If they should have know that he was a prohibited possessor, or did know and sold it anyways, then I believe that answer is yes. Just like they’ve wring up strawman purchasers for aiding and abetting.
Another school shooting
- Thread starter Cubs79
- Start date
That is not a store. That is a private sale. And “not supposed to” is actually federally illegal to sell to convicted felons and people that live outside of the state. These laws don’t vary, they’re federal laws. All states follow them and enforce them. Some states go beyond the federal laws.
Also, Nelson certainly appears to be acting as a dealer without a license. This is a federal felony. You cannot be in the business of selling guns without a license. Oh, what, the anti-gun propaganda article didn’t mention that law?
You're having a hard time with this, I see. All over a cartoon that I guess got you riled up. I am very sorry if you can't see through all of this and that you'd rather pick fly shit out of the pepper. I already told you not to come back with the private sale stuff. I am still LMAO at the cartoon, regardless...
And LMMFAO about the "anti-gun article." You mean the same article that acknowledges "Studies have generally found some evidence that universal background checks help reduce gun violence, but the research is less than compelling. Recent research found that over 10 years, universal background checks had no effect on gun homicide or suicide rates in the state of California." That one? You skip over that part?
Yeah, I did miss that part. You’re also right that I’m too invested in this conversation. I really wanted to see what ideas we had outside of the polarized gun debate but we keep coming back to that. So I guess I’m out then.
Just for reference, a single web forum for a single state has over 100K+ members selling millions of firearms and accessories with zero background checks.
www.theoutdoorstrader.com
The Outdoors Trader
Firearms and outdoors related discussion with free and very active classifieds section! Forums for guns, hunting, fishing, class iii weapons, and much more!
www.theoutdoorstrader.com
make cell phones and video games illegal until 21 too.
makes sense if you sell a car and a buyer kills some one with it you should be liable. *
Brain but not lung functions impaired after a chlorine incident - PubMed
A workplace bleach exposure incident was studied in 13 women to determine whether chlorine caused neurobehavioral and pulmonary functional effects. We compared neurophysiological and neuropsychological measurements in 13 chlorine-exposed women, 4.5 years after exposure, and 41 unexposed women...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
In sum, you're stupid because of your extended exposure to pool chorline. Chlorine bleach exposure was associated with impaired neurobehavioral functions and elevated POMS scores and symptom frequencies. Alternatives to chlorine should be used.
It really isn't even cute any longer. This goofy pool cleaner needs to stop posting.
Damn, makes sense why goodknight is a moron even by boomer standards.Brain but not lung functions impaired after a chlorine incident - PubMed
A workplace bleach exposure incident was studied in 13 women to determine whether chlorine caused neurobehavioral and pulmonary functional effects. We compared neurophysiological and neuropsychological measurements in 13 chlorine-exposed women, 4.5 years after exposure, and 41 unexposed women...
In sum, you're stupid because of your extended exposure to pool chorline. Chlorine bleach exposure was associated with impaired neurobehavioral functions and elevated POMS scores and symptom frequencies. Alternatives to chlorine should be used.
He got the standard boomer dose of lead poisoning from breathing in leaded gasoline fumes during his formative years, resulting in lowered IQ.
Then huffing chlorine made him even dumber. A moron among morons.
I'm not going to discount the influence that our gun-loving entertainment culture has on people. But ironically, it's influence goes to the purchase of deadly guns.
But other countries have violent movies and games too. Why are these non-stop mass murders happening in the United States and not in Japan -- the king of violent video games -- or other countries?
The notion that the proliferation of deadly guns has no role in what we're experiencing is preposterous. It's like Ted Cruz opining that THE REAL PROBLEM with mass murders at schools is.....(drumroll)....unlocked back doors.
Japan Shuck? Really? Americans are way more violent by nature, than the Japanese. Especially post WW-2.
Also, can 18 year-olds get AR-15s in Japan so easily?
Huh. I guess we should poll the millions of schools in the rest of the civilized world and ask how they keep their back doors locked, when America (the greatest country on Earth) can't figure it out and keeps getting kids slaughtered.
My point is we get the same old lame excuses about mentally-ill people...and violent video games....and violent movies and TV shows....as the REAL issue behind mass murders. But America isn't the only country with mentally ill people and violent entertainment. Yet for some strange reason this stuff happens in the USA, the place with more guns than any other country in the world.
It’s a multifactorial problem. Guns are the #1 problem, but to fix this problem entirely we will also have to address several other issues at least, because banning guns will not be 100% foolproof. Just like rarely a mass murder occurs in the UK
People ask what steps we could take to begin to curb gun violence. Raise the age to purchase guns to 21 years of age.
Look at all these crazy mass murderers. A sizeable number of them were current or recent high schoolers. Taking this common sense step seems like a no-brainer.
Look at all these crazy mass murderers. A sizeable number of them were current or recent high schoolers. Taking this common sense step seems like a no-brainer.
Well there's your problem: you expect literal cult members to use common sense.
This isn't the political divide of the past, like in the 90's when we were able to get a common sense AWB passed between the left and right. Today's political scene is far closer to 1930's Germany.
You may have civil liability if you lend your car to someone and they drive recklessly and cause an accident. I thought this was called transitional liability but the legal term is negligent entrustment.
You have civil liability if you give a gun to, or fail to secure a gun properly around, a person who intends to use it to directly or in a manner to cause harm to others.
What Is Negligent Entrustment? | LaBovick Law Group
As Florida gun sales spike, the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment is more timely than ever. But what is it? Keep reading to find out.
www.labovick.com
Last edited:
Doesn't that Youtube video say it all?
Cigarettes? You look twelve. No way!
Alcohol? Think again, kid!
Lottery Ticket? Nope! You're not old enough.
Shotgun? YOU BETCHA!!! Step right up, kid!!!!
Brain but not lung functions impaired after a chlorine incident - PubMed
A workplace bleach exposure incident was studied in 13 women to determine whether chlorine caused neurobehavioral and pulmonary functional effects. We compared neurophysiological and neuropsychological measurements in 13 chlorine-exposed women, 4.5 years after exposure, and 41 unexposed women...
In sum, you're stupid because of your extended exposure to pool chorline. Chlorine bleach exposure was associated with impaired neurobehavioral functions and elevated POMS scores and symptom frequencies. Alternatives to chlorine should be used.
In case you didn't see it is called sarcasm. Thus the *.
If any legal dealer obeys the laws and sells a legal product, obeying the laws for that sale, they should not be liable for what the buyer does with that product. Not guns, not cars, not candy bars. Now if you wish to toughen the laws on private sales of guns, I am ok with it. First limit the # of sales a private seller can do in a year without a license. That one thing would reduce the problem greatly. Improve the insta check system and require private sellers who sell more than x# of guns per year to use it.
Last edited:
Holy shit you are even dumber than I previously thought. No shit you were sarcastic, you stupid useless ****. Everyone understood you were attempting what your pathetic idiotic self thought was cleverness. Your point was idiotic, and easily debunked by Jeremy.
How do you manage to survive on a day-to-day basis? You must have a permanent live in care taker. Whatever you are paying them, I assure you it isn't enough.
I’m fine with background checks for all purchases unless the person is a family member or personally known to the individual. I.e. not someone who just walked up to you at a gun show. But, like you said, the instacheck system needs to be able to support it.
A healthy number of the gun control laws being pushed include an aspect of liability for gun manufacturers. This would largely destroy the civilian gun industry in this country and be a boon to foreign producers.
Is the exemption from liability due to the nature of the product? If a toy kills people, the toy company is liable. But if a gun kills people the gun company is not liable. Because, duh, that’s the purpose of a gun in the first place. I’m not even sure how the liability aspect would work.
If the toy is a manufacturer’s defect, then the company may be liable. Or if there is a design flaw inherent and they didn’t provide a warning.
Guns have a warning on them when you buy them the first time and rarely have design or manufacturing flaws that cause injury. More than that, almost every single person above the age of 10 in the world knows that pulling the trigger of a firearm results in deadly particles coming out of the barrel.
Should we be able to sue a nail gun manufacturer if someone used it to kill people? Or a Louisville Slugger? Or a Chicago Cutlery? Or an automaker for Kenosha or Charlottesville?
We agree kids shouldn't be acquiring guns.
But, we need to be smarter than "banning all guns". Look how well the war on drugs is going. Need to be focused on the drivers of abuse, not the substance... Starts at home, need a much more disciplined and respectful culture.
And for those that want to be independent thinkers, documentaries are up there with Maddow and Tucker news reports...easily skewed.
Always a "but."
Always the same old arguments. Who is saying ban all guns? What I'm hearing from posters here is that we can ban kids from buying guns until they turn 21. And why not ban assault rifles like the AR-15? I've yet to hear anyone explain why the general public needs them.
Oooooookay. Good luck with that.
Not exactly. Thanks in large part to the NRA lobby, Congress passed a law in 2005 that gave the gun industry a special legal shield from lawsuits
Who says we have a toothless, do-nothing Congress?*
As well they should have. It was ridiculous that they were getting threatened with lawsuits for every use of their weapon, even in a fully justified defensive use of force. You would instantly cripple the industry just through lawyers fees.
If we want to legislatively end the industry, fine. But we must not do through spurious legal action that which should be done through legislative action.
This is different that what we were discussing. We were discussing the liability of someone who sold a gun without performing a background check. Obviously if you are negligent with your own possession you could have some form of liability.You may have civil liability if you lend your car to someone and they drive recklessly and cause an accident. I thought this was called transitional liability but the legal term is negligent entrustment.
You have civil liability if you give a gun to, or fail to secure a gun properly around, a person who intends to use it to directly or in a manner to cause harm to others.
What Is Negligent Entrustment? | LaBovick Law Group
As Florida gun sales spike, the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment is more timely than ever. But what is it? Keep reading to find out.
If you are a dealer, you committed a felony and will lose your license and you may have civil liability if you sold the weapon to someone who shouldn’t have had it. If you are a private seller, and you sell to someone that you don’t know, you’re taking a risk that some lawyer or prosecutor is going to come after you.
That’s not what the link says. It says if you knowingly provided a gun to someone who wasn’t legally allowed to own it.
McDonalds can be sued when some jerk spills a cup of their hot coffee in his lap in the drive-thru lane...but it's "ridiculous" that gun manufacturers who deliberately market their guns to teenagers with macho-military themed advertising might...gasp!...risk a lawsuit...when one mows down a bunch of helpless school kids to a bloody pulp with one of their assault rifles? Gosh, perish the thought!!!
Tell me, what does a teenager need an AR-15 for?
Right. Or if you should’ve known that person was an illegal possessor. But trials are decided by juries and plain letter won’t stop someone from using the arguments that you all like to make in court. Such as: it’s a gun, of course the person was going to use it for a harmful purpose. If they weren’t, they’d have bought the gun from a dealer and gone through a background check.
Since we’re so hung up on the gun show “loophole,” have you ever looked up the statistics on how many gun show purchases have actually been used in criminal activity? You might be surprised.
I think only around 5% of gun sales occur at gun shows. So I wouldn’t expect a significant number of them being used in criminal activity. Far more often it’s a private sale or gift that evades the background check. I think close to a quarter of guns were obtained without background check. But I guess the seller is liable if a lawyer says they should have known the recipient was ineligible to possess the firearm. I don’t know of any actual cases of this regarding private sales though. Perhaps you are aware of something.
When a prosecutor is trying to make their career, they’ll hang any charge they can on someone. But more than that, we’re a legal system that leverages precedent. Sometimes it’s best to cut it off before there’s too much precedent.
Many gun crimes are committed with privately sold guns. That doesn’t make them legal sales nor does it make either party a legal possessor at any time. UCB isn’t going to do a thing about this. Many other guns used in crimes are strawman purchases, which are illegal. But TBH, they’re not prosecuted much and UCBs won’t help those cases either. So we can talk a bunch about UCBs but I’m skeptical that those laws would have an impact on crime.
What UCB would do is create a pseudo-national gun registry. Which is something that will get a ton of pushback from a lot of people.
I think a law requiring exchange of firearms to be conducted through a FFL or a police station (with attendant background checks) for all transactions not involving close familial relations ( out to first and maybe second cousins) may be a compromise. But when the left can barely hide the end goal of removing all legal firearms from society, it’s not hard to see why 2A supporters are demanding their politicians not give an inch. It doesn’t help when our Dear Leader comes out and states that 9mm round blow up a lung and strongly implies getting rid of all firearms capable of firing any round more powerful than a .22LR. Then follow it up with the blatant falsehood about not being able to own cannons at the time of the Constitution. And then much of the same crowd falls all over itself defending Alec Baldwin for his negligent homicide.
The common question among 2A advocates (largely rhetorical at this point) is “Why are the people who are the most adamant about ridding people of their Constitutional right to bear arms those who are the most ignorant of everything about said arms?”
The other common question is: “With all of the factors in play in any mass shooting situation, why is the left only ever interested in talking about the only factor that is an enumerated Constitutional right?”
The common question among 2A advocates (largely rhetorical at this point) is “Why are the people who are the most adamant about ridding people of their Constitutional right to bear arms those who are the most ignorant of everything about said arms?”
The other common question is: “With all of the factors in play in any mass shooting situation, why is the left only ever interested in talking about the only factor that is an enumerated Constitutional right?”
Last edited:
