Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Trolley [Square Mall] shotgun seller is sued. Salt Lake Tribune, Utah

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8246961

    The gun dealer who illegally sold Sulejman Talovic the shotgun he used in the Trolley Square mall rampage should have known Talovic intended to commit a crime, a survivor claims in a lawsuit.

    Carolyn Tuft is suing pawn shop chain Sportsman's Fastcash and its owner, Nevada-based Rocky Mountain Enterprises, for unspecified damages for her injuries and the death of her 15-year-old daughter.

    The suit also names licensed firearms dealer Westley Wayne Hill, who pleaded guilty in December and was placed on probation for failing to keep proper records in the Nov. 13, 2006, sale.

    Tuft's attorney, Mark J. Williams, argues Hill and his employers share legal responsibility for the shootings because the sale was illegal and because type of gun Talovic purchased was a tip-off.

    "The pistol-grip shotgun serves no reasonable sporting purpose other than for military, law enforcement or criminal activities," Williams wrote in the 3rd District Court suit.

    Talovic killed Hinckley and four other shoppers, and wounded Tuft and three others on Feb. 12, 2007, before he was fatally shot by police.

    Tuft, 45, was left with a severe wound to her right arm, other injuries and lead poisoning. She declined to comment on the suit Tuesday while visiting Cabin Fever, the store where she and her daughter were shopping when they were shot, as part of anniversary events.

    State records identify attorney Carl E. Kingston, who often handles legal matters for the polygamous Kingston clan, as the registered agent of Sportsman's Fast Cash. He did not return phone calls Tuesday. Hill and Rocky Mountain Enterprises could not be reached for comment.

    Hill admitted failing to indicate on a form whether Talovic, a Bosnian, showed a second form of identification, required because he was a legal alien. Prosecutors dropped a felony charge alleging the sale also was illegal because the gun's pistol grip required a buyer to be 21 or older. The lawsuit raises that claim again.

    Similar suits filed nationally

    The Washington, D.C.,-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has helped family members of shooting victims sue gun distributors six times since 1999. Most cases involved "straw purchases," in which someone with a clean record bought a gun at a pawn shop, then transferred it to a restricted person. Two are still pending; the rest were settled or are being settled, a spokesman said.

  2. #2
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Let's sue the banking industry for provoking bank robbers!:celebrate We all know that if there were no money in the bank, bank robbers wouldn't rob them... Isn't that the same logic?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Englewood, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    654

    Post imported post

    Well .40 if this was truely an illegal or Straw sale, then I think they should be proscuted. But it appears that some of the charges against the gun dealer were dropped so who knows what really went on.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    If pistol-grip shotguns serve no lawful purpose, then why is it legal to sell them? I have half a dozen on the shelf behind me, and only yesterday some woman was looking at getting one for herself and another for her mother for home protection.I guess I was remiss in not sending the FBI after them. Curiously, no cops or military have ever given them a second look. What nonsense.

    -ljp

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    I upgraded the stock on my 500 Mossberg to include a butt stock with a pistol grip to make it easier for the wife to handle. There are plenty of reasons... typical gun grabber - nanny state drivel!

  6. #6
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    Lthrnck wrote:
    Well .40 if this was truely an illegal or Straw sale, then I think they should be proscuted.
    I agree completely.The weapon was sold to the individual apparently. Isn't it illegal to sell a firearm to a naturalized citizen?

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    .... Isn't it illegal to sell a firearm to a naturalized citizen?
    No.
    They must be "legal" aliens (green card, etc) that can prove "legal" residency for at least 90 days.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Virginia, ,
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Lthrnck wrote:
    Well .40 if this was truely an illegal or Straw sale, then I think they should be proscuted.
    I agree completely.The weapon was sold to the individual apparently. Isn't it illegal to sell a firearm to a naturalized citizen?
    I think citizens regardless of their status (naturalized and born) have any restrictions beyond what is normally required and it should be that way. Once your citizen, with few exceptions laid out in the constitution should be treated regardless of how you became a citizen.

    I believe issue is shooter was a legal alien and therefore required additional documentation above and beyond what was shown and legal aliens in US are limited to guns for "sporting" purposes only which they argue this "military" style shotgun is not.

  9. #9
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    I learned something new today. If you don't ask, you don't learn. Right?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    I learned something new today. If you don't ask, you don't learn. Right?
    That is so true.



    I remember once back in the late Pleistocene, I was taking inorganic chemistry and this other kid in the class raised his hand and said, "I know this is a dumb question, but..." It was right about there that the teacher interrupted him and said, "....The only dumb question is the unasked question."

    If you don't ask you don't learn is right on the money.



    Tarzan

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    I am truly sorry for Carolyn Tuft and her loss, but I must say that is she is going to sue, she should do it right.

    By her logic the following is a partial list of those responsible for her loss.



    1. Mr. and Mrs. Talovic. They facilitated the act by giving birth to the shooter.

    2. The Birth DR. for not aborting the shooter, and thus stopping the act.

    3. The US government for allowing the shooter access to the US

    4. Rocket J. Squirrel Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, for what ever you want to charge him with.

    5. Keds USA who supplied the shoes he wore in to do the killing.

    6. London Fog, who made the trench coat he wore to hide the shotgun he used.

    7. Mossberg who made the shotgun used.

    8. Remington who made the ammo used.

    9. Rayban who made the shades he wore when he did the deed.

    10. Exxon who made the gas he put in his car to drive to the Mall.

    11. Yugo who made the care he drove to the mall.............



    Sarcasm off



    Tarzan



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, ,
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    I took one law class when in college, and talked with the prof after hours several times because it interested me a little. I am not a lawyer nor do I ever want to be, but it is a topic that I felt would do me good knowing a little of the basics. That being said, I was taught that when you are going to sue, sue everyone. This was ingrained into every student in that class.

    The reason being is that even if you are successful in your suit, you will be lucky to collect the money. Say you sue the store that sold the gun. Well it may only have $250,000.00 in assets and you are suing for 5 mil. If you are lucky, 250k is what you get, too bad your med bills are are a cool mil. So maybe you can get a few bucks out of someone else, so you sue the security company for not keeping it safe. You get the picture.

    This doesn't only pertain to a gun. Say you slip off a stair coming out of a restaurant. Sue the restaurant, the landlord for not keeping it well lit, the general contractor who built it because he didn't put an anti-skid coating on the step and so on. My personal belief is that it is stupid and irrational to sue everyone. If something were to happen to me, you bet your ass I am going to do everything I can to make myself feel better. And if I feel a new Porsche in the garage would make me feel better, then so be it

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Lthrnck wrote:
    Well .40 if this was truely an illegal or Straw sale, then I think they should be proscuted.
    I agree completely.The weapon was sold to the individual apparently. Isn't it illegal to sell a firearm to a naturalized citizen?
    A "Naturalized" Citizen IS a Citizen. NO RESTRICTIONS. Treated just like a Citizen. I just became a Citizen of the U.S. I could even buy a firearm as a Permanent Resident.

    As long as a person is here ( at least in the State of Utah ) legally for 90 days they can purchase a firearm. Pefrsonally I think that they should be able to purchase a firearm on the 1st day LEGALLY here in the U.S.

    Just my .44

    TJ



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    Lthrnck wrote:
    Well .40 if this was truely an illegal or Straw sale, then I think they should be proscuted.
    I agree completely.The weapon was sold to the individual apparently. Isn't it illegal to sell a firearm to a naturalized citizen?
    A "Naturalized" Citizen IS a Citizen. NO RESTRICTIONS. Treated just like a Citizen. I just became a Citizen of the U.S. I could even buy a firearm as a Permanent Resident.

    As long as a person is here ( at least in the State of Utah ) legally for 90 days they can purchase a firearm. Pefrsonally I think that they should be able to purchase a firearm on the 1st day LEGALLY here in the U.S.

    Just my .44

    TJ



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Prosecutors dropped a felony charge alleging the sale also was illegal because the gun's pistol grip required a buyer to be 21 or older. The lawsuit raises that claim again.
    Que?

    Since when is it illegal to purchase a pistol grip under age 21? Or is the government making up laws to enforce again?



    Perhaps the local DA should charge Carolyn Tuft with child endangerment and the like for not providing adequate protection for her daughter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •