The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 24, 2014, 08:25 AM   #1
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,301
Gander Mountain in major Straw Purchase Lawsuit

Gander Mountain is in a major law suit where they sold a couple firearm to Dawn Nguye that were later used in the commission of a crime. She plead guilty to falsifying firearms forums, now the Brady Bunch is going after Gander Mountain claiming they should have known it was a Straw purchase.

The litigation could be far reaching given the size of the retailer, which has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. The families are being represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group.

“But as time went by, new and very troubling facts emerged,” the plaintiffs statement continued. “These facts suggest that the loss we have endured could have been avoided. If only the store had acted responsibly.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...g-gun-lawsuit/

If this law suit is successful, soon nobody will be willing to sell firearms to the public.
steve4102 is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 09:32 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,686
Typically poor writing by yet another so-called "journalist."

Quote:
The litigation could be far reaching given the size of the retailer, which has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. The families are being represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group.
As written, the first sentence says that the retailer has drawn the backing of gun control advocates. Of course, it's actually the litigation the antis are supporting. Schools of journalism really need to start teaching would-be journalists to speak and write English.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 10:06 AM   #3
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
This is the reason they think Gander Mountain should have "known" it was a Straw Purchase...

Quote:
The suit claims the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) warned gun dealers that indicators of a straw purchase include multiple firearms being bought at once or more than one person entering the store together and paying with cash, which plaintiffs claim the store’s staff should have known.
In other words, they expect the sales staff to be mind-readers.

How ridiculous is it that being with someone and using actual money is supposedly suspicious?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 10:06 AM   #4
jag2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 405
There was a similar case in Austin a few years ago, long story and I don't remember all the details but a dealer at gun show was convicted and received I think a two year sentence. The argument was that he should have known it was a straw purchase. I can't tell you how many times I've noticed at a gun show that a female is filling out the paper work for a new gun purchase with her boyfriend/ husband sitting beside her. Wonder why that is?
jag2 is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 12:11 PM   #5
Oruglock
Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2014
Posts: 92
I've purchased more than one handgun at a time to save paying the background check fee. I've seen husband/wife couples buying matching guns at the same time, or just a gun for each of them.

Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.

Indicators of maybe, but not a guarantee of a straw purchase.
Oruglock is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 12:40 PM   #6
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,791
Obviously there are probably a lot of folks that purchase firearms and match the above described profile for any number of reasons. Regrettably this is just more covert gun control as these self appointed elites try to force their idea of what’s best on everyone else. The sad thing is many retailers may find it necessary to change their policies to avoid unreasonable litigation.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 01:02 PM   #7
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
jag2 There was a similar case in Austin a few years ago, long story and I don't remember all the details but a dealer at gun show was convicted and received I think a two year sentence. The argument was that he should have known it was a straw purchase....
That was Paul Copeland.
-He was not a licensed dealer.
-He knew the actual buyer was not a legal resident of Texas.
-He knew the person handing him the cash was not the actual buyer.
-Copeland had a history of bragging that he was immune from ATF.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09...nt-id-illegal/

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...pelandCase.pdf



Quote:
I can't tell you how many times I've noticed at a gun show that a female is filling out the paper work for a new gun purchase with her boyfriend/ husband sitting beside her. Wonder why that is?
Ummmm............it may surprise you to learn that women not only buy guns, but they shoot them too.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 01:23 PM   #8
captneil19
Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2014
Location: poplarville,ms.
Posts: 78
gun purchase gun shows

I have purchased weapons pistols rifles at gun shows, the guy with the booth says you paying cash, yep ok heres your gun no questions asked,right next to him is a guy with a booth who has a lic an you want to buy the same weapons ,you have a ton of paper work to fill out,why would anybody want to do business with him ?????here in ms. it happens all the time at the gun shows an its totally legal, you rent a booth an you sell what ever you have for sale except fully auto weapons, then you need a ffl lic
the point is are they expecting these people to be mind readers ?? do they know what their intentions are with the pistol they just bought ?? is the wife just being nice buying the husband a pistol,my wife has done this for me,not that I cant buy it myself, I have a federal weapons permit,that says it all
captneil19 is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 02:14 PM   #9
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
captneil19 .....you have a ton of paper work to fill out.....
Horsehockey.
Name, address, birthplace, Ht, Wt, gender, birthdate, race/ethnicity, answer a dozen questions yes or no, state of residence and country of citizenship.....and sign/date the form.

That's it. Anyone who says it's a TON OF PAPERWORK is being overly dramatic or has never actually bought a gun from a dealer.





Quote:
why would anybody want to do business with him ?????
Maybe because they can't pass the FBI NICS check the dealer will run on the buyer.




Quote:
I have a federal weapons permit,that says it all
Really?
Tell us more about this "Federal Weapons Permit".
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 02:30 PM   #10
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,093
The way the ATF has explained it to us is that often buyers bring someone with them when purchasing a firearm so not suspicious but when the accompanying party flatly picks out the firearm or is the person paying then the red flags should be waving.
__________________
Proud NRA Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 02:39 PM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
Quote:
Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.
At the shows I go to, its not unusual, it is the USUAL method. Paying with a card is unusual, and checks...people don't much like them anymore.

I always make sure I have cash, and not just cash, but cash in sufficient variety that the seller doesn't have to make change.

Part of the art of haggling is the implied, if not stated, point that you are offering what you can afford. Say a guy wants $700 for something, and you bargain down to $650, giving him $700 and expecting $50 back is rude, if you are implying you can only afford $650.

Another point I have found for cash on hand is its right there. That deal might be gone by the time you come back from a cash machine.'

One time, I found a rifle I wanted, on the table, with a price tag. Talked to the guy for a bit, see if he would deal, he gave me a line about how he really wasn't looking to sell, was going to use it this season, etc. He started talking to someone else, and I started counting out bills. His boy pointed that out to him...and my friend made a comment about talking to the show organizers...

On the table, with a price tag, its for sale. On the table for display is another matter. He didn't seem real happy, but it did take my money. And I did get a rare rifle I had been hunting for...

This may be an electronic era, but in my neck of the woods, for dealing, cash is still king.

The ATF can tell dealers what ever they like (and they do), but that doesn't mean it is so, or a valid rule for every case. Every gun I've bought in my life has been with cash. Never a check, or on a card. Might have been lay-away, but it was still paid for with cash, just not all at once.

The problem with the lawsuit against Gander Mtn is getting sued for not doing what a third party considers enough to prevent a second party (purchaser) from breaking the law?

How are you responsible when someone else breaks the law? I never could wrap my small mind around that idea.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 06:54 PM   #12
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oruglock
Paying in cash? Well it's unusual to be carrying several hundred dollars in cash for a purchase, but not illegal.
Must be a generational thing.

I'm a certified olde pharte, officially declared "older than dirt" by the whippersnappers in my Jeep club. I don't like to buy with plastic if/when I can avoid it, and I don't usually carry a checkbook with me. I don't buy a lot of guns, but those I buy generally come from one of two local FFL stores. If it's a used gun, I'll generally put down $50 to hold it and then come back another day with the balance in cash to bail it out. If it's a new gun that they order for me, they tell me the final price when they notify me the new toy has arrived, so I know how much money to bring.

If I were going to a gun show with the intent of actually buying rather than looking, I would absolutely be carrying cash. Paying cash can bring a better price.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 24, 2014, 07:39 PM   #13
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
One shop I know doesn't give a discount for cash, but if you pay cash, in full, the listed price, they will eat the tax. (for some customers, anyway )

I assume their list price provides enough profit they can get away with that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 06:50 AM   #14
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,301
Question,
What is an FFL like Gander Mountain supposed to do if they "feel" the purchase may be a Straw.

The buyer, pays cash and has a friend. After 4473 is filled out and the answer to 11(a) is Yes, Do they just call the person a lire and refuse to sell to them? Do they call the cops? What can they do and what must they do?
steve4102 is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 09:04 AM   #15
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
What can they do and what must they do?
Yeah, that's the thing. So many people seem to make no distinction between hind-sight and for-sight. It's pretty obvious that the lady was suspicious now that we know she was suspicious.

Up until a few years ago, almost no one at the gun shows around here would ever take a card. It was complex and expensive. They didn't want to pay the fees, they didn't want to deal with the paper and there were no portable swipe machines. Last I was at a show, it was still frowned upon due to the expense and there was no shortage of sellers who simply did not take cards.

So Gander takes cards. Since when is it strange that we use those pieces of paper that say "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"?

It's a strange world these people live in. City folk, mostly, I'm guessing. Everybody there seems to live on plastic, debit or credit. Other places, folks still use cash. I admit, I don't use cash. You'd be hard pressed to find me with money on me, almost ever. It's a convenience issue. I don't look suspiciously on someone who buys with cash.

Somebody bought my BiL's motorhome yesterday... paid $2,500 cash. Hm... maybe he's suspicious....
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 09:26 AM   #16
Microgunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,093
^ I've refused many sales simply because it felt like a straw purchase.
I just tell the buyer why I'm refusing the sale and that I don't believe they're committing a crime but the mere appearance of a crime can get me convicted.
They always get angry and I've lost a customer but too much is at stake.
Anyone who's been in the gun business long enough eventually gets the feeling that the Feds are gunning for them, even though their jobs depend on gun dealers.
__________________
Proud NRA Patron Member
Microgunner is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 10:17 AM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,824
Quote:
Anyone who's been in the gun business long enough eventually gets the feeling that the Feds are gunning for them, even though their jobs depend on gun dealers.
Their jobs depend on gun dealers the way policemen's jobs depend on criminals.

While individual agents can be decent folk, the organizational attitude of the ATF has been (for many years) that gun dealers are just criminals that haven't been caught...yet...

Of course, that's just MY opinion....and worth what you paid for it..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 10:24 AM   #18
tirod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
The way the ATF has explained it to us is that often buyers bring someone with them when purchasing a firearm so not suspicious but when the accompanying party flatly picks out the firearm or is the person paying then the red flags should be waving.
So, any parent buying their son or daughter a new hunting rifle for a birthday present just before the season is a suspicious and potentially illegal act?

On the surface, you can't tell from a book entry at the FFL what the circumstances were. If these cases are popping up, you have to wonder why the buyers were on the LEO radar from the start. Periodic inspections aren't catching them, something else is getting their attention.

Having FFL's running scared about the probability of it being a straw purchase does more enforcement than the BATF.

I'm particularly informed of a young man who filed bankruptcy and subsequently within weeks purchased a car, new, from the dealer - thru his father. Illegal? The title is in dad's name . . .

I would speculate that there are straw purchases by GF for felons, etc. and the BATF isn't catching them from the FFL's books after the fact. They are finding the felon in possession - a parole officer showed up for a check of the living quarters, or it was found on them in a traffic stop.

Leaving aside the whole Fast and Furious issue, straw purchase enforcement is usually after the fact, and certainly very little other than the FFL will control it. Which is why I assert that the FFL's are doing the BATF's work, and should ask to be compensated for it.

Protecting a source of income isn't wrong, but at a certain point, there's no way to ensure all the facts. That is up to NICS. Some harrassment suit after the fact is just the risk of living in America anyway. A suit against the straw purchaser for their act would be the better resort. And a national FFL dealers organization would be a great way to get that ball rolling.

I have to ask, where is the national database of straw purchasers to check against?
tirod is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 10:40 AM   #19
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,914
It's certainly true that if a dealer has reasonable grounds to believe that a transaction is a straw purchase or is otherwise unlawful, he still completes the transaction and it turns out that the transaction was unlawful, the dealer could have criminal (or perhaps even civil) liability. But we have insufficient information upon which to form any sort of reasonable opinion about whether or not Gander should have known the deal was tainted. That would be a question of fact, and we just don't have the facts.

There's nothing particularly unique or novel about the Brady argument here. "Know or should have known" can be a basis for liability in many contexts, but it's still a question of fact.

My guess is that the Brady group brought this lawsuit primarily for publicity purposes.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 11:36 AM   #20
captneil19
Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2014
Location: poplarville,ms.
Posts: 78
paperwork

dogtown tom I stand down,your correct its not a lot of paperwork,the point I was making was, I have seen at gun shows here you make an offer the guy agrees on cash, hands you the weapon you walk away,no paperwork,now the atf makes dealers run folks names through ncis before you can get your weapon,the non dealer, you just have to fill out a form at a show there are so many loopholes to get weapons its unreal
captneil19 is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 12:52 PM   #21
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
There's nothing particularly unique or novel about the Brady argument here. "Know or should have known" can be a basis for liability in many contexts, but it's still a question of fact.
"Knew or should have known" is a minefield. There was a construction accident a decade or so ago in some major city. I don't recall where ... might have been New York. I also don't recall the specifics of the failure. What's of relevance here is that a civil engineer who had nothing to do with the project was sued by one of the injured parties.

Why was he sued? The site had an eight-foot high, opaque, plywood fence around it. But, like many such fences, there were portholes cut to allow passersby to take a peak at the work in progress. This engineer happened to peak through one of the portholes during his lunch break one day, and one or more of the workers recognized and remembered him.

So he was sued because he "knew or should have known" that the methods being used were unsafe, and he failed his "public duty as a licensed professional engineer" to take any action to stop the work.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 01:02 PM   #22
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by captneil19
I have a federal weapons permit,that says it all
I, too, would like to hear more of this interesting, and previously completely unknown item.

Anyone remember when gun shows didn't allow DEALERS in, when it was just bunches of people getting together to buy and trade?
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 01:24 PM   #23
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
"Knew or should have known" is a minefield...
Yes it is, but it is still an issue.

I would suspect that in the case you describe the engineer quickly got out of the suit. As someone not involved in the construction, he arguably had no duty, and certainly no power, to do anything.

But this is getting a little off track.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 01:56 PM   #24
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,623
The problem is, the Brady Campaign has already won a lawsuit along these grounds. Couple this with the "sting" operations Michael Bloomberg ran a few years back, and this is becoming a real problem for dealers.

I've stopped plenty of straw purchases. I've also had a couple I didn't (and couldn't) know were straw purchases. Some folks are obvious and stupid about it; others know the system and are quite crafty about it. The latter can be very hard to spot.

The problem comes with saying the dealer "should have known." That's hard to prove, but someone with the resources of Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign can wear a small business down to the point that they settle to avoid further financial hardship.

(In the Bloomberg case, he hired people across state lines to conduct straw purchases. Read that again: he paid people to commit felonies. Yet he has never been prosecuted.)

The worst irony is this: prosecutors consider straw purchases to be a low priority. I've testified in several cases in which straw purchasers have had the charge dropped, or in which the penalty was probation. As long as that continues, there's little deterrence.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 25, 2014, 02:02 PM   #25
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,853
Yes, Bloomberg conspired to violate state and federal law, but he will never,ever be touched for it, because he's A Number One Duke of New York.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14365 seconds with 9 queries