Re: *sigh*

Ken Shaw wrote:
>
> lhcarter@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> It turns out they are required to track their sales. It is part of the
> system intended to track guns to break up the black market. Every
> firearm sold legally in the US has a serial number engraved on it. The
> gun manufacturer is required to track who they sold that specific weapon
> to. That way if it is used in a crime they can then trace through the
> chain of legal transactions until they find the legal owner or where it
> entered the black market.

They do track theirs sales; MANUFACTURERS sell only to liscensed gun
dealers. You seem confused on this point. They do not get records of the
final consumer. Usually firearms go through several distruters or
dealers. Each dealer keeps a record of who they sell it to, as well as
careful records of their inventory. If the gun is used in a crime, and
the feds think it is worth the trouble, they can start at the
manufacturer and work down the chain to track the dispositition of the
firearm. Usually, it is unecessary because local authorities can often
can find a local dealer who has some record of the firearm, or the perp
will supply some information. In any case, the manufacturer is not
negligent.
Klaus

>
>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>
>
> He can be held liable for a paperwork infraction or some other technical
> violation if the ATF cannot put together a strong enough case to
> convince the DoJ to prosecute the felonies. The present DoJ prosecutes
> effectively no gun sales violations.
>
> The states where the guns are used to commit crimes cannot criminally
> prosecute the gun dealer in another state as this is part of interstate
> trade and only the federal government can regulate interstate trade.
>
> The states where the guns originate in have little impetus to prosecute
> the gun runners even if a local law has been broken. The NRA is a very
> powerful group in places like Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia.
>
> This leaves the civil lawsuit as the only judicial recourse to control
> this gun running. This is especially appealing since the potential
> damages far exceed the rather paltry fines for the paperwork violations
> that the gun dealers are usually hit with.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>
>
> Reread the bill. IANALawyer but my reading is that it protects the
> dealers and manufacturers from any lawsuit stemming from the use of
> their weapons in the commission of a crime. Since selling guns without a
> license or in violation of local gun control laws is a crime it would
> appear that this would inoculate the dealers and manufacturers from
> civil suits related to their gun running activities if any.
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> The government did not impose these rules on the tobacco industry. They
> agreed to them as part of an out of court settlement of a group of civil
> lawsuits. This is not censorship and is not a violation of any part of
> the first amendment. As a matter of fact constitutional scholars have
> long held the view that the SCOTUS ruling extending the first amendment
> freedom of the press to commercial speech was a step far outside the
> bounds of the amendment. Many other forms of commercial speech are
> limited by the government for much less reason than protecting the
> health of millions of people.
>
> Ken
>

.

Loading