGC, but doesn't consider certain black powder guns to be "firearms." However, Ohio law does prohibit a "reckless" transfer by a dealer - that requirement doesn't seem to specifically require a federal BGC, nor does it say that compliance with federal BGC law creates a safe harbor beyond allegations of recklessness.

If the above is correct (and it may not be - again, just a quick look for my own curiosity), then this becomes a somewhat interesting case. The plaintiffs appear to be arguing that the dealer should have combined Ohio's definition of firearms with the federal BGC process in order to avoid a reckless transfer to a person who is, it appears, prohibited by Ohio law from possessing the black-powder firearm in question.