Mother Sues Missouri Gun Shop

[priell3]

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri gun shop is facing a wrongful death lawsuit after selling a handgun to a woman who is charged with using it to murder her father.

The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence brought the suit on behalf of Janet Delana, who said she warned the gun store not to sell any guns to her daughter, Colby Sue Weathers, because of a long history of mental illness.

http://news.msn.com/us/mother-sues-m...used-in-murder

[joe40x]

And she passed the background test? Sounds fishy to me.

[darkhunter]

Weathers developed a high level of paranoia in 2006, was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2011, and hospitalized on several occasions for suicidal tendencies, the lawsuit said.

The Social Security Administration determined she was "severely mentally ill," the lawsuit states


fishy indeed

[Sir Knight]

If she was committed against her will, then the liability, if any, lies with the background check system and not the store.

[Harriss]

Maybe she should file suit against "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" since they are calling the NICS checks "Brady Checks"

[Palerider]

Makes perfect sense to me. Let's have people, maybe even someone we don't know, go to gun stores and tell them not to sell their products to someone because they might be unstable.

Hell, can we apply that to car dealers and anyone else that sells something that could be dangerous. I see a bunch of horrific drivers out there, many even appear mentally unstable, they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Now, if the store didnt follow the law and perform whatever background check Missouri requires, then charge them for that.

[Curmudgeon]

Unlike the system we have here in PA, many states use only NICS for background checks, and it is my understanding that mental health information is not passed along to the feds. So folks with severe mental illness and perhaps even a history of being involuntarily committed will still pass NICS.

In fact, it sounds like this is exactly what happened here. I can see this going either way. We all know an FFL can refuse a sale for no reason at all, or for a bad or ridiculous reason. And I have no idea how common it is to work the counter at a gun shop and have family members come in pleading/demanding that I not sell a gun to so-and-so "because theys crazy as hail", but I can imagine it would give a lot of guys pause. I guess it depends on who seemed the more crazy at the time, as well as an assortment of other details we will never see reported in the media.

Obviously the Brady types see a ripe opportunity and are going to play it for all it's worth in furtherance of their determination that we move the nation toward UBCs.

I think this will be worth watching.

[Brick]

Under Mo. Rev. Stat. §632.300 mental health professionals in the State of Missouri MUST report those who're a danger to themselves or others! That requirement has existed since 1996! If the mental health professionals, law enforcement officials or state authorities involved FAILED to identify this person as prohibited from firearms ownership/possession or otherwise failed in fulfilling the requirements of the Brady Act to maintain and update NICS background data, there is no way the gun shop is culpable

[jerkin]

If the gun shop can prove that they did nothing illegal then I think the NRA should back their lawsuit if for no other reason to show the Brady's that we will not put up with them trying to sue our shops out of existence. You know if it works here it's going to happen again and again.

[Swarner793]

Following the law does not always exonerate an FFL. Here is one case that was close to home, for me anyways.

Be safe (and doing it right, sometimes isn't enough).

Scott

http://overlawyered.com/2004/08/gun-...tles-for-850k/


Gun dealer settles for $850K

by TED FRANK on AUGUST 25, 2004
Perry J. Bruce purchased ten guns between 1994 and 1997 from Jon K. Sauers of Sauers Trading in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and dozens from other gun shops in the area. The guns were sold to Bruce legally–he had no record–but Bruce would then go on to illegally resell the guns on the street for a profit, eventually leading to his conviction for gun trafficking in 1998. On April 19, 1999, one of those guns was found by a child under a parked car; that child proceeded to shoot and kill 7-year-old Nafis Jefferson. So, given that someone illegally sold a gun to someone who eventually negligently left on the ground where it was found by someone who then negligently (or worse) killed someone, the mother, with the help of the Brady Center and co-counsel Mark LeWinter, sued… Sauers, who legally sold the gun, and Rossi, who manufactured the gun, and Taurus, which bought Rossi. (Taurus was sued because they failed to “recall and retrofit” the gun with safety devices–as if a Philadelphia thug who leaves his gun under a parked car was going to turn in his illegally possessed gun to be outfitted with a childproof lock.)

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports,
Sauers testified in a deposition in the Jefferson case that he complied with state and federal law, properly filling out all forms in each sale to Bruce.
But he never asked Bruce why he was buying all the guns.

Asked why he never questioned Bruce, Sauers replied in the deposition: “I don’t know what my reason would be to ask him. I didn’t think it was any of my business.”

Sauers settled out of the suit for $850,000. I still haven’t seen an explanation in the Brady Center materials what Sauers was supposed to have done differently, though they emphasize that Bruce was unemployed and used his welfare card for identification. (Is the state of being poor is reason enough to preclude someone from buying a gun?) “There is a risk of liability that is now real for gun sellers all across the country,” the Brady Center’s Dennis Henigan said, and we couldn’t say it better ourselves. (L. Stuart Ditzen, “Dealer settles suit over gunplay”, Aug. 24; AP, Apr. 21; our gun coverage).