Officer sues online market where gun used on him was sold

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Think this will go anywhere? It’s Armslist.




https://www.recorder.com/Officer-sues-online-market-where-gun-used-on-him-was-sold-20969457


Officer sues online market where gun used on him was sold

Thursday, October 18, 2018



    • BOSTON — A Boston police officer on Thursday sued the online marketplace where the gun used to shoot him was sold, alleging it lacks necessary safeguards to prevent weapons from getting into the wrong hands.
The lawsuit filed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on behalf of 39-year-old Kurt Stokinger accuses Armslist.com of enabling illegal gun trafficking by allowing users to buy and sell guns with “essentially no rules.”
Click to expand...
 
If you are involved in a lawsuit, you know the attorney generally sues as many of the involved parties
as possible. Not just the original offending party. This would be news to somebody not aware of what's
involved in the course of a lawsuit, maybe. It becomes curious, because the headline makes the assumption for us, that ONLY the online gun dealer was sued, which is not the case.
 
Gut instinct is no, nothing will come of the lawsuit. Just the Brady Center trying to go after the largest pockets they can while subtly pushing their own agenda.

But it is Massachusetts, a notorious anti-gun state.
 
If it can be demonstrated to a jury's satisfaction that the online marketplace operator aided and abetted in straw purchases, then, yes the litigation could go somewhere.

But we must not confuse being named in litigation and a judgment against the defendant. Only the former has, thus far, happened. That vile woman, MA AG Maura Healy, is dedicated to the violation and destruction of the Constitution and will, undoubtedly, do her best to aid the plaintiff in this case. Further, this is civil litigation and, as such, has a lower burden of proof than might be the case in a criminal proceeding. Without knowing the details of the claims made by the plaintiff and their veracity, further comment would be entirely speculative. But, let's speculate. The article suggests that the straw purchaser bought multiple firearms via the online marketplace. Presumably, the plaintiff will argue that multiple purchases over a short period of time by one purchaser should have raised red flags with the online marketplace and, if they did not do so, the online marketplace should have had reasonable mechanisms in place to monitor for just such an abuse of their platform. Under those grounds, could one get a MA jury to find against the defendant ? Possibly. It would not shock me to find that the online marketplace operator settled this case.
 
Boston seems like it would be a tough place for Armslist to be sued, given MA's state laws on firearms. That said, and maybe because it's 3 a.m., I can't tell if the suit was filed in state or federal court. That will make some difference, but it may not make much difference. From the looks of things, Armslist is trying to get in on a little PLCAA action, at least in other cases. The determination of whether Armslist is protected under PLCAA could decide this one.
 
Spats McGee said:
....From the looks of things, Armslist is trying to get in on a little PLCAA action, at least in other cases. The determination of whether Armslist is protected under PLCAA could decide this one.
Click to expand...

It looks like Armslist qualifying for protection under PLCAA might be a stretch.To be protected Armslist would need to be a "seller", i. e. (15 USC 7903(6)(B)):
(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18;...
Click to expand...
They might not strictly meet that fairly narrow definition.

On the other hand, arguing that Armslist is merely a market place or advertising board raises issue regarding the extent of the duty of such an entity to regulate or monitor the conduct of persons using the service.
 
Maybe I'm just trying to use a bit too much common sense, but I don't see how Armslist has anything to do with the officer's shooting. The article says that the person that shot the officer bought the gun from someone who bought it on Armslist. Are they going to sue gun shops next for guns they sold being resold and then used in a crime? This just sounds like an attempt by anti-gun to cost Armslist lawyer and court fees.
 
What a tool. Such a lie to say that there's "essentially no rules" - not true at all. All laws still apply and are still being followed. Armslist is just a broker, bringing together buyer and seller - it's up to the buyer and seller to follow all laws. I really hope this goes nowhere, after costing this guy his life's saving in lawyer's fees for bringing such a ludicrous action.
 
Frank Ettin said:
It looks like Armslist qualifying for protection under PLCAA might be a stretch.To be protected Armslist would need to be a "seller", i. e. (15 USC 7903(6)(B)):
(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18;...
Click to expand...
​
They might not strictly meet that fairly narrow definition.

On the other hand, arguing that Armslist is merely a market place or advertising board raises issue regarding the extent of the duty of such an entity to regulate or monitor the conduct of persons using the service.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the analysis. Either Armslist is a seller or it's not. I mention it just because of this from the article:
Armslist has argued it can’t be held responsible for the actions of its users.

Courts had agreed in at least two cases until the Wisconsin appeals court this year reinstated a lawsuit against Armslist, rejecting its argument that federal law absolves its operators of liability. The case is being appealed to the state’s highest court.
Click to expand...

I must also admit that I shook my head at this:
“This is not an anti-gun case. . . . ” said Jonathan Lowy, an attorney with the Brady Center [to Prevent Gun Violence].
Click to expand...
Of course it's an anti-gun case. I'm pretty sure the Brady Center never met an anti-gun case they didn't like. Why they keep making statements like this, and keep expecting us (the public) to believe them, is beyond me.
 
Spats McGee wrote in part:

"Of course it's an anti-gun case. I'm pretty sure the Brady Center never met an anti-gun case they didn't like. Why they keep making statements like this, and keep expecting us (the public) to believe them, is beyond me."

If you repeat a lie often enough, some people will think it's the truth.
 
BearBrimstone said:
Maybe I'm just trying to use a bit too much common sense, but I don't see how Armslist has anything to do with the officer's shooting. The article says that the person that shot the officer bought the gun from someone who bought it on Armslist. Are they going to sue gun shops next for guns they sold being resold and then used in a crime? This just sounds like an attempt by anti-gun to cost Armslist lawyer and court fees.
Click to expand...

Joint and several liability is the concept. This concept is that liability should attach to anyone involved in creating the injury to the plaintiff and each defendant can be held financially responsible for the amount of the injuries (which usually corresponds with defendants that have the deepest pockets). Different states have drastically different tort laws which complicates matters on liability. Some states charge defendants with proportional liability and some with the whole enchilada even for very limited involvement such as what Armslist is alleged to have done to facilitate a sale of a product that eventually harmed the plaintiff.

What this is really doing is trying the shut down an avenue of private sales which is also the goal of universal background checks for all arms transactions. I suspect the long term goal is to create a registry so that all such known guns can eventually be seized out of private hands.
 
rodregier said:
If you repeat a lie often enough, some people will think it's the truth.
Click to expand...

That is the whole mantra of Everytown for gun safety, Brady center, and a whole host of others. I am sure they are hoping to sue enough money out of Armslist to shut down the site or where the cost to continue business is too high. Similar pressure was applied to Facebook to shut down firearm sale groups between private members.
 
Sebastian said:
Why stop at Armslist? I say go after Al Gore for inventing the internet.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with your suggestion. You are assuming that the plaintiff is an unreasonable person who is not thoughtful and reasonable about how he can most likely realize a financial reward commensurate with his pain and suffering. But with a sensible attorney, he may be looking for the possible defendants most likely to be held accountable by a court in the jurisdiction where the action is being brought in order to realize such an award. Now that wouldn't be Al Gore, would it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top