from 23 JUne NY Times on-line

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
Gun Dealer Settles Case Over Sale to Straw Buyer
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

Published: June 23, 2004


A landmark settlement has been reached in a lawsuit brought by two New Jersey police officers who were badly wounded by a robber using a gun bought by a straw buyer at a South Charleston, W.Va., pawnshop, lawyers for the officers said yesterday.

Lawyers for both sides plan to submit the settlement, for $1 million, for approval to a West Virginia judge today. The settlement is considered significant because it is the first time a dealer will pay damages for supplying a firearm to the illegal gun market, said Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mr. Henigan served as a lawyer for the two Orange, N.J., officers.


"We believe the settlement will send a message loud and clear to gun sellers that they will pay a high price for supplying the underground market this way," Mr. Henigan said.

Studies by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have shown that the criminal market for guns is supplied largely through retail purchases of firearms from licensed gun dealers, often when a straw purchaser buys guns for a trafficker, who then sells the weapons to other criminals. A straw purchaser is someone who buys a gun legally for a person who is prohibited from buying one.

"This is a classic case of these kind of transactions," Mr. Henigan said.

In the South Charleston case, Tammi Lea Songer, a local taxi driver who had no criminal record but was high on drugs, was given $4,000 by a convicted felon, James Gray, to buy 12 Sturm, Ruger 9-millimeter semiautomatic handguns at Will Jewelry and Loan in July 2000, according to court documents. In the store, Mr. Gray, who was legally barred from buying the guns because of drug convictions, pointed out the firearms he wanted to a store employee and Ms. Songer filled out the paperwork, the documents show.

After they left, Mr. Gray paid Ms. Songer in drugs and cash for carrying out the deal, according to her deposition.

Six months later, Shuntez Everett, who had been convicted on a gun charge and was wanted on a charge of attempted murder, used one of the guns to shoot Officers David Lemongello and Kenneth McGuire, who were staking out a gas station in Orange that had been held up six times in a month. Both were left disabled and forced to retire from the department, according to police reports. Mr. Everett died after being shot by the police.

A lawyer for the pawnshop, Clem Trischler, did not return phone calls seeking comment yesterday. But a copy of Mr. Trischler's motion to dismiss the case in exchange for a settlement of $1 million, which will be submitted today to the judge, Irene Berger of Kanawha County Circuit Court, was provided to The New York Times.

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade association, said: "If there was an illegal straw purchase, they should be prosecuted and sent to prison and the same for the dealer, if he was complicit. Nobody is in favor of straw purchases."

Ms. Songer and Mr. Gray were both convicted. No criminal charges were brought against the pawnshop.

Studies by the federal firearms bureau have shown that 1 percent of the nation's licensed dealers supply almost 60 percent of all guns recovered in crimes. Ten or more guns used in crimes are traced to these dealers each year.

The manager of the pawnshop at the time, Doug Smolder, testified in a pretrial deposition that 10 to 20 guns it sold annually were later traced to crimes, putting the shop in this small category of suspect dealers, court documents show. About 85 percent of dealers are not linked to any crime guns.

The lawsuit would have been ended had Congress approved legislation largely shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from civil lawsuits. The two officers lobbied against it. The bill, strongly supported by the National Rifle Association, passed the House of Representatives but was narrowly defeated in the Senate in March after gun-control advocates attached amendments to it, including one that would have extended the ban on assault weapons that expires this year. The association argued that gun sellers needed to be protected from frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. McGuire, now 29, said in a telephone interview yesterday, "I feel really great about the settlement because it will send a message not to sell guns to criminals."

Mr. McGuire, whose father was a police officer and who has two brothers who are sheriff's deputies, said the shooting had destroyed his life's dream of being a police officer. He was hit twice: one shot shattered his right femur, leaving his right foot partly paralyzed, and the other shot hit him in the stomach, leading to operations to remove part of his colon and small intestine.

The lawsuit accused the pawnshop of negligence and creating a public nuisance by selling the 12 handguns in one transaction to a straw purchaser.

Mr. Smolder, the store manager, said in a deposition that he was away when the purchase was made, that he would have been immediately suspicious because of the large number of guns, and that he would have rejected the sale. The salesman on duty, Thomas Holbert, said in a deposition that it was the biggest sale he had ever made and that he had called the store owner, Leonard Mitchell, to ask if selling 12 guns at a time was legal.

Mr. Mitchell replied that it was legal and did not advise the salesman to be cautious, according to Mr. Holbert's deposition.

But when Mr. Smolder, the manager, returned, he was concerned enough to call the firearms bureau.

Posters note:

Mr. Butterfield frequently writes on firearms related matters, and has in the past, trod the anti-gun pathway so beloved by The New York Times. It is cause or is it effect?
 
Studies by the federal firearms bureau have shown that 1 percent of the nation's licensed dealers supply almost 60 percent of all guns recovered in crimes.

I always see this quoted....is this really true and if so to what extent??? :scrutiny:

The gunshop shouldn't be liable for this, it's just the federal .gov sticking it to an honest business. They sold the guns to someone who could own them. What the guy does with them afterwards is out of their control. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

In the store, Mr. Gray, who was legally barred from buying the guns because of drug convictions, pointed out the firearms he wanted to a store employee and Ms. Songer filled out the paperwork, the documents show.

Bollocks!
 
"The lawsuit would have been ended had Congress approved legislation largely shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from civil lawsuits. The two officers lobbied against it. The bill, strongly supported by the National Rifle Association, passed the House of Representatives but was narrowly defeated in the Senate in March after gun-control advocates attached amendments to it, including one that would have extended the ban on assault weapons that expires this year. The association argued that gun sellers needed to be protected from frivolous lawsuits."

No, it would not! The proposed legislation would have prevented manufacturers from being held liable for subsequent misuse of a product manufactured and legally sold! The straw man sale (if the news account of the matter is accurate
:rolleyes: ) was ILLEGAL. :cuss:
 
Even if the protection legislation had been passed, in a case where it could be shown that the dealer acted in violation of the law, they would have no protection from suits.
 
Studies by the federal firearms bureau have shown that 1 percent of the nation's licensed dealers supply almost 60 percent of all guns recovered in crimes.

Well, the only data I've got sitting in front of me is from the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics:

for 1997

Source of gun:

Purchased From-- 13.9
*Retail store 8.3
*Pawn shop 3.8
*Flea market 1.0
*Gun show 0.7
Friends or family 39.6
Street/illegal source 39.2

Not sure if a straw purchase would be considered a 'retail store' purchase or a 'street/illegal source,' probably the latter. I have a feeling that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are stolen and later bought on the street, but since straw purchases get lumped into the last category it's conveniently forgotten that they're a small subset of that category, and viola', "Most firearms used in crime come from straw purchases..."

Edited to add: oops, I misread the quote. Yeah, when you consider how many small FFLs there are (they might even be including C&R types), that statistic really isn't that surprising. Looking at the overall distribution of *percentage* of retail sales, for each *retail* FFL, later used in the commission of a crime would probably give you a better insight as to whether or not there was a problem. I doubt we'll ever see that data though, it just wouldn't be sensational: "EXTRA! EXTRA! On average 0.02% of sales for retail FFLs are later used in the commission of a crime! Variances between retail FFLs are negligable!" Not much of a soundbite there...
 
Just heard that the case against Ruger was thrown out, basically on the basis that it wasn't their fault.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1096697534151310.xml

I personally think that the shop employees failed to exercise common sense in the first place. If someone comes in your shop, points out the guns he wants, and then hands some obvious junkie the cash to pay for them in front of you and tells her to fill out the forms, shouldn't that be a red flag?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top