You must log in or register to comment.

Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j8mqgt3 wrote

The police didn't do their job to make it impossible for the guy to buy a gun so that's the gun shop's fault?

The lawyer for the cops is arguing that is the gun shop's job to investigate potential crimes.

>Morrissette said that red flags were there, and they should have thoughtfully been checked out before MacPherson was sold a firearm.

If only we had some kind of public entity designated as the official crime investigation body!


DonaIdTrurnp t1_j8on8ew wrote

Gun shops don’t have any obligation to protect any particular person.


DeerFlyHater t1_j8mp1w7 wrote

POS cops being POS cops as usual.

The shop owner or counter monkeys are not mind readers. The customer passed the check, which by the way is conducted by NHSP for handguns.


thrunabulax t1_j8muysq wrote

face it, the cops do NOT want common citizens to own guns.

REMEMBER THAT next time there is a vote for funding.


baxterstate t1_j8ne52v wrote

"The Second Amendment should be honored, but it shouldn't put a weapon in the hands of someone who's incompetent," Morrissette said. ———————————————————————

Does this go for incompetent police officers?


Beretta92A1 t1_j8nrbn6 wrote

> Does this go for incompetent police officers?

Oh how I wish it would. The power hungry that get those positions of authority aught to be denied in the first place. Unfortunately they don’t.


lantonas t1_j8nijjo wrote

The First Amendment should be honored, but it shouldn't put a voice in the hands of someone who's incompetent.

The Nineteenth Amendment should be honored, but it shouldn't put a vote in the hands of someone who's incompetent.


Action-Calm t1_j8mwlrm wrote

F them the gun shop followed the law.


Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j8ppuhq wrote

I’m an incorrigible enlightened centrist on guns. I don’t really give a shit either way. Both sides have some good points and some really fucking stupid points. It pisses everyone off. It’s great.

One of the really fucking stupid points on the anti-gun side is this deranged obsession with suing gun shops and manufacturers. If you want to change the laws, that’s great, go for it, but these are law abiding businesses. They shouldn’t be responsible for selling someone who was legally allowed to have a gun, any more than Home Depot should be if they sell someone a chainsaw that’s used in a Texas massacre. It’s a tool. It’s legal to buy, sell, and own. We have a constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws in Article I, Section 9. The lawyers bringing these cases seriously ought to face consequences with the State Bar. They’re frivolous and absurd.


nhbruh t1_j8n6mzs wrote

Cops indirectly arguing for stricter gun laws. Irony is dead.

> "In denying the right to bear arms, in order to do that, we need to have other underlying evidence to deny that conviction," said Jessica King, the lawyer representing the Department of Safety.

> The Department of Safety said that at the time of the background check MacPherson had no federal or state disqualifiers to prohibit him from getting a firearm.


vexingsilence t1_j8n72i7 wrote

Sounds to me like they're looking for a payday. Granted it's one article from an incompetent news agency, but given what's there, how could they possibly think that their case has any merit? Do they think they can just flash their badges in court and get whatever they want despite the law?


Mynewadventures t1_j8n7ild wrote

Yes. Yes they do. They are used to being considered the paragon of righteousness and trustworthiness.

They laugh at us subserviant underlings.


Kyle_Smiles t1_j8o8373 wrote

Fuck those cops. I suppose people who get In car accidents should sue Toyota and Ford. Mind numbingly Retarded.