This ^^^ and I also think there's two things going on here. Here's my $.02 take...
I used to work at a gun store and it was always expected of us that if we weren't comfortable selling to a potential buyer, (for whatever reason) than we didn't have to or should not. As many who've worked behind a gun counter already know, your "gut" feeling doesn't usually lie and you should trust it. Personally, I always declined selling someone a gun if they even joked about being a felon, wanted to make a straw purchase for whomever, about being mentally sick or whatever. To me, that was NO joking matter regardless of who it was, because you just never wanted to "test their statement" to see if it was true or not. I'd much rather have a pissed-off customer that didn't get what they wanted from me due to said circumstances, than to be put in a position such as this article states...or worse yet-- in jail. They could go somewhere else, joke with them and try to buy the gun there instead...more power to them.
That said, all of the above is subjective and is completely up to the selling individual to implement or not... Like anything else in life, there are "good" shops and there are "not so good" shops out there-- all of them using varying levels of good judgement from day-to-day.
Now...since the buyer did actually purchase the firearm legally through NICS and they filled out the 4473 accurately (as far as the seller knew) then the gun shop, nor the selling individual should not be held in contempt or liable for the issue of the article IMO. They did their job correctly per the Law as far as paperwork goes. However, since the buyer knowingly falsified information on the 4473 and signed their name to it as being "true", there should be legal proceedings brought against the buyer just for that instance alone; as it's VERY clear on the 4473 that behavior is HIGHLY illegal and may be prosecutable under Law.
I'd guess the gun shop will probably be cleared of the incident because of that, but I'd bet some changes to their selling SOP's internally will be forthcoming. If not, perhaps they should be.
Yeah, he certainly fits the "not so good" shop category...Yup.....just ask "Don"
If the paper work clears he has done his job.......
Yeah, that shop just might lose this case. If they were aware that the girl buying the gun was the girl the mother had warned them about, no bueno.
So what's the penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit?
This is one reason why TORT reform is so badly needed!
Yeah, that shop just might lose this case. If they were aware that the girl buying the gun was the girl the mother had warned them about, no bueno.
A gun store is under no obligation to sell someone a firearm even if they satisfy all the questions on the 4473 and pass a NICS check.what if you turned the scenario around a bit. Say a person just went through a nasty divorce, spouse knows the person likes and collects guns. The spouse then goes around to LGSs in the area spreading the RUMOR that the Ex has severe mental problems. The Ex now goes shopping for a new gun for the collection, fills out a 4473, then the clerk goes into the back room for a conversation with another employee, comes back out and then refuses to sell to the Ex. Many on here would be ready to take some kind of action (legal, boycott, internet bad mouthing, etc.) against the LGS if he refused the sale on hearsay.