Re: *sigh*


Ken Shaw wrote:
>
> In those cases both the dealers and manufacturers are being negligent.
> The only defense you have for them is that they don't track buyers. Well
> that is ridiculous. Manufacturers certainly track volume of sales to
> individual stores.

I doubt they track volume other than to the immediate licensed dealers
(not retailers), but so what if they do? Exactly how much volume sold
to a given store indicates illegal activity is pure speculation, and is
hardly a justification for "negligence." Also, since gun manufacturers
aren't required by law to track volume, what if they simply stopped?
Would you then agree they bear no responsibility for the illegal
activities of the small minority of gun buyers far down the purchase
chain?

> Dealers certainly can identify frequent customers
> simply by the paperwork they are required to generate. This means that
> the responsible store owner or gun manufacturer must report a suspicious
> buying pattern to the authorities. It is actually required of them by
> their licenses.

And if any dealer violates his legal requirements, then I do believe he
can still be help liable, correct?

> What you are arguing is that since these violations are not being
> pursued by state or federal law enforcement then these companies and
> individuals should be protected from civil liability.

I don't think this law protects dealers from civil suits claiming
negligence due to their own illegal activity, just as it does not
protect manufacturers from civil suits due to gun defects.


> I direct your
> attention to the tobacco industry which was in a similar situation. They
> were engaged in at the very least negligent activities but the law
> enforcement authorities were not pursuing them. It took civil action and
> the threat of massive losses to goad them into agreeing to reform. Where
> would we be if the tobacco industry had received this sort of
> protection? Would Joe Camel still be being used to market to kids? Would
> magazines aimed at a teen age audience still carry tobacco ads?

Good point.. where would we be? As you admit, we would have not
suffered this blatant government violation of the First Amendment by
imposing censorship on cigarette advertising. What happened to the
tobacco industry is a travesty of justice and unconstitutional.

Hopefully, this law will help protect the further erosion of the RKBA.

Lance

.

Loading