Lawsuit faults Gander Mountain for failure to read minds :: 08/30/2014

"Will a Gun Retailer Get Away With Negligence?" Teresa Tritch of The New York Times asks.

That headline is significant for two reasons: First, because it very publicly presumes a defendant in a contested civil lawsuit is guilty of negligence. By all standards of objective journalism, even suspected murderers everyone "knows" are guilty are referred to as "alleged" killers until verdicts are rendered. Second, because Tritch is a 10-year member of The Times' editorial board, writing her piece for "Taking Note," the paper's "editorial page editor's blog."

She and they know perfectly well what the canons of journalism demand. Then again, the subject is guns, and they are The Times, which never saw a gun it didn't want to ban, with the exception of the one carried by former publisher (and "gun prohibition advocate"), the late Arthur Ochs "Punch" Sulzberger, who obtained a concealed carry permit - something only the elites have a hope of getting - using the justification: "carry large sums of money, securities, etc."

That their lowly servants' meager purse or wallet contents might be a comparatively larger sum to them, or that lives of the non-privileged, and the lives of their loved ones, might be worth more to them than all a rich man's holdings, is not something "progressive" champions of the people wish us to think too long or deeply on.

But back to the guilty party, now that we've assembled a mob: The retailer Tritch and her masters at The Times have pronounced negligent by a presumed preponderance of evidence is retail giant Gander Mountain.

Its crime?

Gander Mountain's Rochester outlet sold guns to a customer who filled out and certified the veracity of her entries on ATF's Form 4473 "Over the Counter Transaction Record," and passed the NICS check, clearing the transfer of the guns. They're being sued for that by the Brady Center on behalf of shooting victims and families, because the purchaser then turned the guns over to a "prohibited" felon, who went on a shooting rampage.

Gander Mountain is accused of ignoring signs of a straw purchase, and allowing the sales to proceed.

What were those signs?

The woman who bought the guns, and the man she was buying them for, came into the store together.

I've gone into a gun store with a friend before. Have you?

The man spoke first.

I've done that too, all the time, and not just in gun stores. Even if I'm not the one doing the shopping, say I'm in the ladies' section of a department store with my wife, if we need help and I see the clerk first, I flag him or her down. And if I'm spoken to first, I respond.

The woman "did not buy any ammunition, nor did she ask about ammunition, how to load or operate the guns or where shooting ranges were located."

So? That proves what? What kind of misogynist would assume that just because she's female, she doesn't know what she needs and what she's doing? That's almost funny, because "feminists" working for Patriarch Bloomberg are the ones accusing gun rights advocates of being sexist.

Add to that some interesting statistics.

"Women's participation in shooting sports has surged over the last decade, increasing by 51.5 percent for target shooting from 2001 to 2011, to just over 5 million women, and by 41.8 percent for hunting," one prominent news account reported. "Gun sales to women have risen in concert. In a survey last year by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 73 percent of gun dealers said the number of female customers had gone up in 2011, as had a majority of retailers surveyed in the two previous years."

So naturally, an experience gun retailer is not going to bat an eye at a female customer, nor make chauvinistic assumptions. Gun people know that. The only ones who don't are the ones who know nothing about guns except that they want to ban them.

Or the ones who find the truth inconvenient, like the editors over at the source of that report, The New York Times. Tell me Teresa doesn't read her own paper.

But she's not done listing Gander Mountain's crimes against humanity.

Because, as already noted, the woman bought more than one gun. That's not illegal is it? Because I've done that, when I had a chance to get some good deals that might not come around again. And even if there are no special bargains, good people do it all the time.

Why?

That's their business.

But here's the kicker, the final inescapable proof of guilt, that on "Perry Mason" would result in a witness breaking down and confessing to murder: The guns were purchased with cash!

You know, that paper stuff issued by the Federal Reserve that has, in all caps on the front of each bill, the words "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE."

Gander Mountain is being sued for following the law to complete firearms transactions, and for not having ESP and being able to read minds, and look into the souls of other human beings. Gander Mountain is being sued for not having special powers and abilities not possessed by any other mortals, but expected and required of gun dealers.

For its part, Gander Mountain is claiming the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" shields the company from such lawsuits, and that's something that causes more hissing and fang-baring among the antis than a crucifix being pulled on the brides of Dracula. They'll never admit that the law does not shield a manufacturer from product defects. If a gunmaker releases a product to market that doesn't perform as intended and that causes loss or harm, he doesn't get a free ride on liability.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/codrea-gander-mountain-fault.htm