Kansas Supreme Court really mucked things up today.
They came out with a decision in a negligence case today wherein a gunshop was sued based on a purported "straw sale". A mother and son go into a gunshop in Baxter Springs. Mom fills out the 4473 and apparently sonnyboy (a convicted rapist) pays cash. He then walks out of the shop with gun in hand, and later that day shoots and kills his own child and himself. While the shop didn't do things right, the Court, reversing an Order of Summary Judgment, ruled that gun shops owe the public the highest duty of care. Liability insurance will probably go stratospheric after this decision.
After reading the case, I hied down street to my LGS and advised my friend the owner. He will now orally read each of the questions pertaining to straw sale and felony/Lautenberg issues to each customer purchasing, as well as posting a large sign stating in essence the same language, and stating if you cannot satisfy both requirements, you cannot purchase here.
He'll probably mount a camera too, to record each sale. Any other ideas?
I'm starting to think California has moved to Kansas!
Shame on that store for letting that occur! Asleepm at the
by Rob Leahy 
, Prescott, Arizona, Friday, July 19, 2013, 16:15 (4089 days ago) @ Wildcat
wheel or greedy.
--
Of the Troops & For the Troops
While 'one can never be too careful'
Many would probably find a snapshot intrusive. Also, isn't a photo ID generally 'required' to cover that?
I would also think most 'modern' gun shops have live video surveillance. It certainly doesn't cost much these days, and as an added bonus the public is already 'used to it'.
As for the decision, I would have to pretty much agree with it. Gun shops are open to and serve the public, which ordinarily comes with some liability. It can be difficult, especially for the 'small guy', but it isn't exactly news.
--
![[image]](http://www.sixshootercommunity.com/share/awkward.gif)
While 'one can never be too careful'
The standard of care issue potentially exposes gunshops to strict liability. What if NICs makes the mistake. As for the camera, that is for liability purposes, to record the transaction. Apparently, the shop at issue in the suit had one but it wasn't working that day. As a result, and given the standard of care the court imposed, the court chose to believe the testimony of the gun buying mother, who wasn't party to the suit.
While 'one can never be too careful'
A 'backup' camera might be a good idea then.
Whether insurance rates go up, I suppose only time will tell. Meanwhile, I think this type of thing is probably already accounted for, at least in some policies.
Employers have only so much control over their employees. I think the insurance companies know this, probably all too well.
--
Two 'similar' stories
Story #1
A friend of mine has worked more than 20 years at the LGS, so he knows his business. One day, a middle-aged lady came in acting 'hinky' in a suicidal sense, so my friend followed his gut: He refused to sell her a gun.
Unfortunately, the woman proceeded downtown and acquired one from a rather more gutless gun shop, no doubt without much 'interference'. Upon retrieving her new treasure after a five-day waiting period AND a second visit to the store, she took it home and killed herself.
Story #2
A truly obvious nutcase hailed a cab and rode around town until he found a shop that would sell him a gun, plus ammo.
Next, the nutcase had the cabby take him to restaurant, where he shot up the place, plus a few patrons.
Does the 'shooter' bear all the liability in such cases, or is there perhaps more than enough to go around?
--