I'm an individual rights/individual responsibility guy. People who want to sue dealers for their poor decisions don't usually post on FR in my experience.
This guy spent more money going hunting in a foreign country than he did on his used Mossy. Next time, he ought to go hunting in the US with a newly US manufactured gun and there won't be any trouble.
Receiving stolen property is receiving stolen property. Let the buyer beware.
I generally agree, but how, in many cases, is a buyer in a position to know?
Let's say that I go to a local electronics store and I see a good deal on a television set--not a great deal--but a good deal. Owner says he just got the shipment in that morning and he'll sell it to me for 10% off the marked price. I say "great" and buy it and the store owner delivers it to my house.
A couple weeks later, the police come to my home and seize my television set. They tell me that the shipment of television sets that the store owner received was actually stolen. The police caught the thief and he confessed selling the TV sets to the store owner, who produced the receipt of the people to whom he sold and delivered the sets.
Now, under your theory, you'd make the consumer bear the burden of that loss? How is that good policy? First, the consumer is in no position to determine whether or not the goods have good title; second, wouldn't that potentially chill commercial transactions because few people would make large purchases because they would have no assurances that they were receiving goods with good title?
By the way, how do you know that a new gun isn't stolen? A shipment of brand new guns could easily be hijacked and then sold to a sporting goods store by the theives. How does buying only new guns solve the problem?
In fact, in my hypothetical in the above post, I had rather envisioned--though I didn't make it clear--that the shipment of television sets were brand new.
The reciever of stolen property was the gun dealer. I suspect this dealer is attempting to launder stolen guns. I suspect that was completely negligent, or was willingly a partner in a lucrative fence op.
Since the dealer is engaged in commerce and advertises that he is legit he should verify the stock he puchases is legit. He has a lawful duty to reasonably do that in business law, if not by statute. The duty in this case is the one engaged in operating the business, not the customer. This isn't a case of private sales, where the seller presents no advertising of legitimacy to the general consuming public. The database does exist and I suspect at this point the local PD had the info that the gun was stolen and the gun dealer was at least negligent and likely a willing fence.