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

[G'dale Mike]

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?

Please explain then, for us non legal types, in generic terms, how the judge came to his conclusion. What previous legal precedents did the judge use as his basis or line of thought for his decision?

 

[Frank Ettin]

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. ...

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.

Okay, so I guess we're clear that your comment is not about the case being discussed.

But first let's clear up a point. This is not about not holding the guy doing the shooting responsible for what he did. He is still responsible for his actions.

But often other people can share legal responsibility. That's the way it's been for a long time. So, for example, if a bartender serves alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated in some States the bar can be also be held liable for the damages caused if the customer then gets into an accident. The drunk guy is still liable as well of course, but someone else (the bar) shares in the responsibility because it did not act in a manner consistent with the standard of care expect of businesses that sell drinks in light of the risks of drunk drivers causing accidents. You might not think that's right, but that's the way it is in a number of States.

This isn't quite the same thing. The plaintiff's theory of liability is somewhat different. And this ruling doesn't hold Armslist liable. It merely allow the lawsuit to continue.

But by not reading the case and trying to understand how the court reached its decision is a missed opportunity to try to learn how things actually do work in real life rather than relying on your "NJ opinion" about "the way our laws are suppose to work." Things in the real world are the way they are, not necessarily how you think they're supposed to be.

You also probably missed out on reading the article in the Technology & Marketing Law Blog linked to by Arizona Mike in post 18. That's too bad because that article offers a principled critique of the decision here and again can be helpful to persons who are interested in actually learning something about how things work in real life.

 

[mnrivrat]

"Okay, so I guess we're clear that your comment is not about the case being discussed"

You may think so but, then you would be wrong.

My comments included the subject being discussed. They just simply were an opinion regarding the issue of whether I felt the ruling was correct . Not intended to be some in depth study on the legal process. The real world according to Frank is a book you have yet to write, or at least one I have not had the privilege to read.

While you mention the case of a bartender serving drinks to a person intoxicated your comparison is more than a slightly different thing since there are specific laws regarding that issue . You failed to answer my question regarding the laws that you imply are relevant to the thread subject.

"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"

If this is your logical legal relevance then how does it apply to Armslist as they did not take an active part in the
sale. if I advertise a car for sale in my local newspaper and it sells to someone who gets drunk and runs over another person, does it make sense that the newspaper has any liability toward that ?

OK - I suppose we could spar back and forth a bit further but frankly Frank, you come off a bit sarcastic and that makes me want to reply in the same manner. Not worth it .

 

[RPZ]

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.

Appelate Court.

 

[RPZ]

Okay, so I guess we're clear that your comment is not about the case being discussed.

But first let's clear up a point. This is not about not holding the guy doing the shooting responsible for what he did. He is still responsible for his actions.

But often other people can share legal responsibility. That's the way it's been for a long time. So, for example, if a bartender serves alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated in some States the bar can be also be held liable for the damages caused if the customer then gets into an accident. The drunk guy is still liable as well of course, but someone else (the bar) shares in the responsibility because it did not act in a manner consistent with the standard of care expect of businesses that sell drinks in light of the risks of drunk drivers causing accidents. You might not think that's right, but that's the way it is in a number of States.

This isn't quite the same thing. The plaintiff's theory of liability is somewhat different. And this ruling doesn't hold Armslist liable. It merely allow the lawsuit to continue.

But by not reading the case and trying to understand how the court reached its decision is a missed opportunity to try to learn how things actually do work in real life rather than relying on your "NJ opinion" about "the way our laws are suppose to work." Things in the real world are the way they are, not necessarily how you think they're supposed to be.

You also probably missed out on reading the article in the Technology & Marketing Law Blog linked to by Arizona Mike in post 18. That's too bad because that article offers a principled critique of the decision here and again can be helpful to persons who are interested in actually learning something about how things work in real life.

I know of someone personally whose litigation targeted "the bartender". And it resulted in a substantial damages award.

 

[Kaeto]

My Grandmother was the person who got the bar's liabilty law passed here in Mi. My aunt (who at the time was 16) was walking home on the sidewalk at a railroad crossing. This one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2127041,-83.1579459,173a,35y,39.43t/data=!3m1!1e3

A drunk driver hit her from behind on the sidewalk. Her body was on one side of these tracks one of her legs was on the other. The truck that hit her was in the middle upside down. The impact killed her. The driver got off with probation because he was a disabled vet. He never showed remorse and went on to rack up several more DUI convictions until he died.

 

[TomJ]

Keep in mind that one of the stated goes of anti's is to do away with the 2A. Since they can't do, they do whatever they can to make gun ownership more difficult. The article mentions the Brady Center filing suit against numerous brick an mortar stores as well. Shutting down sites like Armslist by making it expensive/impracticle for them to operate would further that goal.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Armslist is like an internet gun show. The same rules apply and private sales don't have to go through a FFL. The other internet sites get away with selling used firearms as most are interstate sales and have to be shipped to an FFL. Armlist sales are mostly local within the state. It truly is a craigslist for guns. The fact remains however that it's just an internet posting no different than me listing a firearm on my private gun club newsletter. The laws in this state prohibit private transfers without a FFL but it wasn't always that way and most states don't require a BC for a private sale.

The Brady Campaign has lost before in court and I expect this one will be overturned. They may be crowing a little early. Congress passed the PLCAA as the direct result of law suits like this one. If a manufacturer or dealer can't be held liable for a sale how can someone who only advertises a sale be held liable. I certainly hope Brady isn't trying to suck another family into a bankruptcy.