Posted on 05/21/2014 5:39:05 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Gander Mountain, which sold a weapon used in a Christmas Eve shooting that left two Rochester, N.Y.-area volunteer firefighters dead, is being sued on behalf of the victims.
The semi-automatic rifle used by William Spengler Jr. on Dec. 24, 2012, to kill two West Webster firefighters and wound two others was purchased at a Gander Mountain store by his neighbor Dawn Nguyen. Spengler couldn't buy the gun because he was a felon.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says it filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of the four victims claiming that St. Paul-based Gander Mountain should have realized Nguyen was making a "straw purchase" for Spengler, who accompanied her into the store.
A spokesman for Gander Mountain said the company hasn't seen the lawsuit.
Nguyen and Spengler's estate also are named in the lawsuit.
On Monday, Nguyen, 25, sentenced to up to four years in prison for lying on forms when she bought the guns. She still faces federal charges for illegally purchasing the firearms and selling them to a known felon. A hearing on motions in that case is scheduled for Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
“...Gander Mountain should have realized Nguyen was making a “straw purchase” for Spengler, who accompanied her into the store. ...”
Ummm... Dear Miss Brady...Mind telling us How?
Look for this to be the new tactic. Needs to be stepped on, quickly and forcefully.
“...The semi-automatic rifle used...”
Wow... good thing he didn’t use a lever gun... that would have become a “High-capacity Repeating Assault Rifle”...
That'll really get the peasants confused!
I would think the person who willfully lied on the application forms is the real culprit here. But hey, who has the deep pockets?
Gander Mountain sells a perfectly legal product, and they did due diligence in assuring the purchaser complied with the requirements. But the purchaser was operating under deceit and misrepresentation, and there is no safeguard in place that would have alerted Gander Mountain to this duplicity.
Legal proceedings do not determine right or wrong in any instance. They only determine what is legal or illegal.
They clearly missed the mark here.
Here's one problem....After the murders, she called someone she knew connected to the police department....and she knew all about those guns....and her own words are on tape.
Will Clare Voyant please pick up the white courtesy phone? Ms. Voyant ...
Might as well sue the phone company for providing access for the 911 call
“....I have an idea; let’s not enforce laws that actually exist, and enforce laws that don’t exist!”........
Sounds just like odumbo, that’s what he a Holder do already
Maybe the shooter should have never been out of prison after beating his own grandmother to death with a hammer.
Just a thought.
This is dripping with sexisum because everyone knows that only men buy firearms. Girls are afraid of guns after all, "They're like totally icky". The only reason that a woman would buy a gun is to give to to a man.
This will be their legal argument.
Seriously need to implement Looser Pays litigation!
My point exactly!
I thought the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevented these kinds of nonsensical lawsuits? Or does it just stop governments from trying to sue gun businesses out of existence?
Go to Florida. With its deep pocket laws liability is largely determined by what sued party has the greatest ability to pay. Not by logical responsibility for the damage caused.
Im in that specific store regularly I was worried after the incident that they’d close down or further limit sales - instead the revamped the dept and made it the largest in NY running the length of the entire back wall - about 180’....nary an AR (flat top or otherwise) in sight though
The gun manufacturer is responsible for someone lying on a Form 4473?
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
**********************************
11. Answer questions 11.a.(see exceptions)through 11.l. and 12(if applicable)by checking or marking“yes” or “no”in the boxes to the right of the questions.
a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s)to you.(See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception:If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s)for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
********
I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law(See Instructions for Question 16).
**********************************
I don't see anything about "If you lie on question 11.a it is the firearm manufacturer's fault."
If I lie to get a driver's license should the state have known I was lying?
If I then use that ID to buy beer when I'm actually underage is the store at fault because they should have known that I was underage even though I had a genuine state issued ID that said otherwise?
I’m just guessing that the act you mentioned bars lawsuits that are based on a premise that the firearm is defective, unreasonably dangerous, etc. This case is premised on negligence or similar in making a straw sale. It’s against the retail seller, not against the manufacturer of the gun.
The young woman who bought these guns was paid $1000 for the act of purchasing them with the intent of transferring them to a third party.
How does Gander Mountain know that it is her intent?
Form 4473 asks that question in Box 11a. “ Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring firearm(s) on behalf of another person” Y or N.
If they lie....then It is not the fault of Gander Mountain.... further, can you imagine the legal/media shit-storm if they were to refuse a sale to a minority woman?
The brady center is such a fraud. With his damaged brain does Mr brady realize that his wife created this monstrosity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.