[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Maybe the gun shop didn't report a missing gun but does that fix the blame on them for the sniper shootings? Geeze, I guess I had better look up the local law to see if I am liable if someone steals one of my guns then, months or years later, shoots someone or something with it.

Was Mohammed not allowed to buy a rifle but the shop sold it to him anyway? That's about the only thing I can see them getting into trouble for.

[gundog]

MO was under a restraining order, Malvo was a minor. Neither was able to buy from an FFL dealer...if this guy did a private sale, fine. Dumb, but fine. No, they didn't shoot anyone, but in todays litigous climate. they should have dotted every i and crossed every t. They have a lot of discrepencies to clear up...I think that being sued is almost academic; someone is going to prison.

[wayoverontheright]

Maybe the gun shop didn't report a missing gun but does that fix the blame on them for the sniper shootings? Geeze, I guess I had better look up the local law to see if I am liable if someone steals one of my guns then, months or years later, shoots someone or something with it.

I agree.

If I were family of one of these victims, justice for me would reside totally in securing the scheduled execution of the perpetrators. The act of extracting MONEY from the GUILTY, let alone downstream, unaware enablers would make me feel that I was dishonoring the memory of my departed loved one. How could one enjoy spending that kind of money?

[jim_trent]

From what I read (no guarantee of accuracy), the gun was on display in the gunshop, loaded with optional equipment. When it "disappeared", they did not notify the police. I do believe that that makes them liable. Of course, there is still some question if the gun was sold "off the books". If that is proved, monetary damages will be the least of the gunshop owners worries.