More PA Gun Shops Sued by NYC Mayor Bloomberg

[DeltaII5]

Originally Posted by greyhouse

Apparently this is an example of how to determine if the dealer may be allowing straw purchases:

A man and a woman enter a gun store. Woman goes off into the clothing section to look around at stuff. Man goes to the gun counter and starts inquiring about a gun. Woman later comes to the gun counter and fills out the paper work. Gun shop owner then allows the sale.

If this happens in your gun store, according to Bloomberg, you are willingly allowing a straw purchase. Obviously there is no consideration for the possibility that the gun is being purchased for the wife as a gift and the man asks all the questions because the wife doesn't know anything about guns.

I'm sure Bloomberg knows this has zero effect on reducing the amount of guns getting into the hands of criminals, but he's a politician and these kind of things definitely energize his base.

"That Bloomberg sure is a great guy! Cleaning up our streets of all those guns from that hillbilly state, Pennsylvania."

I was just about to post that. The "Sting" wasn't really a sting. A male and a female were used, and assumed to be married. It's a crappy sting to say the less. There was a post of one online with one of the videos from the sting. To say the least it was pathetic. The woman would walk around the store, the man look at the gun. THen the woman would fill out the paper work

[wewo]

PA should pass a law providing that if a city or other municipality sues a gun shop based on its sale of guns and loses the case, they have to pay the gun shop's legal fees!

[wewo]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

How is it that he's allowed to sue companies when it was found that he used illegal tactics to obtain the information? Wouldn't the information he obtained using these methods be inadmissible?

Wasn't it also found that he blew up another agency's undercover operation?

Probably not in a civil case, you are thinking of police or FBI trying to use illegal evidence to obtain a criminal conviction.

[TrybalRage]

Originally Posted by greyhouse

Obviously there is no consideration for the possibility that the gun is being purchased for the wife as a gift and the man asks all the questions because the wife doesn't know anything about guns.

That is exactly what I thought when I read that.

[greyhouse]

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

I was just about to post that. The "Sting" wasn't really a sting. A male and a female were used, and assumed to be married. It's a crappy sting to say the less. There was a post of one online with one of the videos from the sting. To say the least it was pathetic. The woman would walk around the store, the man look at the gun. THen the woman would fill out the paper work

Exactly. It's a shame, though, because when people read the article in the paper it makes the gun store sound like a place that loves to help criminals get guns. It just isn't the case at all.

The "sting" that Bloomberg does is very weak and it probably wouldn't hold up in court, but all these places can't take the bad publicity so they just settle. Bloomberg wins no matter what.

[CCinPA]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

How is it that he's allowed to sue companies when it was found that he used illegal tactics to obtain the information? Wouldn't the information he obtained using these methods be inadmissible?

Wasn't it also found that he blew up another agency's undercover operation?

The others are correct that what you are asking doesn't apply in a civil matter but may in a criminal matter.
This is why civil suites are a nasty little game because in a civil matter you don't have to prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt and with the cost for someone to defend them self aginst such, especially a small mom and pop gun shop is more costly that just taking a settlement. So every time a gun shop take the settlement to ease the financial pain and to put the whole mess of them being sued behind them it just makes Bloomberg look like he won another victory and that gun shop was really doing something wrong.

I really feel something needs to be done in this country with regards to the ease of filing a civil matter. I feel you need to show some reasonable merit in your case before you are allowed to drag someone through the mud and also wreak the havoc upon someone that a civil filing does to them and their family.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by CCinPA

The others are correct that what you are asking doesn't apply in a civil matter but may in a criminal matter.
This is why civil suites are a nasty little game because in a civil matter you don't have to prove your case beyond the shadow of a doubt and with the cost for someone to defend them self aginst such, especially a small mom and pop gun shop is more costly that just taking a settlement. So every time a gun shop take the settlement to ease the financial pain and to put the whole mess of them being sued behind them it just makes Bloomberg look like he won another victory and that gun shop was really doing something wrong.

I really feel something needs to be done in this country with regards to the ease of filing a civil matter. I feel you need to show some reasonable merit in your case before you are allowed to drag someone through the mud and also wreak the havoc upon someone that a civil filing does to them and their family.

I understand that there's less burden of proof on the plaintiff in a civil case, but I was under the impression that their tactics still had to be legal to be admissible in said case. In addition, if it were found the tactics were illegal, the plaintiff could be counter-sued and potentially face criminal charges, but they would be separate cases.

[SGTUSArmy]

CCinPA, I agree. It should be like in Japan, where it is so stinking expensive to file suit that you had better be on the up and up. It costs something like (what we were told in our indoctrination/Japanese boot camp class) 10,000 to 15,000 dollars to file a lawsuit. That is why there are so few automotive repossessions in the country. To repo, you have to file suit. That and both parties have to share the cost of the court. (can't sue for court costs.)

It is still wrong to sue for trivial matters.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by SGTUSArmy

CCinPA, I agree. It should be like in Japan, where it is so stinking expensive to file suit that you had better be on the up and up. It costs something like (what we were told in our indoctrination/Japanese boot camp class) 10,000 to 15,000 dollars to file a lawsuit. That is why there are so few automotive repossessions in the country. To repo, you have to file suit. That and both parties have to share the cost of the court. (can't sue for court costs.)

It is still wrong to sue for trivial matters.

Then only the rich can afford to sue. I happen to like that even the poorest can sue the largest corp. Sort of levels the playing fields. In stead of restricting lawsuits I would rather toss some of the judges who allow crazy suits to move forward.

[nijwnfi]

Phillyd, you really can't blame that gunshow dealer. I'm not trying to bust chops here, but with all the anti-gun lawsuits and such he has a business to protect. Dealer didn't know you or your girlfriend from Adam. Why not just have your girlfriend fill out paperwork and you pay?