Lawful commerce in arms act protection?

[SomeKid]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9132140

I bolded a very telling part of the guys character. The main question is, is this suit valid? I would say no, unless I missed something indicating the gun dealer should not have sold the gun. To me, the idea that the seller should have known is absurd.

Trolley Square Massacre: Pawn shop owner hit with lawsuit over gun sale
By Melinda Rogers
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/02/2008 11:54:24 AM MDT

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
Advertisement

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."

 

[p2000sk]

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.

This press release does not reveal enough descriptive information about the
weapon for me to believe the claim as it was stated above.
There was no listed measurements of overall length, length of barrel, etc.
However, my belief or lack thereof may not influence the outcome of
"the plaintiffs case".
If the seller made a legal error, that very well may cost him.

This man seems to have been victimized by a triggerman (not a trigger) and
that triggerman may or may not have adequate financial resources to pay the bill. The man (plaintiff) seems to be keeping open as many doorways as possible to chuck his legal tomahawks through.

 

[p2000sk]

Guns do one thing: They're made to kill things," said Hanson, reached at his home on Thursday evening.

Stereotypical
The (blindly voting) soccer moms will eat that propaganda up.
No offense to the soccer moms out there, I had to pick on someone.

 

[CypherNinja]

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...

If the above is completely false, and I'm pretty sure it is, would the suit be automatically tossed? Or would it still be argued, thus costing the company big-time anyway?

IANAL, so could somebody who knows chime in?

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

If the above is completely false, and I'm pretty sure it is, would the suit be automatically tossed? Or would it still be argued, thus costing the company big-time anyway?

IANAL, so could somebody who knows chime in?

IANAL, but a PGO shotgun doesn't quite seem to fit the definition of shotgun or AOW exactly in Title 24, 5845, though the ATF opinion is that it's a shotgun.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

If the buyer was not qualified to buy the gun due to age or some other attribute that the gun dealer would have known about if he followed all proper procedures, the gun dealer could be liable.

I am not aware of any federal law limiting the sales of (non-NFA) shotguns to people who are at least 21. Having a pistol grip or other cosmetic characteristics is irrelevant, especially since the federal AWB expired. I have always thought that the federal legal limit was 18. If it is, and the buyer was over 18 (and he was), this should not be a problem for the dealer.

There is also nothing illegal about selling a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, to a legal resident alien. So if the buyer had a valid Green Card, I see no problem with this part of it either.

The plaintiff's contention that since the only purpose of a pistol grip shotgun is "to kill", the seller "should have known" that the buyer was going to use it to murder people, is obvious nonsense and not a valid argument under the law.

So, while IANAL, the only possible problems I see for the seller(s) is if they did not touch all of the bases required by federal and state law - 4473's, NICS check, verifying proper ID, making sure there was no (knowable) attempt at a straw purchase, and ignoring any evidence that the buyer might have had a criminal purpose (like if the buyer said or did things during the sale that someone would interpret as exhibiting some kind of criminal intent.)

But absent any of those things, I don't see this suit going anywhere, other than if the defendents, or their insurance carriers, come to believe it is cheaper to just pay the plaintiffs to go away.

I feel sorry for all of the victims of this tragic shooting. Though I'll have to admit that my sympathy is somewhat tempered by the fact that most of the victims could have done a better job of helping and protecting themselves had they chosen to exercise their rights to be armed. If the mall was posted as a "gun free zone", and if such posting was legally valid and enforceable in Utah, I would be more inclined to sue the mall rather than the gun dealer(s).

 

[Henry Bowman]

This report (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3213327) shows a picture of a long barrel, pump shotgun without a buttstock, implying without actually saying, that it is the firearm at issue.

Does the lack of a buttstock (meaning it is itended to fired from the shoulder) make it "not a shotgun" under federal law even though its overall length is sufficient? That is something of a "gray area" (or a pitfall for FFLs) in the law.

 

[lysander]

I saw that same report and wondered if it is intended to represent the make, model and format in which the shotgun was sold.

I'd like to know how the pawnshop's employee was charged. Under state law? Or in a violation of federal law?

 

[Car Knocker]

“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 firearmsthat 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 befired from the shoulder and would be considered ashotgun. 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.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fflnews_pub/ffl0299.pdf

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'm surprised the BATFE hasn't taken the position that this, not being legally defined as a "shotgun," is an "Any Other Weapon" (AOW) and subject to the NFA with $5 transfer tax.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

I'm surprised the BATFE hasn't taken the position that this, not being legally defined as a "shotgun," is an "Any Other Weapon" (AOW) and subject to the NFA with $5 transfer tax.

From the same people that say rifle to pistol conversions are illegal, no less. Hmmm, surprising indeed...