DK Firearms

Armslist Ruling on Internet Gun Sales

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mouser

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages
    495
    Points
    0
    Location
    Belleville, Alabama
    The old saying "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" applies to this one for sure. This will be stuck in courts for many years and is local to Wisconsin right now but any vendor should not be held liable for the behavior of any of its customers. Due diligence is in order for sure and if there are changes to be made, it should happen at that level but just think about the implications of a manufacturer or place of business be held accountable to the actions of a customer??? Once again, people blame the inanimate object...not the dark heart of the human who wields the tool for evil purposes. Until humans wrap their mind around the fact that it is humans who do evil, not the gun, not the money, not anything...only humans who uses force and/or fraud to achieve their goals. I think this battle between those ideals is an eternal one...part of being human. Hopefully, the rule of law, personal accountability, rational thinking/judgement etc.. will prevail for many, many more decades. The US, like it or not, is the closest thing the world has to a free country that is also a superpower and able to maintain its status...if we are to be defeated, it will happen from within.
     

    StrangerDanger

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages
    24
    Points
    0
    Location
    Arab, Alabama
    A friend of mine had sold a Saga shotgun to the feller that shot up the recruiter office in Chattanooga about a week before the shooting. When my buddy got home the afternoon that shooting happened his entire neighborhood was ate up with feds looking for him. Luckily the shotgun he sold wasn’t used for the crime. It was an armslist sale.
     

    skippyt

    Expert
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages
    147
    Points
    43
    Location
    Pensacola
    And where dies it end, does eBay get sued for facilitating a transaction for a car, van or truck, that is driven into a crowd killing many and injuring countless others, if the buyer didn't have a license and couldn't buy from a dealer, thereby circumnavigating the legal process?


    Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
     

    Stagman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Nov 1, 2012
    Messages
    3,159
    Points
    48
    Location
    Baldwin County, AL
    The problem is in today's culture everybody wants to blame something other than the nut behind the trigger. There needs to be a huge shift back to people taking responsibility for their own actions and the fact that their is winners and losers in life, no participation trophies.
     

    kidsoncoffee

    Wears a live rattlesnake as a condom
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 8, 2013
    Messages
    1,523
    Points
    113
    Location
    Gulf Breeze
    The shooter was prohibited from buying guns but evaded the background check through a private sale

    The liability should fall upon the seller for not properly vetting the buyer, not Armslist.

    Who's to say the seller didn't ask the same questions as are seen on the forms you fill out for a background check? It's no different than the process most of us use on here to sell/trade guns. It's not the sellers fault if the buyer brazenly lies and in doing so breaks the law. We can get copies of IDs and ask all the proper questions, but it doesn't stop the buyer from lying. Only way to stop this is have an FFL handle all private transactions. I don't know about you, but I don't think the government or an FFL with paperwork should have any say in what I sell or do with my own property.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    I don't think this ruling is going very far, for the reasons articulated above, and others. It does make one consider contributing to the Armslist legal defense fund, however.
     

    M60Gunner

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages
    3,034
    Points
    113
    I believe this interesting tactic from the EU will spread, as have others such as the "hate speech" nonsense used to stifle free speech. It is currently being used to hold several internet sites liable for the content users post and has caused sites to shut down. A certain facebook executive recently opined during congressional testimony his company was responsible for the content posted by users...
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Just a bad Appeals Court decision. There is no Burden of Liability on the part of the Service Provider: Armslist, as stated by the lower Court. There is no info stating the actual Seller violated WI of Fed Law. As we know, the Feds only prohibit a sale if you have knowledge that the Buyer is a Restricted Person under the Law. There is no Fed requirement to ask any questions, or check ID. The only violations of Law and the Service Providers User Agreement was by the Restricted Person and that is where all responsibility falls.

    The Appeals Court is saying that a person can defraud a Company in violation of a legal contract and then hold the Company responsible for further*Civil*Liability resulting from that same persons criminal acts. Above that the Service Provider has the ShieldvLaw in their favor. Any first year law student could have made the proper decision in this B/S gun control agenda driven Case.
     

    Mouser

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages
    495
    Points
    0
    Location
    Belleville, Alabama
    Yes this ^^^^^^^

    One thing that has stuck me as I get older (and hopefully wiser) the media in general has a great many choices about what news it chooses to cover. That this is a story at all is somewhat surprising and I think the real story here is not the content of the case but rather a decision by a court that looks, on face value, to clearly fly contrary to law....constitutional law.

    But I think there are two main issues as I see it from our legal system...there has been a move away from constitutional law as the base premise on how cases are judged while the shift moves towards case law...why is that important??? Because over time the original intent and interpretation of the law is lost...as we "progress" away from it. This is a slippery slope. An analogy would be adjusting a piece of equipment in a manufacturing environment, replacing parts, modifying it over time until you lost "original set up"...the machine runs poorly and people don't understand how it got there or what to do to fix it...the answer is always going back to "original set up" or OEM specs and start from there....the same principle would likely work in our legal system. If you don't like something about a law, change the law...don't pervert the meaning or intent of the words or law.

    The second issue I see is a lack of a check and balance for our court system/judges. Seems, especially of late, we have more politicizing and activist judges than ever. I don't have an answer to that one as we humans form opinions of right vs wrong...all of us, including judges. So how does one maintain the purity, clarity and ethics of our legal system....I don't know as we are fallable.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    To the second issue brought up above:

    Today's politicians purposefully appoint judges primarily because they have outspoken, strongly held, strongly demonstrated, political viewpoints that match those of the appointing politicians, as a vehicle to advance that politicians's political agenda, not because the judge is fair and unbiased, and has a deep understanding of, and respect for, the law.

    At this point, it's no longer a bug; it's become a feature.
     
    Top Bottom