Analysis: Test ahead for U.S. law limiting gun-seller liability

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Analysis: Test ahead for U.S. law limiting gun-seller liability

By Andrew Longstreth

NEW YORK | Thu Aug 9, 2012 6:30pm EDT

(Reuters) - Recent deadly shootings in Wisconsin and Colorado reignited calls for more gun control in the United States, but one element has been largely missing from the debate: Should gun makers or sellers be held liable?

A 2005 law that protects the gun industry from certain lawsuits has been challenged in Alaska in case that may give gun-control activists their next chance to test the law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 2, 2006, Jason Coday, a drifter with a lengthy arrest record, left a gun store in Juneau carrying a Ruger .22 rifle. Two days later, he used the gun to kill Simone Kim, a 26-year-old contract painter who was working outside a supermarket in the city's downtown. Coday was convicted of first-degree murder and other charges and sentenced to 101 years in prison.

In 2008, Kim's family sued gun store owner Ray Coxe, alleging that he knowingly allowed Coday, "a fugitive from justice" and a "user of methamphetamine and other drugs," to pay for the gun without first getting a background check.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-usa-shooting-liability-idUSBRE8781JA20120809

[Hoyt]

1. I wonder who backed that 2005 legislation? Hope to see case reach a less right wing Supreme Court.

[dipsydoodle]

2. So what happens if someone driiving a car kills another person in an accident

Sue the car dealer ?

[Kaleva]

3. If the gun owner sold the gun illegally, then he ought to be held liable.

The gun owner claims the gun was stolen and he the theft had been reported to the police.

"A big question in the Alaska case is whether Coday stole the gun or whether Coxe unlawfully sold it to him without conducting a background check. If the gun was sold unlawfully, the lawsuit against Coxe could have proceeded under one of the shield law's exceptions.

The Kim family noted that Coxe had told Coday the cost of the gun was $195 and that before Coday exited the store he left $200 on the counter.

Lawyers for Coxe conceded that he showed Coday some guns. But Coxe said he left Coday by himself to think about the purchase. Once Coxe realized that the rifle was gone, either he or a colleague called the police, he testified."

I imagine that if there is indeed a police report, then the lawsuit won't go anywhere.

[Travis_0004]

4. I agree with this

If the gun was sold illegally, then the law needs to be changed to allow a lawsuit (at least for future cases).


If it was stolen, and there was not gross neglence, than I don't think there is a lot to be done.

[gejohnston]

5. if it was sold illegally,

I don't think the shield law applies. Even if it did, the ATF inspector probably taking a serious interest in the store's inventory control.

[Kaleva]

6. The law doesn't shield gun dealers who broke the law or engaged in gross misconduct from lawsuits.

[4th law of robotics]

7. That seems fair to me

Private sellers should either go through background checks or have to report it if stolen.

That said if the check comes back clean and the person still uses the gun in a crime I don't think the seller should be liable.

[TPaine7]

8. You're too fixated on facts and logic.

I think you're missing the whole point of the Reuters story.