In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Judge decides Gary can sue gun dealers

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited September 2002 in General Discussion
Judge decides Gary can sue gun dealers

Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals has cleared the way for the city of Gary to sue three Lake County businesses which, the city argues, have become through their weapons sales a public nuisance by fueling crime.

The court's ruling, announced Friday, said a Lake Superior Court judge was wrong dismissing Gary's entire civil lawsuit last year.

It said Gary's lawsuit can proceed against three of 21 entities originally named as defendants in the lawsuit.

The original defendants were gun manufacturers and distributors, five local dealers and three trade associations. The lawsuit accused all 21 parties of selling weapons to gang members and others who were not entitled to own them.

It seeks damages for gun violence that has plagued the northwestern city for decades.

The three businesses the appellate court specified should remain defendants in the lawsuit are Cash Indiana of Burns Harbor and Lake Station, Ameri-Pawn of Lake Station and Blythe's Sport Shop of Valparaiso.

Gary Mayor Scott King filed the lawsuit more than two years ago, saying he wanted to force the local businesses to stop marketing weapons to inner-city gangs.

Defense lawyers for the companies successfully argued to Lake Superior Court Judge James Richards that the lawsuit was an unconstitutional intrusion on interstate commerce.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

While the appellate court ruled Friday that Richards was correct when he dismissed the lawsuit against most of the original defendants, it said Cash Indiana, Ameri-Pawn and Blythe's could still face trial and civil penalties.

The court said the three businesses could still be sued because the city of Gary alleges there is evidence that illegal weapons sales known as straw purchases took place there.

A straw purchase is defined as the purchase of a gun by a person with a clean criminal background who intends to transfer the gun to someone forbidden by federal law to own one, usually a convicted criminal.

Gary's lawsuit alleges undercover police officers conducted straw purchases at the three dealerships.

Telephone messages were left yesterday seeking comment from King, Blythe's Sports Shop and Cash America. An employee who answered the telephone at Ameri-Pawn said the store's owner was out of town and unavailable for comment
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2002/09/22/in092202s280875.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    When you fill out the paperwork when purchasing a weapon, doesn't it ask you if the gun you are buying is for you? And doesn't it also state that if you do not answer the questions truthfully that you are subject to prosecution. Keeping those two points in mind lets look at the police procedure for (fraiming) the store owner for a (straw purchase). Wouldn't the undercover policeman be committing a crime?

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
  • ccasey612ccasey612 Member Posts: 901 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Maybe I can sue For making the car that a drunk driver was driving when he killed my dad in a car accident.

    If you will blame gun makers for every shooting then blame car maker for every car accident.
  • ccasey612ccasey612 Member Posts: 901 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Even better can I sue the city for making that one street where the road swerves back and forth and people crash there all the time. What do you think.

    If you will blame gun makers for every shooting then blame car maker for every car accident.
  • pikeal1pikeal1 Member Posts: 2,707
    edited November -1
    casey...sue them both...and sue the company that made the tires too...after all, without tires, you can't drive.

    I think its a shame that something like this happened. Rather than prosecute the store owner for unknowingly selling firearms to someone that is not fit (via a straw purchase) why not track down the person that bought the gun and prosecute him/her.

    on the other hand...if the stores were selling to gang members and actually were taking part in this...then, the hell with them..we don't need that kind of dealer anyway.
  • ccasey612ccasey612 Member Posts: 901 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Dealers are in a business to sell guns. It is not their job to try to pick out who is a gang member and who is not. If the Gun dealer knows he is a gang member for sure then ehticly that is wrong for him to do that. But if I am a business man and some one checks out fine I will sell them the gun regardless of what I think.

    If you will blame gun makers for every shooting then blame car maker for every car accident.
  • redcedarsredcedars Member Posts: 919 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The evidence of so-called coaching to get around federal purchase laws remains to be seen. The court must presume in ruling on these preliminary motions that the alleged coaching took place, because plaintiffs filed affidavits to that effect. Similar claims in the nearby Chicago litigation were held by the court to be too thin to even let a jury consider. The videotapes DID NOT reveal illegal coaching, despite plaintiff's claims to the contrary.

    This case has been absolutley gutted by the Court of Appeals ruling upholding virtually all of Judge Richards findings. If the lead counsel was not the mayor's former law partner, it would be over. (Since his firm has hundreds of thousands of dollars in politically related contracts, he will probably go forward to the bitter end.) No big bucks or big precedent here.

    redcedars
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'd wait on the evidence. The headline is misleading, but straw purchases are definitely illegal. The trick is proving the "knowingly" part. I'm glad the court threw out most of it, but there is the possibility that there was collusion between the pawnshop owner, for example, and individuals known to him to be gang members to obtain guns. You wouldn't necessarily need entrapment for that; in fact, entrapment wouldn't work because what cop is going to buy a gun and turn it over to a criminal? They could never prove intent to convert the gun into criminal hands, because the intent was never there, with a cop making a buy.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • mcbabmcbab Member Posts: 120 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Army is the biggest gang in U.S.
Sign In or Register to comment.