Lawsuit against Armslist! Funded/backed by the Brady Campaign.

[KoopaKGB]

I believe this is the first time Armslist will have a lawsuit brought against it that looks like it will go to trial.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/armslist-lawsuit-seeks-to-punish-online-gun-seller-narrow-loophoole-in-law.html

This PDF (also found within the article in the first link) has the specifics of the case if you have the time to read thru it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/dailybeast/2012/12/12/Brady-Armslist-Complaint.pdf

Quick and dirty: summary. A Canadian man, Demetry Smirnov, breaks up with long distance Czech immigrant girlfriend in Illinois. Demetry contacts a seller on Armslist in the state of Washington and tells him he'll pay an extra $200 for the .40 caliber handgun that the seller had. The seller knowingly sold the gun to the foreigner. Demetry then drives all the way to Illinois to hunt down his ex and brutally shoots her in the back and back of the head multiple times. Demetry turns himself into police and is given a life sentence. The guy who sold the gun illegally goes to jail for one year and one day...The end? NO! The girl's family now files a lawsuit against Armslist for an "unspecified amount."

Now a jury gets to deciede if Armslist should be held accountable for this woman's death. Thats a whole lot of crap for Armslist to deal with. I hope they have a good legal team. Armslist shouldn't be held accountable for this, I feel like their disclaimer should cover their butts but that might not be enough to persuade an anti gun jury.
I wonder how the case will go. Even if there are some bad folks on Armslist I've had some good experience on there and on the INGO classifieds so I wouldn't want to see either die due to lawsuits.

 

[jburris]

I dont think armslist should be held accountable for this. It was the man that sold the gun's fault. he should be held liable. thats why they have an agreement that you have to agree to before you can post anything on there. You should always take down persons name and dl number when selling a firearm. make out a bill of sale. just to make sure you are selling to someone half way legal to own it. even beter if you take down ltch number. There is no guarentee the person is on the up and up but in my dealings if they dont want to give up the info, they are not a good person to sell to. just my 2 cents.

 

[SyntorX]

The days of unregulated online gun sales are coming to an end. For one, there's more money to be made by the govt. in closing down private sales...and honestly, that's what it's going to come down to.$$

I would venture to say, more crimes are commited with guns bought online/privately than at a legit gun store.

I'm not buying the argument: "Oh, this is just the first step...."they're" going to come and take all our guns" -by the time a FULL gun ban takes place, the law will be talking about laser pistols and anti-matter rifles...the "old" blackpowder and metal projectile guns will still be ok. more

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Wow, how the Brady campaign has fallen. They used to be a force to be reckoned with in DC, the driving force behind getting Clinton's AWB through. Now they snipe with lawsuits against a private web site? They are a shadow of their former selves if this is what they spend their resources on today.

 

[No2rdame]

So, should we blame Facebook (or in the past AOL chat) for rapes that occur when people meet on there? What about Craigslist? Posts on there have led to rapes, murders, thefts, etc.

Seriously, Armslist should not be sued at all. Both the buyer and seller knowingly broke laws and should be severely punished for that. In the seller's case, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. Gun owners, particularly ones involving a sale, should know the law as best possible.

 

[Hookeye]

Remember, Al Gore is the father of the Internet.............

 

[KoopaKGB]

The days of unregulated online gun sales are coming to an end. For one, there's more money to be made by the govt. in closing down private sales...and honestly, that's what it's going to come down to.$$

I would venture to say, more crimes are commited with guns bought online/privately than at a legit gun store.

I'm not buying the argument: "Oh, this is just the first step...."they're" going to come and take all our guns" -by the time a FULL gun ban takes place, the law will be talking about laser pistols and anti-matter rifles...the "old" blackpowder and metal projectile guns will still be ok. more

I also believe your first and second points. Some day (soon) private ftf transactions will be a no go. All firearm trades/bought/sold will HAVE to be done thru FFL. Its coming. Ratchet down on what we folks can do legally. Then again when they do that it'll be hard to prove at what date a transaction took place, especially if there is no proof. Hopefully your FFL will allow "cheap" transfers when that time comes.

Your third point I do not agree with. Regestration will happen before "laser" guns are avaliable. Nor will such weapons even go to the civilian market EVER. But who knows, all we can do is speculate on the future laws that will rule us.

 

[HoughMade]

Her family ought to sue the website she met this creep through.....naw, no need to be consistent.

 

[Drakkule]

I also believe your first and second points. Some day (soon) private ftf transactions will be a no go. All firearm trades/bought/sold will HAVE to be done thru FFL. Its coming. Ratchet down on what we folks can do legally. Then again when they do that it'll be hard to prove at what date a transaction took place, especially if there is no proof. Hopefully your FFL will allow "cheap" transfers when that time comes.

Your third point I do not agree with. Regestration will happen before "laser" guns are avaliable. Nor will such weapons even go to the civilian market EVER. But who knows, all we can do is speculate on the future laws that will rule us.

Easy to track, if you start with registration.

 

[KoopaKGB]

Easy to track, if you start with registration.

Yep which is what its coming to. Just like other 1st world countries. We need to fight to keep the 2A erosion in check. Which is what each gun law is, just a further erosion of American rights.

 

[melensdad]

This should serve as a warning to all INGO members who do not care to whom they sell a gun.

I very rarely sell but I want to see a DL and a LTCH and I prefer to talk to the buyer to try to size them up and get an idea of their character. I don't care about a bill of sale, I need no receipt. I don't copy your address, I just want to confirm you are legally allowed to buy a gun and are a good guy.

I hope Armslist wins, if it doesn't it may create a very chilling effect for those who sell here on INGO.

 

[Notavictim646]

Some day (soon) private ftf transactions will be a no go. All firearm trades/bought/sold will HAVE to be done thru FFL. Its coming.

Easy guys. When we use language like this, I think it allows House Republicans and anyone else we are going to need to stand up for us to convince themselves that gun owners believe it is a foregone conclusion and we will accept it. We need to make sure that they know we are watching and that there will be consequences for voting to further restrict ANY freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy.

 

[Slapstick]

Easy guys. When we use language like this, I think it allows House Republicans and anyone else we are going to need to stand up for us to convince themselves that gun owners believe it is a foregone conclusion and we will accept it. We need to make sure that they know we are watching and that there will be consequences for voting to further restrict ANY freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy.

+1 Well said and goes for more than just gun! Big Gulp anyone?

 

[TheWabbit]

Easy guys. When we use language like this, I think it allows House Republicans and anyone else we are going to need to stand up for us to convince themselves that gun owners believe it is a foregone conclusion and we will accept it. We need to make sure that they know we are watching and that there will be consequences for voting to further restrict ANY freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy.

The federal government doesn't regulate business transactions intrastate. They would have to do a lot more than just pass a law.

 

[Notavictim646]

The federal government doesn't regulate business transactions intrastate. They would have to do a lot more than just pass a law.

Can you explain further please? Not being a jerk, I just don't understand your statement.

 

[TheWabbit]

Can you explain further please? Not being a jerk, I just don't understand your statement.

The Federal Government has the power to regulate certain things (even though it tries to push it) because of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.​

The Federal Government has NO power to regulate commerce within a State. And the 10th Ammendment states everything not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the States and People.

This is where Indiana Senate Bill 130 will come in. They are reminding the Feds that Indiana commerce belongs to Indiana.

“Whereas, the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves for the states all powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, and reserves to the state and people of Indiana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Indiana was admitted to statehood in 1816.”​

Congress would have required a FFL for all transactions a long time ago if they could have done so. This is why Indiana is responsible for State Roads and the Feds control the Interstate Highways.

Interstate aka 'among the several States' - Feds
Intrastate - Not Feds

 

[KoopaKGB]

Easy guys. When we use language like this, I think it allows House Republicans and anyone else we are going to need to stand up for us to convince themselves that gun owners believe it is a foregone conclusion and we will accept it. We need to make sure that they know we are watching and that there will be consequences for voting to further restrict ANY freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy.

I understand what you say about using that kind of language, but politicians know the power of the NRA and the folks that vote based on their recommendations.

Unrelated but I might also say that Marijuana will be made as legal as alcohol some day in our state. Folks that think otherwise can feel free to voice their opinions as well. Also they could act just as strongly to prevent such laws from passing. All statements are of course just my opinion. Who knows, maybe the gov will allow machineguns to taken off the NFA list. Wishful thinking at best.

Can you explain further please? Not being a jerk, I just don't understand your statement.

I'm glad you asked cause I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Notavictim646]

The Federal Government has the power to regulate certain things (even though it tries to push it) because of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.​

The Federal Government has NO power to regulate commerce within a State. And the 10th Ammendment states everything not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the States and People.

This is where Indiana Senate Bill 130 will come in. They are reminding the Feds that Indiana commerce belongs to Indiana.

“Whereas, the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and reserves for the states all powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, and reserves to the state and people of Indiana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Indiana was admitted to statehood in 1816.”​

Congress would have required a FFL for all transactions a long time ago if they could have done so.

Huh, Never made the connection. So, what I hear you saying is that the Constitution will not allow the Federal Govt. to enforce any law that "closes the gunshow loophole" either?

 

[TheWabbit]

the Constitution will not allow the Federal Govt.

The Constitution doesn't stop anyone. A fair Judiciary shouldn't allow it and I think most of the States would not approve either.

The 'loophole' is an intrastate transaction between private parties. The Feds have no role. They can and do pressure the individual States like they do with seat belt laws.

An FFL can do interstate transactions and that is why they are subject to federal regulations.

 

[Stschil]

Easy guys. When we use language like this, I think it allows House Republicans and anyone else we are going to need to stand up for us to convince themselves that gun owners believe it is a foregone conclusion and we will accept it. We need to make sure that they know we are watching and that there will be consequences for voting to further restrict ANY freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy.

Repped!

I agree 100%. If we give up and say, oh well, I can't stop it, we've just weakened the spines of the people in congress who would fight FOR us.