Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Alaska Dispatch News)   If a gun shop leaves a homeless man unattended and finds a rifle missing with $200 left on the counter, tells the police it was stolen but tells the bank it was a sale, who gets sued when the homeless man shoots a random stranger? Show your work   (adn.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Fred Meyer, target shooting, paperwork, Alaska Supreme Court, rifles, tort law, homeless, shootings  
•       •       •

6791 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 2:38 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-09 02:28:54 PM  
4 votes:
optimalhumanmodulation.files.wordpress.com
2014-05-09 03:49:32 PM  
3 votes:
My fellow gun owners can attest, gun shop employes would leave you alone with their 14 year old daughter before they would leave you alone with a firearm.

Let's see:
Possibility 1: Gun store worker left rough looking customer alone with a firearm.

Possibility 2: Gun store worker sold gun to man without a 4473 and it came back to bite them on the ass.
2014-05-09 02:48:21 PM  
3 votes:
Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

The issue is that the guy who bought the gun was a lunatic and went and killed someone in short order. The laws are there for a reason. Coxe (the vendor) was not stupid. He was criminally and willfully negligent.
2014-05-09 02:44:00 PM  
3 votes:
Wow the store owner's story sounds like the kind of bullshiat a 5 year old would come up with.
2014-05-09 02:43:30 PM  
3 votes:
Seems like it would depend on whether the shop actually reported the gun as stolen or waited until after the shooting to claim that.
2014-05-09 08:26:31 PM  
2 votes:

DarkVader: BumpInTheNight: EdNortonsTwin: Man steals gun, shoots someone, gets sued.

That's it.

What paper work were you doing in the back any ways?  That's the really important part of your story that's missing, the part where you left a homeless man alone with the gun 'to go do some paperwork'.

I dunno, maybe calling in the background check?

It's Alaska, lots of people look like that in Alaska.  I doubt he said he was homeless.

And it's a small town, only 32,000 people.  Doing business in a small town isn't the same as a big city, you don't always have somebody watching to make sure the customer doesn't steal anything, especially when it's a small store with nobody but the owner working.

And the store owner reported the gun as stolen.  What was he supposed to do with the $200, burn it?  He put it in the bank.

And no gun dealer is going to risk his license for someone he doesn't know, certainly not for a $200 sale.  That guy could have been undercover ATF looking to make a bust.  I'm sure there probably are some who might take a risk for a friend, but not for a stranger.

So no, the story is completely believable.  Small town business, overly trustful owner (he's probably been doing business like that for 20 years or more), and some guy walks out with the gun, dropping $200 on the counter.

Here's the owner, with a different customer:

[images.morris.com image 500x324]

Yes, the old guy.  And that customer looks kind of homeless too.


Here's a link to a different article...

http://juneauempire.com/local/2012-03-05/juneau-gun-shop-owner-heart -a k-supreme-court-case

Which has more info on the old guy.

FTA: "Lowy went on to say in court and in written briefs that two firearms and security experts testified that the guns were likely sold off the books; that ATF found Coxe violated gun laws several times in the past, including disposing of firearms with no record of sale as required by federal law; that Coxe's own employees expressed concerns to Coxe that it was too easy for someone to steal a gun from the store; and that when four guns were reported missing in rapid succession in 1993, the Juneau Police Department gave Coxe a verbal warning to increase security on his guns."

"On top of that, Lowy argues, Coxe's story is inconsistent, and that there are contradictions in his sworn testimony. For example, Lowy lists, Coxe put forth that the reason he left the future killer Jason Coday unattended in his store is because the store was busy at the time. That's not true, Lowy said."

So, it sounds like yes, this guy has a long history of shady gun deals. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing, made up a story that allowed him to claim he was innocent as well as letting the guy get well away before the police were called.

Your suggestion that shop owners in small towns are going to walk away and let people they don't know have the run of the store, especially a gun store, and after this guy has been warned before by police that he needs to have better security on his guns, makes you sound like a complete farking idiot.
2014-05-09 04:54:48 PM  
2 votes:

DarkVader: And the store owner reported the gun as stolen.


i can't seem to find this backed up anywhere. i've seen plenty of places where he said it was stolen after the shooting, but no reports. i have seen that the store owner said two different surveillance systems failed to catch anything
2014-05-09 04:07:04 PM  
2 votes:

BumpInTheNight: redmid17: Let's check the case!

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
[...]
Driver asked Coxe if he had sold Coday the rifle. Coxe verified the rifle was missing and then drove his truck around the neighboring area in an unsuccessful attempt to find Coday. At some point either Coxe or an employee called the Juneau Police Department. Coxe reported the rifle stolen, and on the advice of a police officer, deposited the $200 in the bank as a sale.

Oh dear, well that's what I get for trusting website news reporting.  Okay I agree the store did a reasonable job.


Yeah I was on the fence, leaning toward punishment, until I read the case from someone's post. He reported the theft. The cop probably thought "Look this guy is a drifter and we'll never catch him." and told him take the money. It probably should have been kept as evidence, but with no video evidence, no ID shown, and the guy having a headstart it doesn't seem like something that would have been solved quickly or at all.
2014-05-09 03:09:53 PM  
2 votes:
Jesus christ, he literally did the "I'll just leave this here and turn around, if you and it are gone but money is left behind when I turn back..."  Charge him with the damn murder, he purposely sold a weapon to someone because they both knew the background check would fail.  They contributed to killing a guy.  While you're at it grow up with your laws about guns, the rest of the world is face palming over and over about this silly shiat.
2014-05-09 02:36:49 PM  
2 votes:
Wait, go back to the part where the homeless guy had $200.


/take the gun, leave the canolli
2014-05-09 12:32:52 PM  
2 votes:
No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.
2014-05-09 07:45:37 PM  
1 vote:
Other than leaving a person alone in the store, which is bad judgment but not illegal, I'm trying to figure out what the store did wrong.

Although the "customer" left money on the counter, he hadn't gone through any of the background checks or other items that would make it a legitimate transaction. Therefore the store did the right thing in reporting what happened to the police.

Unless the police requested the cash as evidence or otherwise told them that they were not entitled to the cash, then the store had no choice but to make a deposit to the bank or the employees would be stealing money from the business. Not to mention that otherwise they had no way to recoup the cost of the rifle.

There's nothing to indicate that they reported it stolen and filed an insurance claim so there's no fraud.

How is the store responsible for the actions of a thief?

If I take a pillow from Walmart and leave $10 on the counter to cover the cost but don't go through the registers or check out with a cashier, is Walmart then responsible if I go out and smother somebody to death with the pillow?

Making the dealer responsible seems like a hell of a stretch in logic to me, especially since they reported the gun being taken to the police.
2014-05-09 06:10:26 PM  
1 vote:
Gun stores don't just leave guns sitting out with homeless people.  When your story is "sorry, my bad, I left a gun with the homeless guy, and he gave me money, and there is no video of it despite my security system", it makes it very difficult to believe your BS.
2014-05-09 05:59:13 PM  
1 vote:

ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him


If the gun had a price tag and he paid the labeled price plus taxes, its hard to argue theft. Clearly the intent of both parties was a sale. If the store's "system" failed to put controls on the sale to gather required information before the sale, well, that's a fault on the store.

No different than the unmanned vegetable cart on the side of the road with prices posted and a bucket for the money. That's the seller's design, not the buyers design.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 03:52:07 PM  
1 vote:
This appears to be the Supreme Court case from last year sending the case back for trial: http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=S-14077&s=ak&d=59504. Basically, if the gun was really stolen the dealer is off the hook but if the "theft" was sale in disguise he's screwed.  The plaintiffs relied on an expert witness saying it looked like a sale to him.
2014-05-09 03:23:27 PM  
1 vote:

LazyMedia: Something the plaintiff's lawyer said is bullshiat, I'm thinking.

What Rayco also didn't do was conduct a federally required background check that's supposed to be done before a firearm can be sold. Coday, with a history of drug abuse and erratic behavior, was a fugitive from the Lower 48 who'd arrived in Alaska not long before the 2006 killing.

"He never would have passed a background check," Choate said.

I'm not sure he wouldn't have. They don't check to see if you have outstanding warrants, just whether you're a convicted felon. You can abuse all the drugs and commit as many misdemeanors as you like without losing the ability to buy a gun. You can be bughouse crazy, too, as long as you've never been involuntarily committed.

Probably what happened is old bugnuts TOLD the gun dealer that he couldn't pass a background check, so he sold him the gun and made up the ridiculous "I turned my back" story. But he probably would have passed if he's not a felon. TFA is unclear on that point.


Hmmmmm:
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/firearms-how-i de ntify-prohibited-persons

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

If you have a warrant out or a restraining order AND the court has filed it, you cannot purchase a gun. Plenty of misdemeanors prevent you from buying a gun. Obviously there are holes there with drug/alcohol use and mental health, but it's not like you get a carte blanche to commit crimes and retain the ability to pass a 4473. An arrest for drugs is likely to get you delayed, at the very least, if not outright denied. Medicinal MJ users are supposed to be denied.

This guy was extremely negligent/idiotic at the very least.
2014-05-09 03:21:43 PM  
1 vote:
"oh hello there dirty homeless man wrapped in a sleeping bag wrapped in a garbage bag! would you like to hold this firearm while i dismiss everyone else from the store and then go into the back to get paperwork for some reason?"
-responsible gun owner
2014-05-09 03:01:28 PM  
1 vote:

ArkAngel: dr_blasto: No lawsuit.

BATFE busts them for straw sale. FBI follows up with fraud.

Police taze everyone involved.

No straw sale. Everyone involved agrees the guy got the gun from that shop. The question is whether he stole it and left money or the place sold it to him


How about the part where the shopkeeper left a customer unsupervised in the store, with an unsecured firearm on the counter? I call Criminal Negligence. Even if there were no customers in the store, you do not leave the room with unsecured firearms laying out in plain view, where someone could come in off the street and snatch them.

Either way, the shop owner is going to pay for his indiscretion.
2014-05-09 03:01:10 PM  
1 vote:

stevarooni: Kuta: Am I the only one thinking this happens (gun left on counter, owner goes out of sight to do paperwork, customer leaves cash and takes off, no surveillance camera video) with some relative frequency?

That...seems unlikely.  In my experience, when the shop employee called the NICS check it was done right in front of me or (in the case of Cabela's) the gun was taken behind a counter with half a dozen other employees with it.


I can't recall ever buying a gun (and I've bought dozens) where there weren't at least two armed employees in view at all times. That's just common-sense protection against armed robbers.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-09 02:54:57 PM  
1 vote:
Who gets sued? Everybody, because there is in practice no penalty for filing a stupid lawsuit. Who loses? Trickier question.

Results of the long-running case have been mixed so far. First, a Superior Court judge in Juneau summarily dismissed the Kim family's lawsuit, saying it was barred under the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But the Alaska Supreme Court last year reinstated the case, saying the act didn't bar claims if Rayco illegally sold the weapon to Coday.

18 USC 7903(5)(A)(iii)(I). Immunity of a dealer under the Act depends on filing proper paperwork.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7903
2014-05-09 02:50:46 PM  
1 vote:
Depends. Being homeless is no legal barrier to gun ownership. Was the guy a convicted felon, or had he been involuntarily committed to a loony bin? If so, then I'd say the gun dealer is screwn, because nobody's buying that "uh, the guy took the gun and left the money when my back was turned" story, even if it were true. Which it isn't, because c'mon, please. If the homeless guy could legally own a gun, then the gun dealer's home free, whether he sold him the gun or it was stolen.
2014-05-09 02:48:22 PM  
1 vote:
Really?

"I can't technically sell this to you, but I'll just turn my back for a second, wink, wink" really does count as plausible deniability?
2014-05-09 02:47:42 PM  
1 vote:
FTFA: Two video security systems were in place the day Coday came in, but they didn't document the interaction. Coxe said an employee failed to put in a fresh tape.

Yeah, you've screwed up.  Who leaves a gun shop unattended, with or without someone there?  And the video surveillance happens not to be there?  :-P
2014-05-09 02:42:36 PM  
1 vote:

cgraves67: Because People in power are Stupid:

I have never seen that gif before. I love it.


can't....stop....watching....it
2014-05-09 02:40:41 PM  
1 vote:
Because People in power are Stupid:

I have never seen that gif before. I love it.
2014-05-09 01:47:06 PM  
1 vote:
Hoping to get some answers, the Kim family is suing the gun shop where Coday got the gun used in the murder


Well, they are looking to get something, but I doubt it's "An$wer$"
2014-05-09 12:26:35 PM  
1 vote:
No one, because the Second AMendment
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report