Wisconsin Appeals Court Rules Online Gun Market May Be Held Liable for Fatal Shooting Spree

[Aim1]

It’s Armslist.

This is a very slipery slope.


If a seller sells a van on Craiglist to someone without a valid drivers license and that person then does a mass killing with the van is Craigslist responsible?




https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2018/04/24/284298.htm

Wisconsin Appeals Court Rules Online Gun Market May Be Held Liable for Fatal Shooting Spree

April 24, 2018 / By Erik Larson

One of the biggest U.S. online gun markets can be held liable for negligence for the private sale of a weapon used in a fatal shooting spree, a Wisconsin appeals court said in the first decision of its kind.

Armslist.com isn’t protected by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which largely immunizes online service providers from responsibility for posts by third-parties, the court said in reversing a lower court’s ruling.

From the article:

Armsist’s website includes a notice at the bottom of the homepage telling users to “always comply with local, state, federal and international law” and says the company does “not become involved in transactions between parties.”

The shooter was prohibited from buying guns but evaded the background check through a private sale, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which represented the plaintiff, said in a statement. Armslist allegedly entered the online gun business after Amazon.com and other sites barred gun sales.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Blame everyone but the shooter. Disgraceful.

 

[4v50 Gary]

I thought the FOPA prevented suits against manufacturers and those in the chain of commerce.

 

[fastbolt]

Interesting.

So, the online gun market resource may claim not to become directly involved in the actual transaction between seller/buyer, but facilitates their finding each other?

In a way, if this had involved facilitating an unlawful transaction occurring on the Dark Web, most folks wouldn't have a problem with the online "connection" being held accountable.

Have to see how this works out as it wends its way through the court system.

 

[JeffG]

The person that facilitated the private transaction was the criminal. (S)He facilitated the sale to an unauthorized person.

 

[stchman]

It appears it cannot be the actual shooter that is to blame? So if I get a DWI, can I sue Chevrolet?

 

[Aim1]

It appears it cannot be the actual shooter that is to blame? So if I get a DWI, can I sue Chevrolet?

No, you can sue the liquor store and car dealer though apparently!

 

[Wisco]

I was wondering when this was going to happen. Craiglist and Backpage have recently shut down parts and all of their websites, respectively, due to recent federal legislation targeting sex work.

If armslist knows or can reasonably expect this sort of thing to occur, they may not end up well in this, just like Craiglist facilitated sex work and human trafficking.

I think the blame falls squarely on the prohibited person in this case. When I sell through armslist, I ask if the person is a WI resident and I get their legal name from their DL and make a note in an email to myself and save it with the listing emails. I hope everyone I’ve sold or traded guns with is on the level, but how would I know if the guy is prohibited? Would he tell me the truth if I asked? Some people get mad when I won’t sell to a MN resident in WI - despite being very illegal. Now, whenever I sell anything I’ll be asking to see a WI carry license and a WI driver license that match each other exactly.

 

[ilbob]

if this stands will newspapers have to ban ads for guns listed for private sale?

 

[Aim1]

I was wondering when this was going to happen. Craiglist and Backpage have recently shut down parts and all of their websites, respectively, due to recent federal legislation targeting sex work.

If armslist knows or can reasonably expect this sort of thing to occur, they may not end up well in this, just like Craiglist facilitated sex work and human trafficking.

I think the blame falls squarely on the prohibited person in this case. When I sell through armslist, I ask if the person is a WI resident and I get their legal name from their DL and make a note in an email to myself and save it with the listing emails. I hope everyone I’ve sold or traded guns with is on the level, but how would I know if the guy is prohibited? Would he tell me the truth if I asked? Some people get mad when I won’t sell to a MN resident in WI - despite being very illegal. Now, whenever I sell anything I’ll be asking to see a WI carry license and a WI driver license that match each other exactly.

Completely different things.

Prostitution is illegal in most states thus advertising it is also illegal. Selling and buying guns is not illegal, thus you are selling a legal product just like selling a car or tv on Craiglist.

 

[Wisco]

Completely different things.

Prostitution is illegal in most states thus advertising it is also illegal. Selling and buying guns is not illegal, thus you are selling a legal product just like selling a car or tv on Craiglist.

Maybe I should’ve used better words. Dating is legal. Human trafficking is illegal. A legal dating website can help human traffickers. That’s the crux of the latest legislation holding websites responsible for what their users do.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Since we don't have the actual decision we can have only a fuzzy idea of what's going on. But it looks like this is a very narrow ruling to the effect that a particular law won't prevent Armslist from being sued. There's going to be a lot more to this story.

I thought the FOPA prevented suits against manufacturers and those in the chain of commerce.

Doesn't appear to work here. The Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA, 15 USC 7901, et seq) protects only manufacturers and sellers.

Since we don't have the actual decision we can't really know whether the PLCAA was even raised by Armslist.

Blame everyone but the shooter. Disgraceful.

It appears it cannot be the actual shooter that is to blame?...

What makes you think that the shooter isn't being blamed as well? But someone who aids and abets or assists with an unlawful act can, under some conditions, be held responsible along with the primary actor.

We don't know whether Armslist will wind up with any liability. All we know is that the plaintiff is being allowed to try to make its case against Armslist.

 

[Wisco]

Yasmeen Daniel et al v. Armslist, LLC et al at the Court of Appeals State of Wisconsin, District I, case no. 15-cv-8710

 

[JeffG]

I wonder who is footing the plaintiffs legal bill.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Yasmeen Daniel et al v. Armslist, LLC et al at the Court of Appeals State of Wisconsin, District I, case no. 15-cv-8710

Here is the link: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/2018/2017ap000344.html

It was a narrow decision saying the Communication Decency Act only protects web sites from the actions of third party posters not their own actions. It says nothing about the merits of the case, only that Armslist does not have immunity.

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here is the link: https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/2018/2017ap000344.html

It was a narrow decision saying the Communication Decency Act only protects web sites from the actions of third party posters not their own actions. It says nothing about the merits of the case, only that Armslist does not have immunity....

Thank you -- both for the link and for the reminder of why it's important to read the actually decision and not just rely on a news report.

 

[Speedo66]

Unless the law specifically requires a private seller to determine whether a buyer is legally allowed to purchase the gun, I don't see how he or she could be charged, except in the court of public opinion.

If I were Armslist, I'd be asking for a non jury trial to keep public opinion and emotional jurors out of the mix.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Thank you -- both for the link and for the reminder of why it's important to read the actually decision and not just rely on a news report.

Prof. Goldman still has some serious concerns about the decision ignoring previous precedents about the "design and operation of website features" and the narrow reading of the state law preemption in the ruling:
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...ig-holes-in-section-230-daniel-v-armslist.htm

Mike

 

[CapnMac]

Prof. Goldman still has some serious concerns about the decision ignoring previous precedents about the "design and operation of website features" and the narrow reading of the state law preemption in the ruling:

He's pulling no punches, either:

Still, I get the feeling this court was going to reach this result regardless of the strength of Armslist’s advocacy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Unless the law specifically requires a private seller to determine whether a buyer is legally allowed to purchase the gun, I don't see how he or she could be charged, except in the court of public opinion....

A seller of a gun has criminal liability under federal law is he sells it to someone he knows or "has reasonable cause to believe" is within one of the those classes of persons prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. Whether or not the seller had reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was prohibited will, if one is unlucky, be up to a jury based on the evidence.

A seller could also have civil liability to someone injured by the buyer if the seller knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was likely to be a danger to others, or to commit a crime, with the gun. And again, that would be a jury question based on the evidence.

 

[Speedo66]

Agreed, but is the seller under the law responsible to determine if the buyer is a prohibited person? I don’t believe so.

I believe it falls on the buyer to know if he is prohibited, and act accordingly. And, of course, this is why certain groups are asking that all sales go through an FFL, with a background check to determine if the buyer is indeed prohibited from possessing a firearm.

 

[mnrivrat]

More and more judges are basing their decisions on their personal bias rather that the law. It continues to get worse.

 

[Frank Ettin]

More and more judges are basing their decisions on their personal bias rather that the law. It continues to get worse.

Have you actually read the decision? What in the stated rationale for the decision supports your contention? How is the decision here not based on the law?

Judges can display bias. Judges are human and like all humans can on occasion let their feelings overcome their objectivity. That's one reason we have multiple levels of appeal in the law, and one of the reasons appeals are decided by a panel of judges rather than a single judge. But that's not always the case; and the fact that you don't like a result is not itself reason to believe that the result is the product of personal bias rather than impartial application of the law.

So do you have a principled reason, based on legal authority, for your statement, or is it simply a knee-jerk reaction to a judicial decision you don't like?

 

[Swifty Morgan]

More and more judges are basing their decisions on their personal bias rather that the law. It continues to get worse.

Totally normal, and nothing new. I remember one of my law professors using the term "TTWILI" to describe one popular method of arriving at opinions on cases. It stands for "That's The Way I Like It." It means a judge looks at the facts and the law, and then he does whatever he wants.

 

[mnrivrat]

Well Frank I guess in this case it is a knee jerk reaction based on a number of Judges decisions over the past few years on various subjects, and the fact that I consider the ruling to be unreasonable.

No I have not read the transcripts of this particular decision. Perhaps you have ? And perhaps you agree with the decision made ? I don't , so maybe you can enlighten me with your knowledge of legal authority in this case . The legal authority that makes this decision the right one.

Yes my NJ opinion is that if this is the way our laws are suppose to work, where we don't hold individuals accountable for their own actions then we have a sad future in front of us.