This lawsuit against a gun shop sets a dangerous precedent

[deerwhacker444]

The store followed the law. The store had no way to know who was on the other end of the phone or know that purchaser was crazy. Could have been a legit call, and just as easily could have not been legit. This burden falls upon the family for not doing what was necessary and getting the cops involved, not a random business.

What if a vengeful X-wife called up all the FFL's in half the state and told them you were crazy and not to sell you any weapons?

Not the shops call to determine who's crazy or not.

Don't like the law, change the law. Until then, it's what we've got.

 

[tomthebaker]

The law is pretty clear on one point. If a relative is a danger to themselves or society they can be committed to a mental institution if they are unwilling to go voluntarily.

The one that failed, in this case, was the mom because she was ignorant or unwilling to take necessary steps to protect her daughter and others.

 

[NightShade]

This

The store followed the law. The store had no way to know who was on the other end of the phone or know that purchaser was crazy. Could have been a legit call, and just as easily could have not been legit. This burden falls upon the family for not doing what was necessary and getting the cops involved, not a random business.

What if a vengeful X-wife called up all the FFL's in half the state and told them you were crazy and not to sell you any weapons?

Not the shops call to determine who's crazy or not.

Don't like the law, change the law. Until then, it's what we've got.

And this

The law is pretty clear on one point. If a relative is a danger to themselves or society they can be committed to a mental institution if they are unwilling to go voluntarily.

The one that failed, in this case, was the mom because she was ignorant or unwilling to take necessary steps to protect her daughter and others.

There is a system in place and if the person is clearly a danger you deal with it. The bad thing about the system is that once you are on it you are pretty much labeled for life. That is the reason why a lot of people don't get put on it, a family member being put on the list for a mental problem has little to no chance to get off and people do have times where they can not handle everything thrown at them.

 

[Dave70968]

in the second section, they said that intoxicating liquors are a Constitutional Right, but it gives a state the ability to regulate or prohibit intoxicating liquors, within its borders, but not federally.

Section 2: The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

How does that make it a right? If anything, it's just the opposite--Constitutional rights can't be denied by the states. That's the whole point of the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment. Section 2 says absolutely nothing about making booze a right; it merely gives states the explicit power to ban it at the state level just as had been done at the federal level under the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.

 

[BlackRiflesBoy]

He followed the law. Mental health is so complex, I worked in it for a couple of years. People intent on harming themselves or others will always find a way no matter what laws you pass. I truly feel bad for the family, but what if a woman went to buy a gun and her abusive boyfriend called and lied about her mental health and then killed her for trying to protect herself from him? FFL holders have no way of verifying a caller's claim, all they can do is run the check as instructed. I wish mental health factors could be included and fail proof in purchases, but you know the government would have everyone seeing a shrink, and if an anti-gunner was in charge everyone would fail for one reason or another they would not have to explain to you.