Indiana Supreme Court to examine straw purchases

[historian]

What say ye INGO lawyers?

Indiana court considering wounded officer's gun sale suit - TheIndyChannel.com

 

[HoughMade]

Not surprising that it's going up.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...578-handgun-control-inc-wins-one-indiana.html

I would expect a decision in 1 to 3 months.

 

[stephen87]

In my non-legal opinion, I think the only way he could have a case is if the store knowingly sold it to the original purchaser illegally. Then it wouldn't even be a case of the injury, it would be a case of illegally selling a firearm.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I'd like to know how they "improperly" sold the gun to the straw buyer.

 

[T.Lex]

Couple of the briefs available on Odyssey:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...EQXlNRGd4TmpFeE1Ea3dPamcyTVRNMU9UQXlNRGs9In19

That's the appeals court cause, not the ISC one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Runnels is a proximate cause question from law school. What did the clerk know and when did he know it?

Here is the Court of Appeals case: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03171708par.pdf

 

[bwframe]

Is Runnels paying his own legal fees or is this being funded by an organization?

 

[T.Lex]

Is Runnels paying his own legal fees or is this being funded by an organization?

Looks like he started with local counsel from Seymour, but has some pretty heavy hitting attorneys assisting. For trial, perhaps took is as a contingency fee (attorneys don't get paid unless the client gets paid), but the appeals are probably pro-bono or paid by someone else.

Formatting is screwed up for copy/paste, but can go to my link above to see the attorneys.

 

[raptrbreth]

Second entry of the document Kirk posted lists two attorneys from Brady campaign.

 

[HoughMade]

Second entry of the document Kirk posted lists two attorneys from Brady campaign.

Yes. Handgun Control Inc. is in on this one and has been from very near the beginning, if not the inception. You will see the same players on both sides in cases like this around the country.

 

[Light]

The whole case hinges on whether or not the store employees knew that it was a straw purchase.

According to the Court of Appeals document it says the straw-buyer and felon entered in the early morning and picked out a handgun, then the straw-buyer returned that afternoon and purchased it.

Did he point it out and have the store hold it?
Were the same employees working the counter when the straw-buyer returned?
Was there a policy to notify the next shift that the guy may be a straw-purchaser?

These are questions that have to be answered to decide the case.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I do not know, but I would be interested in knowing if Ofc. Runnels is an officer who favors non-police carry of firearms (or, more properly, if he was such before this incident w/ Martin.) I'm not casting aspersions on him, nor am I comparing a felon actively committing a crime while in unlawful possession of a firearm to lawful carry by those individuals such as most of us, who would quickly jump to the officer's defense.

If HCI and their ilk are involved, I would hope he would realize that he's being used as a pawn to limit the right for good people in his effort to get a paycheck for the actions of an a**bag.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HoughMade]

The whole case hinges on whether or not the store employees knew that it was a straw purchase...

Does it?

The law at issue says:

aperson may not bring or maintain an action against a firearms orammunition manufacturer, trade association, or seller for... (2) recovery of damages resulting from the criminal or unlawfulmisuse of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm by a third party.

 

[T.Lex]

So the action isn't being brought for recovery of damages resulting from the criminal misuse of the firearm, it is for the unlawful sale.

Parsing, fun for the whole family.

 

[HoughMade]

So the action isn't being brought for recovery of damages resulting from the criminal misuse of the firearm, it is for the unlawful sale.

Parsing, fun for the whole family.

Sure. That sale would have caused a lot of damages....without the criminal and unlawful misuse of the gun.

 

[thunderchicken]

I have known Runnels for over 15 years and I cannot even begin to understand how this law suit got started. He has always been the kind of guy who has proudly displayed USMC license plate, bumper stickers, American flag, pro 2A etc. BUT ever since this law suit was filed I don't have the same respect for him. Also I have done business at that LGS and though the guys are like a grumpy married couple they have fair prices. Honestly laws what they are I would think it is very hard for a FFL to know its a straw purchase. IF Runnels wins this it could effect us all. Everytime we go into a shop with a new shooter/ first time gun buyer to offer advice it could raise the red flag and make the noob feel even more uncomfortable. Pisses me off

 

[Nazgul]

My wife was at the court yesterday during the arguments. She is a High School teacher and the local Superior Court judge got her a seat, along with other teachers, to observe.

Her take is the court is leaning toward the gun shop. Their questions were directed at finding how the incident was a violation of the existing law. They did not call the law itself into question.

She said the officers' lawyer seemed less prepared.

These are only her observations, she is not a trained lawyer, just a teacher.

Don

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm in a hurry, so not time for a proper response, but sincerely, thank you for your input on this. It's good to have an "ear" on it while the official hearing is taking place.

Please also thank your wife, both for the feedback, and far more, for being a teacher.

Blessings,
Bill

My wife was at the court yesterday during the arguments. She is a High School teacher and the local Superior Court judge got her a seat, along with other teachers, to observe.

Her take is the court is leaning toward the gun shop. Their questions were directed at finding how the incident was a violation of the existing law. They did not call the law itself into question.

She said the officers' lawyer seemed less prepared.

These are only her observations, she is not a trained lawyer, just a teacher.

Don

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Light]

Does it?

The law at issue says:

The judges in the document Kirk linked basically came to the conclusion that the law does not protect the business if they intentionally sold guns in violation of the law. The store is debating this.
The plaintiff is claiming that they recklessly sold firearms in violation of the law someway which means they should be held liable.
It sounds like so far the burden of proof is on the officer though to prove their wrongdoing, as it should be.

He has some wild claims though, even up to "conspiracy to traffic firearms to felons".
TBH I think the guy is being swooned by the Brady Campaign and is going to end up like the Lucky Gunner lawsuit, unless the store is proved in the wrongdoing.