Missouri Gun Shop Agrees To Pay $2.2 Million To Settle Lawsuit Over Firearm Sale – “Delana filed her lawsuit after her daughter, Colby Weathers, bought a gun at Odessa Gun & Pawn Shop and used it to kill Tex Delana, her father and Delana’s husband. Delana had called the store on June 25, 2012, pleading with it not to sell a gun to her daughter. Weathers had bought a gun there previously and later attempted to commit suicide. Delana gave the store manager her daughter’s full name, Social Security number and birthdate and told him, ‘I’m begging of you. I’m begging of you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun,’ her lawsuit stated.”
The half-emtpy view? . . . Squandering a once in a lifetime opportunity for gun rights – “This is the part where I’m supposed to get excited that at least a simple majority of unaccountable government appointed lawyers may decide if I can keep my rights or liberties that have already been stripped by elected tyrants IF the right plaintiff with standing files suit against ONE out of the THOUSANDS of laws passed in states all over the country and federally, and ONLY IF those unaccountable government appointed lawyers even decide to hear the case at all, and then IF we can count on them actually ruling in the Constitution’s favor, Roberts. Yay.”
https://youtu.be/D0WasN82IrI
YouTube Stops Dumping Money Into Gun Channel Pockets – “Interesting, but not surprising. haha “banned in South Korea”… Why do we give a shit about south Korea’s gun laws? Youtube often just restricts stuff by region, I don’t know why they don’t just block the viewing of all gun videos from South Korea. Has YouTube even met America? Seemingly not.” Oh, they have. And this is a part of it they don’t happen to like.
Gun rights group: US should appoint special ‘second amendment’ prosecutor – “Many advocates believe the justice department’s investigations of civil rights violations by local police departments will virtually end under a Trump administration. But a not-for-profit organization based in Washington state that funds gun rights litigation hopes that Trump’s justice department will put its focus on a different civil rights issue: state laws which it believes violate gun owners’ rights. The Second Amendment Foundation suggested last week that Trump’s attorney general should appoint a “special assistant” in charge of defending gun rights.” Turnabout is fair play.
Baltimore entrepreneur wants to get guns off the streets in exchange for bail – “‘I grew up in a culture of violence in Baltimore City, and as I got older, I wanted to do something to and positively impact my community, to do something that made a difference for minority young adults like me,’ Brooks said. That’s how the idea for his startup GunBail came about. GunBail’s concept would allow family or friends of arrested individuals to exchange firearms for prison bail. Brooks, 46, is hoping to launch a pilot for the company, in partnership with law enforcement in Baltimore City, early next year.”
No problem with guns for bail. As a private initiative, he has every right to see if this works.
Pretty sure the gun shop is dodging a proverbial bullet with the settlement. While they didn’t have an obligation to listen to a third party in every case, it sounds like she made them aware of her daughter’s status as a prohibited person, or at the very least, that she was likely to use the firearm in a dangerous manner, resulting in a likely negligence award on their part.
How long is the gun shop supposed to keep that note on file?
What prevents anybody from requesting that any random name be prevented form buying a gun?
What right does the noted person have to dispute the note?
How many other gun shops did the mom call? If she only called the one, and the daughter could have gone to others, I’d say the mother wasn’t very serious at all.
Did the mother try to get the authorities involved, mental institutions, anybody?
Folks, there’s something called due process, and it means the government can’t persecute for no reason, that they have to follow specific steps, and the accused gets a say in the matter. This verdict is horse pucky and doesn’t even follow ordinary common sense, let alone due process.
How would any of you feel if you went to buy a gun and found someone had told the gunshop to not allow it, and you had no way to contest it?
Many people have gone to buy a gun and found out they can’t and it turns out it’s the government who said they can’t. How do you feel about that?!
“Folks, there’s something called due process, and it means the government can’t persecute for no reason, that they have to follow specific steps, and the accused gets a say in the matter. This verdict is horse pucky and doesn’t even follow ordinary common sense, let alone due process.”
The govt’s NO FLY LIST does not afford due process….
How did the mother know the daughter was going to buy a gun? How did she know which FFL she would use? Is this the only gun shop within 40 miles? Did she call every gun shop with the same request? Did the father know he was in danger? Was there a restraining order? Did the mother and husband have their own guns for self defense? Did the daughter have access to a car? A knife? An axe? A club? A hammer? A brass candlestick holder?
I don’t like this ruling at all.
“Folks, there’s something called due process, and it means the government can’t persecute for no reason, that they have to follow specific steps, and the accused gets a say in the matter. This verdict is horse pucky and doesn’t even follow ordinary common sense, let alone due process.”
None of that has anything to do with the story. The government isn’t ‘persecuting’ anyone, it’s a civil suit lodged by a private citizen. And the verdict was not determined by a judge or jury, it was a settlement. The accused could have made their defense in court; they chose not to, for whatever reason.
How would you deal with Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner coming in to your gun shop and wanting to purchase a gun. They acted menacing most of the time. You have to have some criteria for evaluating someone.
I wouldn’t sell them a goddamn gun.
Assuming that what the plaintiff claims is true (rarely the case imo) I would totally agree with you. If I ran an FFL and someone called one of my employees, begging not to sell to someone in particular, the buyer would immediately go on my naughty list until I personally decide they’re OK. That’s just smart business.
Holding people responsible for their own actions is a bunch of baloney anyway.
“GunBail’s concept would allow family or friends of arrested individuals to exchange firearms for prison bail.”
Now if Brooks can set up “Smack for Bail,” “Crack for Bail” and, most importantly “Hos for Bail,” he’ll really be on to something. Then again, he’s on something now.
I thought bail was for those in jail, before they are sentenced to prison.
Or did I pick a bad day to quit hard drugs???
And if he really wanted to do something positive for his community he’d leave people he knows are gangbangers, multiple felons, etc sitting in jail.
I was thinking the same thing. And if the perp intimidates a witness resulting in dropped charges he gets his gun back.
Okie Dokie.
Ralph – As an unfortunate resident of the what is laughingly called “The Free State”, it is my prognostication that Mr. Brooks will be a member of the Maryland Leftistlature in less than five years.
Ummmm…was it a legal sale to the gal who did the triple murder? Just asking…Happy Thanksgiving!
Umm… it wasn’t a triple murder. It was a single murder.
Tex Delana was the father of the mentally ill shooter and the husband of the plaintiff.
Yes, it was poorly and vaguely worded.
That “squandering” article is spot on.
While it would bring me great joy to watch liberal heads explode while Congress repeals the NFA and other federal legislation, we need to remember that it will do little to help the oppressed people of California, New York and sundry other tyrannical states.
For example, Illinois outlaws suppressors, SBRs and short barreled shotguns, period. Repeal of a federal tax and approval process means exactly squat to me until SCOTUS gives the Illinois legislature a bitch slap.
sbr’s and short shotty’s for curio and relic, yes?
+1
Yes, an excellent article. Time to contact the folks on that committee and point them to it…
O2
I knew from the get go that the new youtube policy is just a trojan for shotcallers in that organization to get rid of any and all content they do not like. It should be called “ourtube”.
Google’s corporate motto is “Only Do Evil to Those We Hate”, which of course includes anybody with non-Progressive political attitudes.
Given that Google owns it, you’re correct. Everything they own becomes “it’s”. For a corporation whose motto is “Do no evil”, they are full of shit.
If I’m honest with myself, the main reason I want a giggle switch is because somebody who thinks she knows better than me says I can’t have one. (And I’m not talking about Mrs. Consequence.)
I’m too cheap to burn through too much ammo full-auto, and I have zero practical use for it other than as a range toy. But then, it’s not a bill of needs, much less a bill of “we think all you need is..”
Technically the glass is always completely full. It’s just half liquid and half air… unless of course you pull a vacuum in the glass.
No, the engineer says the glass is twice the size it should be…
My reply to that has always been, if the glass is being filled, it’s half full. If being emptied, half empty.
If one is neither adding to or subtracting from the contents of the glass, then it’s simply a half glass of water.
That is why Full30.com exists. It is an alternative to YouTube for gun owners.
I’m kinda torn on this one.. As a reader, I have more questions than answers.
The owner may be an asshole but were they 100% at fault? This sounds like the gov’t ( ATF ) is at fault as well as the mother/father. The Brady campaign does have a history of brain washing victim families in pursuing frivolous lawsuits to justify their existence/pushing their narrative – Google Brady campaign lucky gunner..
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…
4473 form – 2 questions would most likely have answered yes and should have come up on the NICS check – question F and H.
Question F) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Question H). Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
Questions to ask… Before the final act of murder, did the mother/father try to get help from a licensed psychologist? if so when/how long ago, how long was she being treated, what was the diagnosis? If the diagnosis was schizophrenic did the mother/father/siblings file with the courts the to have their daughter declared as a mental defective? If so, when/how long ago, if not, why not? Did they try to institutionalize their daughter, when or if not, why not? How many other attempts of suicide occurred before purchasing her first firearm? When their daughter previously bought a firearm with the intent of suicide when did that happen, how much time elapsed before the final event?
After thinking about these questions, I decided to do a little more research.. Here is what I found..
http://www.kansascity.com/news…
“Janet Delana explained Wednesday how she and her husband began noticing alarming changes about seven years ago in their daughter’s behavior as she grew suspicious and paranoid.
“She thought she had a chip inside her and she was being monitored,” Delana said.
Weathers began to exhibit a high level of paranoia in 2006 and was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2011 by a physician evaluating her for Medicaid eligibility, according to the lawsuit. In 2011, Social Security Administration staff members determined Weathers was unable to work because of her mental issues, and Weathers began receiving benefits.”
So at no time between 2006 and 2011 did the family do anything to help their daughter? Was this really about money with the family?
If she filled out the ATF’s truefully and passed the background check and it came back positive, what is the big deal? She bought the weapon legally. Then this lawsuit has no grounds.
If the family of this woman knew that she was unstable then why did they not do an intervention and have her placed into some sort of treatment at a psychiatric facility near them. Why do so many in this country not take responsibility for their family members and blame everyone & everything except who is really responsible for their family member. The same thing happened with the nut in the Sandy Hook shootings. Why would a mother have that kind of weaponry in the home with such a troubled son? Why has the father and brother not been held responsible because prior to the killings the older brother lived in the same home? I have been a member of the NRA for a very long time just in case you think I am an anti-gun idiot.
Talk about a lousy situation. I think its very reasonable on the basis of a phone call to not sell someone a firearm for a day or two until the requester come in person to the store and provide some documentation that this person is a danger to themselves or others. I don’t know if most retail CRM/POS software has a specific field for “banned from store” or “we previously declined a sale to this person and won’t sell them anything sharp and pointy” but it may be a good idea. The issue is that if prudence and care are not exercised, it is likely to cause meddling by busybodies.
The liability of the gun shop in the negligent entrustment lawsuit depends, in part, on whether NE applies to a seller (as opposed to someone who lets someone else borrow). The scope of NE varies from state to state.
The gun shop’s decision to settle was obviously influenced by the Mo. court’s decision that NE applies to sellers in Mo. It doesn’t apply to sellers in other states. Hopefully each seller has been advised whether it likely applies or not in whatever state it’s in so it can more reliably evaluate its risk.
Comments are closed.