"An Odessa, Mo., gun dealer on Tuesday agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a wrongful-death lawsuit that arose when the dealer sold a gun to a mentally ill woman who then used it to kill her father. "Attorneys for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which helped the widow with her lawsuit, praised the development and said it sets an important precedent. " 'I think this case sends a resounding message to gun dealers across the country that if they put profits over people, we will make them pay with consequences,' said attorney Jonathan Lowy. 'Were taking the profit out of supplying dangerous people with guns.' "Janet Delana of Wellington, Mo., had called Odessa Gun & Pawn Shop and pleaded with them not to sell a firearm to her mentally ill daughter, Colby Sue Weathers. But the dealer sold Weathers a .45-caliber handgun that she used to shoot her father, Tex Delana, in 2012." http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article116462698.html#storylink=cpy I think more lawsuits could be a major factor in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Hit the gun industry where it hurts and they'll think twice about selling guns to people who shouldn't have them.
If this individual should not have had a firearm, and her family believed her to be a legitimate threat to either her safety, or the safety of another, why did they not take steps to have her committed to a mental healthcare facility? Why did they do absolutely nothing, and instead ignore the problem?
This is the 1950's. Locking mentally ill people up has become a lot less common. Regardless, firearm dealers don't have license to act in such an extremely reckless manner and should be punished to the full extent of the law when they do so.
Should Bed, Bath and Beyond be liable if a disturbed person kills someone with a recently purchased knife, or should REI be held liable if a disturbed person kills themself with a rope they bought on a Black Friday sale?
Gun dealers should be held to a higher standard. They are engaged in the business of selling a product that makes it very easy to kill people. For that reason, they are required to obtain a special license. No special license is required to sell rope or knives.
Do gun dealers have the legal right to refuse a lawful gun sale to a purchaser who can pass a background check?
yes they do. I know because I was counsel for a dealer. A woman came in and tried to buy a gun. I didn't like her vibes and my client told her he wasn't selling to her. Turns out she was a DV victim. we called the police and a lady detective questioned her and ultimately arrested her boyfriend, But you have a right as a dealer not to sell even if the person passes a BGC. Straw purchases are stopped all the time that way
I can see how an anti gun family member could call a gun dealer and say something untrue, similar to this as a way to keep a family member from buying a gun.
Do they have a legal obligation to not sell in grey area circumstances? Would other social pressures are also come into play - say, a black man or white woman who gave off bad vibes? If the person was otherwise legally qbl e to purchase a firearm, would the fear of a discrimination lawsuit be taken into account by the FFL?
well if a dealer is refusing to sell in such a way that violates Title VII than he can be liable for a discrimination suit
Which is no excuse for not doing the right thing. If this woman posed such a significant threat to others, why did her family not take the necessary steps to prevent her from harming someone? The woman in question apparently managed to pass a background check without issue. This means that as far as the established federal law of the united states is concerned, there was no legal basis for denying her the purchase of a firearm. Had she been involuntarily committed, that would have served to prevent her from legally acquiring a firearm. And what standard should the family of the woman be held to? They obviously knew she posed a credible threat to not only herself but others, but they did absolutely nothing about it. They did not have her committed to a mental health facility, nor did they tape steps to insure she did not go anywhere alone. They allowed her to roam freely despite knowing the danger that she posed. They knew they had a problem, and yet they chose to do nothing about it. The federally licensed firearms dealer was under no obligation to heed the pleas of the family to not carry out the sale, if the family itself did not believe her a credible enough threat to address adequately. How are the actions of the family any different from keeping a vicious dog as a pet, and doing nothing to insure that it does not get loose and hurt others?
They didn't even have to commit her. They could have had her adjudicated as mentally incompetent to possessing firearms. Had a friend do it to his son after a bad car wreck in which he suffered a TBI. Broke his heart but safety first.
This, of course, requires that the dealer has personal knowledge of the person's condition. Clearly, this applies to the huge majority of gun sales in the US.
A settlement does not a precedent make. He should have filed a counter suite. They knew he didn't. A phone call is not credible grounds for denying a firearm sale. The family should have had her adjudicated as mentally incompetent then the FFL would have had a legit reason to deny the transaction. The family is at fault and it is wrong of them to blame the FFL when it is them that did not take the necessary steps to insure that she could not get a firearm.
If firearm owners can reasonably be expected to keep their firearms secured in a manner that would prevent them from being accessed by individuals other than themselves, perhaps there is precedent for requiring the families of the mentally ill to keep them secured in a similar manner, that would prevent them from gaining access to individuals they could harm.
