Cops Sue FFL

[acespawnshop]

Did you all see this, posting here since I want the discussion here to not be about the legality of the case or if their case has any merit but how can FFLs better themselves to avoid problems like this. We will not DROS any firearms to anybody who is not on the invoice.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/03/07/officers-injured-in-new-hope-shooting-sue-gun-dealer

If the thread gets moved I get it, but as stated want the opinions of shop owners and FFLs who may have experienced stuff like this before. I know we've had to send guns back because of a possibility of straw purchases.

[OCArmory]

This is one reason we will only transfer the firearm to the person on the invoice. The other was we had a customer several years ago buy two firearms he had his buddy DROS one. No problem I thought since both were doing a background check. He disputed the charge for the second gun with the credit card company. Since it did not go to him it took several months to get the charges fixed.

[acespawnshop]

4473 clearly states for Question 11 who the actual transferee buyer of the firearm is. Party A has put money in on behalf of party B and its not a bonafide gift its a straw purchase. I think that of all the cases that the Brady folks would like to bring against gun dealers this one has the best chance of sticking.

[kemasa]

4473 clearly states for Question 11 who the actual transferee buyer of the firearm is. Party A has put money in on behalf of party B and its not a bonafide gift its a straw purchase. I think that of all the cases that the Brady folks would like to bring against gun dealers this one has the best chance of sticking.

11a says actual buyer/transferee. Party A can pay upfront and have Party B pay them back and do the paperwork if the firearm is intended for Party B.

Based on what was said in this case, I suspect that the FFL is in trouble. There are cases in which it could be valid, such as a person buying a gift for another, but it needs to be explained or the transfer should not go through.

[kemasa]

The other was we had a customer several years ago buy two firearms he had his buddy DROS one. No problem I thought since both were doing a background check. He disputed the charge for the second gun with the credit card company. Since it did not go to him it took several months to get the charges fixed.

That person is just a thief as well as committing fraud.

It is not uncommon for a person to order multiple firearms which then each go to a different person. It saves on shipping.

[pacrat]

The plaintiffs both say suffering life-altering injuries has not changed their stance on gun rights; they say they just want to ensure that people in the gun business follow the laws already on the books.

No way I believe the above quote, or the Brady Bunch wouldn't be involved. Shooter broke the laws already on the books. Straw Man broke the laws already on the books.

Shop broke no laws on, or off the books. Yet they are suing the shop. Not the criminals.

"Should Have Known", is pure bovine, after the fact, excrement. Often used to assign blame, where there is none.

Since when is "clairvoyancy" a prerequisite to having a FFL? Or operating a business of any kind? What next? Must a FFL also be a "prophet and soothsayer"?

[taperxz]

No way I believe the above quote, or the Brady Bunch wouldn't be involved. Shooter broke the laws already on the books. Straw Man broke the laws already on the books.

Shop broke no laws on, or off the books. Yet they are suing the shop. Not the criminals.

"Should Have Known", is pure bovine, after the fact, excrement. Often used to assign blame, where there is none.

Since when is "clairvoyancy" a prerequisite to having a FFL? Or operating a business of any kind? What next? Must a FFL also be a "prophet and soothsayer"?

Sorry but the story smells of 100% straw purchase.

FFL's are expected to suspect violations. The FFL at least should have returned the firearms back to the online source and walked away from the MAYBE $200 he made on the transfer.

[pacrat]

Sorry but the story smells of 100% straw purchase.

FFL's are expected to suspect violations. The FFL at least should have returned the firearms back to the online source and walked away from the MAYBE $200 he made on the transfer.

Yes, granted, the story smells of "Straw Purchase". Because it was a "Straw Purchase".

And was also presented in an intentional [one sided manner] to show the FFL in as bad a light as possible. It gave statements from the cops and the Brady Bunch. But nothing from the FFL's perspective.

After the fact "would'a, could'a, should'a" speculations are not sufficient to assign culpability. Would you also assign blame to the "Online Seller" for not running a background check on the guy who ordered the guns? He accepted the order and shipped the guns to a FFL. All perfectly legal. The defendant FFL in this case did nothing illegal.

Are the injured officers, and the Brady Bunch also suing the dead shooters estate, and the straw man? Unlikely. No big bucks, or political exposure in doing that.

This law suit smells of Deep Pockets and Politics.

Does Ford Motor Company get sued because a drunk runs over a kid? After all, it is highly unlikely that the Ford dealer ran a DMV-BG check on the buyer to see if he had any DUIs.

[kemasa]

Fred buys the firearm. Fred's name is on the invoice. Sam comes in to complete the paperwork. FFL should ask come serious questions and when the answers don't add up the FFL should refuse to do the transfer. Pretty simple if it actually happened that way.

Yeah, the others should be sued as well, but lawyers go where the money is.

[kemasa]

After the fact "would'a, could'a, should'a" speculations are not sufficient to assign culpability.

There are some facts which you seem to be missing or more likely ignoring because it means that the answer is not want you want it to be. Facts which should raise a red flag for the FFL. Facts which if answers to questions which need to be asked are not answered means that the FFL should NOT complete the transfer.

The main fact is that the name on the order did NOT match the name of the person who was completing the transfer paperwork. There can be valid reasons for this, but typically this is a sign of a serious problem. Unless the FFL can give a response as to why this was NOT an issue, then it is a problem such that the transfer should not have gone through.

In this case the buyer claimed that the name on the order was just an alias to hide who he really was online. This does not make sense since the seller would notice the name difference when payment was made and then the name on the order would have changed. It should have been investigated further. So your claim that the shop did not violate any laws on the books is false. There was a BIG RED FLAG in their face and they ignored it.

Would you also assign blame to the "Online Seller" for not running a background check on the guy who ordered the guns?

Of course not because that is NOT how it works and you know that, don't you? The seller can't run a background check as it would not be legal to do so. So why would you even ask the question? Oh, it is a strawman question, isn't it?

He accepted the order and shipped the guns to a FFL. All perfectly legal.

Yep, you just knocked that one down really well. But that has no effect on your next incorrect claim.

The defendant FFL in this case did nothing illegal.

Really? I am curious on what legal basis do you make this claim? Are you an attorney? Are you a FFL? Are you aware of the laws? Are you aware of what a straw purchase is and the obligation of the FFL? While a FFL can turn a blind eye to some things (which is a bad idea), they can not actively ignore things, such as the name on the order.

As a FFL I have a different view, although it is only based on what was said, which might not be correct.

Doing a transfer when you have good reason to believe that it is a straw purchase, as it seems it turned out to be, is NOT legal. On the basis of the name on the order not matching the name of the person doing the paperwork and nothing to explain it in a valid manner means ILLEGAL. Just claiming that he used an alias to buy the firearms does not really make sense and should be looked into, not just ignored.

If the FFL has reason to believe that the person doing the paperwork is NOT who the firearm is intended for and the firearm is not intended as a gift (one of the exemptions), then the FFL can not complete the transfer of the firearm. Having the name on the order not matching the name of the person doing the transfer is reason to believe that the firearm is not for the person doing the paperwork unless there is something which explains it. Nothing has so far been said which explains it in a valid manner.

Are the injured officers, and the Brady Bunch also suing the dead shooters estate, and the straw man? Unlikely. No big bucks, or political exposure in doing that.

This law suit smells of Deep Pockets and Politics.

This is something that you got right.

If you look at some of the articles on this then you can see the stupidity. One article says that it is illegal for someone to knowingly buy a gun for a person who is prohibited from owning one and that "knowingly" is a problem since you have to prove that they knew. It is only a problem if the person buys the firearm from a private party in a state which allows that and that the transfer does not go through a FFL. Making a false statement on the 4473 is illegal. In this case the person who did the paperwork was not the actual buyer, which makes it illegal. That is some of the politics that you mentioned and it gives people the false impression of the way things really are.

If I, as a FFL, asked a person to go buy a firearm for me from another FFL, it is illegal when the person fills out the 4473.

[pacrat]

kemasa said, in the first sentence of his rambling repetitive subjective opinion post.

There are some facts which you seem to be missing or more likely ignoring because it means that the answer is not want you want it to be.

Actually the underlined in the quote above, is correct and you inferring that I selectively ignored "facts" is nothing but your bias opinion. With no basis in fact. I read the original article posted. I did not follow all the links from article to article. It took 4 link jumps to get to this quote.

Kmetz was the high bidder in an online auction for three shotguns that were actually bought by Garant Aug. 23 at Full Metal Gun Shop in Princeton, Minn. When he came to collect the weapons, Garant allegedly told the gun shop's owner that he used the alias "Ray Kmetz" during the online auction to hide his true identity and then showed the store owner his driver's license.

Obviously the FFL accepted his explanation as reasonable, in light of him producing his valid Mn DL.

Since we are now pulling quotes from link jumps. Look at the last paragraph of that same article.

"If somebody is willing to lie and they themselves don't have a criminal record that comes up," he added, "there is no way you can tell whether they are or not unless you cut off the top of their head and look inside."

Do you cut the top of your customers heads off and look inside before completing transfers? Didn't think so. And NO, asking an obviously stupid question, that everyone already knows the answer to. Is not a "strawman question". Unlike your, "are you a lawyer" deflection.

I still contend that your opinion, is still just your unsupported opinion. Even if you have a FFL in Ca. Since two LEOs were shot due to the actions of law breakers. Why was only one arrested. One who also happens to be the strawman in this instance. The other being dead.

Considering all known facts, "IF" the FFL was actually legally culpable in any way. The cops and prosecutors of the State of Mn, and the ATF, would have charged them with a crime.

Repeatedly in the articles I read concerning this incident, it mentions "Intent" and "Knowingly". Unless you can prove that the FFL knowingly and with intent took part in the crimes committed. Your opinion remains unsupported as to the legal culpability of the FFL. Unless of course you are more knowledgeable of Mn and Fed law than the Mn LEOs, Prosecutors, and the ATF.

Quote:
The defendant FFL in this case did nothing illegal.

As correct now, as when I first posted it.

Really? I am curious on what legal basis do you make this claim?

On the basis of the facts as known concerning this incident. Laws only say what you CANNOT DO. Obviously as mentioned above. The LEOs, and Prosecutors of Mn, and the ATF. Agree with me. Or there would have been an arrest of the FFL for taking part in illegal activity that caused the shooting of 2 officers.

I can't prove a negative. Because to the best of my knowledge their is no such law that you claim the FFL broke. Hence my contention that he broke no law.

You claim the FFL did something illegal, post a Mn PC or USC cite of this "law" you claim exists that the FFL broke. If you can, I will retract my above statement of the FFL not being party to criminal acts.

If you can't, then this suit remains all about money and politics. Not legal and illegal.

[wpage]

Smells fishy and will attract attention...

[kemasa]

kemasa said, in the first sentence of his rambling repetitive subjective opinion post.

At least I have a basis for what I am saying rather than a fantasy. What you are saying is just your opinion and it is not an educated one since you have no experience in this area.

Actually the underlined in the quote above, is correct and you inferring that I selectively ignored "facts" is nothing but your bias opinion. With no basis in fact. I read the original article posted. I did not follow all the links from article to article. It took 4 link jumps to get to this quote.

Unless you read everything, what you say does not have much meaning. Your original claim you did not even know why there was an issue and how the FFL could claim that it was at all valid.

Obviously the FFL accepted his explanation as reasonable, in light of him producing his valid Mn DL.

While the FFL accepted it, it is not reasonable. Ask a majority of FFLs and you will find most would consider such a transaction to be a problem.

Since we are now pulling quotes from link jumps. Look at the last paragraph of that same article.



Do you cut the top of your customers heads off and look inside before completing transfers? Didn't think so. And NO, asking an obviously stupid question, that everyone already knows the answer to. Is not a "strawman question". Unlike your, "are you a lawyer" deflection.

What an absurd response, but you do like strawman statements, don't you? Cutting off the top of a person's head would not give you an answer as to what they are thinking, so that makes it a stupid response.

Your statement was a strawman question for the reasons that I pointed out.

If something does not seem right, a FFL should ask questions and get reasonable answers and not just do the transfer for the money.

I still contend that your opinion, is still just your unsupported opinion. Even if you have a FFL in Ca. Since two LEOs were shot due to the actions of law breakers. Why was only one arrested. One who also happens to be the strawman in this instance. The other being dead.

I supported my view, so your claim that it is unsupported is false.

There are many reasons and I don't have access to all the reasons, do you? To be convicted, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. They may not be sure that they can get a conviction. In civil court it is different, which is why there is a lawsuit there. If there is a judgement, then would that convince you that the FFL did something wrong?

Considering all known facts, "IF" the FFL was actually legally culpable in any way. The cops and prosecutors of the State of Mn, and the ATF, would have charged them with a crime.

Really? You are just so good and special to know that. Too bad you are wrong, which is why the FFL is being sued. Not all crimes are charged, for many different reasons, or don't you understand that?

Repeatedly in the articles I read concerning this incident, it mentions "Intent" and "Knowingly". Unless you can prove that the FFL knowingly and with intent took part in the crimes committed. Your opinion remains unsupported as to the legal culpability of the FFL. Unless of course you are more knowledgeable of Mn and Fed law than the Mn LEOs, Prosecutors, and the ATF.

As I said, the aspect of knowingly is wrong and does not apply in this case. The aspect of knowingly applies in the case where a person sells a firearm to another person who is prohibited. In this case, it does not matters as other laws apply. In this case the "buyer" made a false statement on a Federal form. He could have been doing this for a person who was not prohibited and it would still be illegal.

Also, in this case the FFL had reason to believe that the person doing the paperwork was not the actual buyer. The claim of an alias is interesting, but then how was the firearm paid for? If it was a credit card, then the alias claim falls apart as the name on the credit card would not match and it is likely that the seller would have an issue with a third party paying for it. It is bad enough with the real buyer paying with a credit card.

Why do you think that every illegal act is charged?

As correct now, as when I first posted it.

Incorrect, as pointed out.

On the basis of the facts as known concerning this incident. Laws only say what you CANNOT DO. Obviously as mentioned above. The LEOs, and Prosecutors of Mn, and the ATF. Agree with me. Or there would have been an arrest of the FFL for taking part in illegal activity that caused the shooting of 2 officers.

Incorrect. You are making false statements regarding the arrest of the FFL. There are many reasons why the FFL might not be arrested.

Interesting. The LEOs, Prosecutors and the ATF agree with you? Really? This means that you have asked them to state their opinion on your opinion and I really doubt that has happened. Then you base it on false conclusions.

I can't prove a negative. Because to the best of my knowledge their is no such law that you claim the FFL broke. Hence my contention that he broke no law.

Your knowledge seems to be lacking.

You claim the FFL did something illegal, post a Mn PC or USC cite of this "law" you claim exists that the FFL broke. If you can, I will retract my above statement of the FFL not being party to criminal acts.

There are multiple laws, one could be 478.128. There are others as well, If the FFL knows that the person is making a false statement, then it is illegal for the FFL to proceed with the transfer. 922 might also apply.

If you can't, then this suit remains all about money and politics. Not legal and illegal.

There is still the legal and illegal. It might be that the FFL will be charged as well. There is still time for that and if enough evidence comes out, then it might happen.

There is a lot about money and politics though.

You might want to read this:

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/jury-returns-guilty-verdicts-former-sacramento-county-sheriff%E2%80%99s-deputy-and-federal-firearms

[Ron-Solo]

The cops suing the FFL with the support of the Brady Bunch stinks of deep pockets and politics.

I do think the ATF should be dealing with what was clearly a straw purchase

Not an FFL, but a retired Cop.

[pacrat]

In rebuttal to kemasa'a false statements

Your link is irrelevant, and a deflection. Cops in SacOcrapmento busted for Dealing without a license,[irrelevant to this case]. And selling off Ca Roster guns for profit. [irrelevant to this case] Mn has no roster, gun used in the crime were bought from a licensed dealer. [irrelevant in this case]

And the Ca FFL was proven to be "KNOWINGLY COMPLICIT".

There are multiple laws, one could be 478.128.

No it couldn't. Because all 3 sections of 478.128 [a] - [b] - [c]. All start with sentences referring to ANY person who "KNOWINGLY MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS".

The strawman, made the false statements on the 4473. NOT the FFL. He was arrested for doing so. The FFL made "NO FALSE STATEMENTS". So 478.128 is [irrelevant in this case]

USC 922 is another obsfucatory deflection. The "strawman buyer" was NOT a prohibited person. USC 922 is only a list, of what constitutes a "prohibited person".

The FFL did "NOT KNOWINGLY" transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. [irrelevant to this case]

As I said, the aspect of knowingly is wrong and does not apply in this case. The aspect of knowingly applies in the case where a person sells a firearm to another person who is prohibited. In this case, it does not matters as other laws apply.

That is humorous beyond belief. Now you are arguing with yourself. You now claim that "knowingly" doesn't matter in this case.

Yet in the same post, you list USC 478.128 that includes "Knowingly" in every section as a prerequisite for a crime to have been committed. A crime which BTW was NOT COMMITTED in this case.Then you claim that the very same laws you claim support your position are of "No matter". Again claiming that the FFL broke "other laws" which you again, cannot support with a factual cite of any code.

Hint........Doing something "ILLEGAL" as you contend the FFL in this case did. Requires that they actually broke a law to be true.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Yet you claim.

Your knowledge seems to be lacking.

Because I can't prove a negative.

You claim that the FFL broke laws and did something illegal. Which is a positive statement. Yet you can't seem to find these elusive laws you claim exist, that he broke, which you feel he should be punished for. That is an unsupported claim.

I supported my view, so your claim that it is unsupported is false.

Is that another attempt at humor? Supporting a claim, with nothing but your own further unsupported opinions, and obsfucatory cites of laws that are irrelevant because none of then apply to the case at hand, is not proof of support, of your own original unsupported claim.

The credit card of the payee is also irrelevant. That info would remain with the original online seller. Which for all we know was a private party and was paid with a Money Order. Not the FFL doing the transfer. Which the FFL doing the transfer is not "legally obligated" to pursue.

There are many reasons and I don't have access to all the reasons, do you? To be convicted, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. They may not be sure that they can get a conviction. In civil court it is different, which is why there is a lawsuit there. If there is a judgement, then would that convince you that the FFL did something wrong?

No actually, I readily admit that I do not. Unlike yourself who is claiming that the FFL is a criminal, without even one bit of evidence to support the claim. In any of the information available. Just because a FFL in another state did something that you wouldn't do. And it did not end well for innocent 3rd parties. Does not make them a criminal.

As to the underlined in your quote. Makes it sound like you are of the belief that just because some Brady Bunch Gun Grabbing attorneys from DC. Sue a businessman because of their political agenda. And the injured cops act as their "puppet plaintiffs" for a payout. That makes the FFL somehow guilty just for being sued by the Brady Bunch. "If the Brady Bunch sues you, you are automatically guilty, because the Brady Bunch sued you"

Even if the jury finds for the plaintiffs in this case. Using the Boo-Hoo factor. Which happens all to often in this liberal bleeding heart litigious society. I would not believe the FFL did anything "wrong", unless they prove he broke the law. Or was "criminally negligent", which is a very high standard. And would again, require fore knowledge aka "knowingly" negligent.

As previously stated, pulling the BooHoo after the fact "could'a, would'a, should'a, known card" is just a means for assigning blame on the innocent. That does not make a person guilty of wrongdoing. Just as you claiming he broke non-existant laws makes him a criminal.

Just as in this thread.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1311001

The Missouri case, brought with the help of lawyers from the D.C.-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence,
provides a legal road map for similar lawsuits around the country, according to the Brady Center, which said there are at least 10 other civil cases pending, including in Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Texas.

Money and Politics-Not right or wrong-Not legal or Illegal-Money and Politics.

That is what is driving this rash of Brady Bunch law suits against gun shops across the nation.

My heart goes out to the officers that were injured by a lunatic with mental issues. I'm glad he is dead, and is no longer a threat to others. I know a Deputy from LASD that was shot just last yr and damn near lost his arm and his life.

But IMHO going after the shop that sold the tool the lunatic used. Is akin to sueing a Ford dealer because you got hit by a crazy person driving a Ford.

All you FFLs better close ranks and stick together. The Brady Bunch has you in their sights as soft targets to fulfill their agenda. And are making public statements to the fact to gather support.

For those of you who agree with the Brady Bunch agenda. I'm sure Sarah and Jim are looking up from hell with adoring eyes at you.


Bye