Cops Sue FFL

[shark92651]

Some really ironic twists to this story:

http://www.startribune.com/new-hope-shooter-got-gun-from-straw-buyer-sheriff-says/290385351/

The seller of the firearms was the Duluth, MN police department! They had a contract to sell confiscated firearms through the K-Bid auction site.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/01/29/kmetz-timeline

The shooter was in and out of the mental health system so many times it is unconscionable that the authorities let him out on his own recognizance. They had him in a mental health treatment facility in order to treat him until he was mentally competent to stand trial, but they ultimately released him "because he was untreatable" (huh? shouldn't this be the exact reason to NOT release him?). They then drop the felony charges against him because he had spent more time in a mental health facility than he would face in incarceration should he be convicted. They released this known dangerous mentally ill man back into society, dropped the felony charges against him, and then sold him the guns he used on them, but are suing the dealer that performed the transfer. Man you couldn't invent more irony if you tried.

As far as whether or not they have a good case against this dealer I think it may hinge on whether or not the paperwork that accompanied the firearms included just the name, or also his billing address and phone. If just a name, and as the dealer stated they had encountered people using aliases online before, it may be reasonable to accept the explanation of an alias. However, if they also had an address, phone, or credit card info that didn't match, then they ignored what are clear straw purchase red flags.

[Baboosh]

As far as whether or not they have a good case against this dealer

With something like this even if you win you can still lose everything.


FFL should be able to turn around and sue the County as this would have never happened if they did their job of not releasing him.

[kemasa]

I have never had a person use an alias on paperwork to buy a firearm. As previously stated, it makes no sense at all.

I don't think that the FFL would have a case against the County as they did not sell the firearms to the prohibited person, they sold the firearms to a person who they had signs that it was a straw purchase. Had they not ignored the red flags, they would not have been involved.

This is not to say that the FFL should be liable for what ended up happening in the shooting, but they should be responsible for what they did.

It would be interesting to investigate all those other cases in which an "alias" was used.

[Dago Red]

I wonder how much these two cops are getting under the table for helping Brady push their agenda.

True story, and why you can't just say "well this must be a straw purchase":
I bought two guns on gunbroker, I wanted one and my buddy wanted the same model, they were one serial number apart. I had them shipped to my ffl. Only name on invoice etc was mine. I paid (was reimbursed by buddy) and we both DROS'd our own. Now how would it be fair to us, both as legal buyers, to say "well his name isn't on the invoice he can't have one"

Straw purchases are illegal for the buyer to do with intent to give to person ineligible to own. I don't see how an FFL, unless he has a good cause to be suspicious, can prognosticate that the gun is going to be handed off later.

Further, regarding the case, shotguns are so common that the guy could have obtained one a number of ways. He was intent on murder, and lesser crimes would not have deterred him. There were probably other things that weren't done correctly with regards to LEO interaction w this guy in his past and the problem should have been caught before the gun acquisition stage.

Is the cop that got shot in the wrist going after his fellow officer who shot him? It could be argued if he'd taken cover he'd not even have been injured and therefor he shouldn't even be party to the suit. These guys are clearly willing pawns in the war against the 2nd amendement.

Red

[taperxz]

I wonder how much these two cops are getting under the table for helping Brady push their agenda.

True story, and why you can't just say "well this must be a straw purchase":
I bought two guns on gunbroker, I wanted one and my buddy wanted the same model, they were one serial number apart. I had them shipped to my ffl. Only name on invoice etc was mine. I paid (was reimbursed by buddy) and we both DROS'd our own. Now how would it be fair to us, both as legal buyers, to say "well his name isn't on the invoice he can't have one"

Straw purchases are illegal for the buyer to do with intent to give to person ineligible to own. I don't see how an FFL, unless he has a good cause to be suspicious, can prognosticate that the gun is going to be handed off later.

Further, regarding the case, shotguns are so common that the guy could have obtained one a number of ways. He was intent on murder, and lesser crimes would not have deterred him. There were probably other things that weren't done correctly with regards to LEO interaction w this guy in his past and the problem should have been caught before the gun acquisition stage.

Is the cop that got shot in the wrist going after his fellow officer who shot him? It could be argued if he'd taken cover he'd not even have been injured and therefor he shouldn't even be party to the suit. These guys are clearly willing pawns in the war against the 2nd amendement.

Red

I think you answered your own question. Your case was not the same thing that happened in the OP

[kemasa]

I wonder how much these two cops are getting under the table for helping Brady push their agenda.

If that could be proven, it would be very interesting.

True story, and why you can't just say "well this must be a straw purchase":
I bought two guns on gunbroker, I wanted one and my buddy wanted the same model, they were one serial number apart. I had them shipped to my ffl. Only name on invoice etc was mine. I paid (was reimbursed by buddy) and we both DROS'd our own. Now how would it be fair to us, both as legal buyers, to say "well his name isn't on the invoice he can't have one"

Not at all. Your example would only make sense in terms that it could be a straw purchase would be in trying to get around a gun law like the 1 in 30 for handguns.

There are numerous examples in which there are warnings, but if you know the facts then it is reasonable. The problem comes in when an unreasonable excuse is given AND accepted.

Straw purchases are illegal for the buyer to do with intent to give to person ineligible to own.

This is FALSE. A straw purchase is where the actual buyer is NOT the one filling out the forms, regardless of whether the person is prohibited or not. There was a semi-recent SC case on this, which I personally think is absurd since ALL transfers went through a FFL. A nephew purchased a firearm for his uncle because he got a LEO discount. The nephew then brought the firearm to the state in which his uncle lived and went to a FFL to transfer the firearm. The problem was that when the nephew filled out the 4473 he falsely claimed that he was the actual buyer/transferee and that was false.

If a FFL asked you to buy a firearm at another shop because they wanted a specific firearm and the other FFL would refuse to sell to them directly, it would still be illegal because you would not be the actual buyer/transferee.

I don't see how an FFL, unless he has a good cause to be suspicious, can prognosticate that the gun is going to be handed off later.

There are warning signs. Such as the wrong name on an invoice. The claims of using an alias just does not make sense. Two people coming in, one of which looks at the guns, but the other person does the paperwork. A person coming in wanting a specific firearm, but having no clue about it at all. The list goes on. But warning signs are just that, warning, nothing is 100%.

I could decide to buy you a gift and buy a firearm for you, so that all the paperwork on the invoice would be in my name, but you fill out the paperwork. On the surface it could look like it might be a straw purchase, but as long as it is really a gift, it is not. This can create an issue unless the FFL feels comfortable in what the truth is (typically knowing the people involved and knowing what is going on in advance).

Further, regarding the case, shotguns are so common that the guy could have obtained one a number of ways. He was intent on murder, and lesser crimes would not have deterred him. There were probably other things that weren't done correctly with regards to LEO interaction w this guy in his past and the problem should have been caught before the gun acquisition stage.

Yes, he could have bought it illegally (not through a FFL), but that is not what was done in this case.

Is the cop that got shot in the wrist going after his fellow officer who shot him? It could be argued if he'd taken cover he'd not even have been injured and therefor he shouldn't even be party to the suit. These guys are clearly willing pawns in the war against the 2nd amendement.

When in the commission of a crime, the criminal is responsible for everything. For example, if there is a robbery and one of the criminals kill a person, all of those involved can be charged.

I don't doubt that the officers were harmed. They want someone to pay for it, but the one responsible is dead and the straw purchaser does not have the money. The FFL ignored the warning signs, which was stupid, but the question does that make them responsible for the end result harm that was cause. The FFL might be subject to criminal charges due to the warning signs of a straw purchase, but that is harder to get a conviction and there isn't the money driving it.

[Lex Talionis]

Interesting conversation in this thread and I'd like to toss in a comment on the legal standard applied in this case, or other similar laws to "knowingly".

(from the inner webs):
an individual is deemed to have acted knowingly in regard to a material element of an offense when: in the event that such element involves the nature of his or her conduct or the circumstances attendant thereto, he or she is aware that the conduct is of such nature or that those circumstances exist; if the element relates to a result of the person's conduct, he or she is conscious of the fact that it is substantially certain that the conduct will precipitate such a result.

When the term knowingly is used in an indictment, it signifies that the defendant knew what he or she was going to do and, subject to such knowledge, engaged in the act for which he or she was charged.

To my understanding the defense where "knowingly" may be an element of a crime ends up falling on the defendant to make a positive defense for not knowing he engaged in the offense. For example: you get stopped with a ice pick concealed in your back pocket (dirk/dagger) it isn't up the police to prove you didn't know, so what you as a defendant says, or the context of what occurred really matters. "Officer, I was breaking up some ice in my cooler getting ready for a back yard party and remembered I needed to get charcoal at the store and went out without remembering I had the ice pick in my pocket." That would be a defense to "knowingly" if the defendant can prove those facts, but the officer doesn't have to prove all the possibilities of what the defendant didn't know, just that he had possession of a dirk and the defendant knew he had it. Because if the defendant said to the cops, "yeah, I knew it was in my pocket but.... blah, blah..." BINGO, element of the crime has been established.

So to say the FFL would have have a defense of not knowing I think is a stretch. If the name on the invoice did not match the name on the ID of the person arriving for the transfer, it seems to me that the FFL should have reasonably known that something was wrong and refused the transfer. Accepting the "alias" cock & bull story was either incompetence or something else, but without positive proof that it was not a straw purchase which I believe the FFL needs to be diligent in looking for, I do not see him able to use a defense of not knowing.

All I know is that my FFL makes sure all "I"s are dotted and all "T"s crossed. I have never gone by my full name as appears on my license; all of my credit cards have my shortened name as do my phone bills etc. My FFL knows this and still takes the extra steps on the forms to make sure it is all spelled out that I am the one picking up the firearm as he needs to for the record.

My 2 cents