This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent

[RugersGR8]

This could be really bad news. The mother calls the gun shop and begs them not to sell a gun to her daughter because the daughter has mental problems(never officially adjudicated as such by the courts). The gun shop goes ahead and sells the daughter a Hi-Point pistol which the daughter then uses to kill her father. Now the family is suing the gun shop for a multi-million dollar settlement. The gun shop was given a heads up but the background check came back OK, its gonna get sticky for EVERYBODY.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/07/this-lawsuit-against-a-gun-shop-sets-a-dangerous-precedent/
This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent
POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON MARCH 7, 2017 BY JAZZ SHAW

..."She had, by the family’s own admission, been in and out of mental hospitals on numerous occasions and demonstrated worrisome if not outright dangerous behavior. This is clearly not the sort of person who should be purchasing firearms. But whose responsibility is it? Colby Sue had people who cared about her and were clearly worried about both her safety and the safety of others. How is it then that this young woman was not brought before a court and adjudicated as mentally unbalanced? Even more to the point, she obviously was not receiving all the treatment that she needed to deal with her psychosis."...

 

[Frederick]

Our mental health system is ****, and her mental situation should have been reported to authorities and logged into the NCIS system.
If they had these concerns, they should have taken them to Law Enforcement. Businesses have a right to decide who they will serve, within the law, but i feel they have a moral obligation if they have suspicions about a situation.

 

[RugersGR8]

Our mental health system is ****, and her mental situation should have been reported to authorities and logged into the NCIS system.
If they had these concerns, they should have taken them to Law Enforcement. Businesses have a right to decide who they will serve, within the law, but i feel they have a moral obligation if they have suspicions about a situation.

I agree the system is failing.

 

[Hoov]

What if the mother had been lying? What if the mother was actually the crazy one and the daughter needed the gun for a real threat? Where is the first handgun she bought? Who are you/we/I to decide who is competent or should have a gun? Be careful when you decide that others rights are null and void. Especially when quoting an "article" that quotes the Washington Post.

 

[Pokinfun]

How did the store know, if really was the girls mother? I agree with Hoov, how would the store know the girl was not in danger and the person on the phone was the threat.
I do not think a gun store has the same responsibility, not "no responsibility," as a bartender. a bartender is an expert at getting people drunk, they know how many drinks someone has consumed, and passing out is a reason to cut someone off and call a cab.
Also, using alcohol is a constitutional right, that can be regulated, but not prohibited.
A gun store is following the regulation by doing the background check.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If the parents knew (and apparently did know) this girl could not be trusted out in society, why did they not accompany her every where she went? Isn't that what parenthood demands - to be a guardian? Their daughter, being an adult, should have been reported to the police as such a danger, adjudicated thusly, and either held in custody until such time she can be trusted out in society.

I don't think simply placing her under the scrutiny of the NICS system would have prevented her from obtaining a gun and committing the crime. There was a case here in Oklahoma of a mentally deficient gay woman who was in prison for murdering her girlfriend, released, and within something like a week committed another murder with a gun. The NICS didn't keep her from obtaining a gun. Even if by some miracle the NICS did prevent her from obtaining a gun, what proof is there that she wouldn't murder by some other means?

Woody

 

[cal7.62x39]

I have worked at a couple gun shops. At Academy they actually train you that IF someone calls warning you about a person with issues that it is your responsibility to deny them. Same as if you suspect them being under the influence or if it's a suspected straw purchase. Don't know if it was a company policy or if that's actually required due diligence as set by NICS/FBI/BATFE/what ever other powers that be. But I know if I had been at that store on that day and gotten a heads up call I would have denied her at store level, then contacted other ffls in my immediate area to give them a heads up also.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Sticky situation indeed. Too many variables both known and unknown in this story. IF the family had done this... IF the authorities had done this.... IF the courts had been involved and done this... Have seen similar situations unfold several times with and without family involvement. Problem is that it is so damn difficult to get some jurisdictions to take a proactive part in mental health cases it crates a no win situation much like the one in this story.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Sticky situation indeed. Too many variables both known and unknown in this story. IF the family had done this... IF the authorities had done this.... IF the courts had been involved and done this... Have seen similar situations unfold several times with and without family involvement. Problem is that it is so damn difficult to get some jurisdictions to take a proactive part in mental health cases it crates a no win situation much like the one in this story.

agreed. nobody in particular is to blame. we, as a society, can do better.

 

[RugersGR8]

What if the mother had been lying? What if the mother was actually the crazy one and the daughter needed the gun for a real threat? Where is the first handgun she bought? Who are you/we/I to decide who is competent or should have a gun? Be careful when you decide that others rights are null and void. Especially when quoting an "article" that quotes the Washington Post.

That thought had crossed my mind as well when I read the story. I agree with what Hoov and cal7.62x39 have said. Who was the gun shop owner to believe---he could get sued either way he went. But as usual, the gun will be blamed and not the flawed system that allowed this to happen. Looks like there should be some type of law in the NICS background check that if you are a LGS owner and receive such a call, that you would be off the hook legally until it can be determined mental status of the person named in the call. But what happens if the person named in the call is mentally stable and needs the weapon for protection against a stalker or such, truly a sticky situation. It also scares me that if you give the power to take away guns from people, wouldn't that allow unethical/anti 2nd Amendment physicians to abuse the law? Isn't that the way that they get rid of their political opposition in Russia--declare them mentally deficient & send them to the gulag? You can, however, be sure the MSM will put the blame almost entirely on the gun and nothing else---never let a crisis go to waste.