Widow of Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer sues gun website
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree15Likes
  • 10 Post By Pony
  • 1 Post By coopercdrkey
  • 1 Post By Czechbikr
  • 2 Post By Pony
  • 1 Post By Pony

Thread: Widow of Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer sues gun website

  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Member #
    5628
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    32,603
    Liked
    41774 times

    Widow of Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer sues gun website

    Armslist is being sued by the widow and the Brady bunch. The details are not clear but my supposition is that the initial sale was clean and then the Glock was transferred through a straw buyer down the line. A high profile lawsuit that probably won't go anywhere, but is designed to bring more weight to bear on additional gun control.

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/2/...auer-sues-guns

    Not mentioned in the following report is that face to face sales were and still are legal in WI


    https://wgntv.com/2020/02/12/widow-o...lling-website/


    and another article:

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...bsite/2218289/
    Last edited by Czechbikr; Yesterday at 10:12 PM.
    “…democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: ‘What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.'” F.A. Hayek

  2. #2
    Member
    Member #
    44487
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Ohio, on the outskirts of a Walmart.
    Posts
    96
    Liked
    145 times
    Maybe I can sue the Tribune. I was in a nasty car wreck back in 1987, the ditz who hit me was driving a car she bought through a classified ad in the trib. I doubt they made any efforts to verify she had a valid driver’s license. If they had, she wouldn’t have been driving, and my 1970 Cutlass 442 convertible would still be driving today.
    I don’t know what my spirit animal would be, but I’m pretty sure it has rabies.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms, that right is inherent. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon that right.

  3. #3
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    22823
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida's Nature Coast
    Posts
    8,204
    Liked
    10867 times
    I don't intend to derail this thread, but I will take it onto a side spur, so let me say at the beginning that I do not believe this suit will go anywhere. Armslist was never the owner of the Glock so how could they be responsible for a negligent transfer? I would be interested in finding out how similar on line marketers avoid the issue.

    Now, an interesting speculation-

    The objective of virtually every lobbyist is to promote legislation that benefits the principal. In many cases that means to pass a revenue generating statute. I don't know if the licensed gun dealers of America have a trade organization or if they employ lobbyists.

    If I were a FFL holder I would be torn between wanting each and every gun transfer to pass through my license or that of a fellow licensee, versus abhorring any arms limiting legislation. What would win out, in your opinion? The revenue stream or the high ground?

    And before you advance the argument that a pitiful little $25. or so fee isn't worth the debate, rest assured that the fee would be raised significantly if the law required it.
    Last edited by coopercdrkey; Today at 04:55 AM.
    230JHP likes this.
    "The large print giveth, the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
    "If the Dawn Patrol's gotta tell you twice they're gonna do it with a shotgun..." Steely Dan
    "Actually that is a pistol in my pocket..... But I am glad to see you." coopercdrkey
    Nemo me impune lacessit ​ No one provokes me with impunity
    Florida Concealed Carry Permit

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TaurusArmed.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Member #
    48780
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Near the navel of The Sunshine State
    Posts
    3,268
    Liked
    4844 times
    What's missing in the stories is, how was the transfer actually done" As the OP states, face-to-face transfers are legal and it's only 80 miles from Madison to Milwaukee. No mention if Jones was legally prohibited from owning a firearm but I believe if he was, it would have been prominently reported as it would fit the narrative.
    Whatever adjective or verb comes to mind, I am...NotSo.

    One of my goals in life is to shoot more people on purpose than I do by accident. So far, so good.

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Member #
    5628
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    32,603
    Liked
    41774 times
    Quote Originally Posted by coopercdrkey View Post
    I don't intend to derail this thread, but I will take it onto a side spur, so let me say at the beginning that I do not believe this suit will go anywhere. Armslist was never the owner of the Glock so how could they be responsible for a negligent transfer? I would be interested in finding out how similar on line marketers avoid the issue.

    Now, an interesting speculation-

    The objective of virtually every lobbyist is to promote legislation that benefits the principal. In many cases that means to pass a revenue generating statute. I don't know if the licensed gun dealers of America have a trade organization or if they employ lobbyists.

    If I were a FFL holder I would be torn between wanting each and every gun transfer to pass through my license or that of a fellow licensee, versus abhorring any arms limiting legislation. What would win out, in your opinion? The revenue stream or the high ground?

    And before you advance the argument that a pitiful little $25. or so fee isn't worth the debate, rest assured that the fee would be raised significantly if the law required it.
    Coincidentally in the same couple of days, the Illinois State Police which is responsible for the FOID programs here where every one who wants to buy a gun, ammo or even powder/primers is on the band wagon to require fingerprinting for the first time in order to obtain a FOID. This would significantly increase the personnel and cost to run the program and of course raise the price from the ten dollars that it is currently.

    This is the same department which says that it doesn't have the resources to collect the cards and/or firearms of those with expired or revoked FOID cards which is how the Aurora IL shooter was able to retain his gun and purchase ammo for his mass shooting at the Henry Pratt Company last year. (this occurrence is fueling the drive for more gun control) Another example of how existing laws are not enforced so we need more laws.

    Another side note: The ISP has a fund from the FOID program that is supposed to support the operation of that statute. It had amassed 29 million dollars, BUT which has been raided to be put in the General Fund black hole of the state's failed economic policies.
    pegasus likes this.
    “…democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: ‘What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.'” F.A. Hayek

  7. #6
    Member
    Member #
    44487
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Ohio, on the outskirts of a Walmart.
    Posts
    96
    Liked
    145 times
    Quote Originally Posted by NotSo View Post
    What's missing in the stories is, how was the transfer actually done" As the OP states, face-to-face transfers are legal and it's only 80 miles from Madison to Milwaukee. No mention if Jones was legally prohibited from owning a firearm but I believe if he was, it would have been prominently reported as it would fit the narrative.
    What the suit ignores is that Armslist didn’t sell the gun, Armslist is only a Collection of classified ads. Even when sold through them, the gun wasn’t sold to the bad guy. So I really don’t see where she has the standing to sue Armslist. If it were the case that she did have standing in the matter, everyone who sold or facilitated the sale of that gun would be liable, from creation to confiscation.

    It’s a sad and tragic happening, and I really do feel for her. My father was a cop in Barrington, IL for a lot of years, I and my entire family have nothing but respect and support for the thin blue line keeping us from the bad guys. But the only one responsible for her husband’s death is the guy who shot him.
    Czechbikr and pegasus like this.
    I don’t know what my spirit animal would be, but I’m pretty sure it has rabies.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms, that right is inherent. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon that right.

  8. #7
    Member
    Member #
    44487
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Ohio, on the outskirts of a Walmart.
    Posts
    96
    Liked
    145 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Czechbikr View Post
    Coincidentally in the same couple of days, the Illinois State Police which is responsible for the FOID programs here where every one who wants to buy a gun, ammo or even powder/primers is on the band wagon to require fingerprinting for the first time in order to obtain a FOID. This would significantly increase the personnel and cost to run the program and of course raise the price from the ten dollars that it is currently.

    This is the same department which says that it doesn't have the resources to collect the cards and/or firearms of those with expired or revoked FOID cards which is how the Aurora IL shooter was able to retain his gun and purchase ammo for his mass shooting at the Henry Pratt Company last year. (this occurrence is fueling the drive for more gun control) Another example of how existing laws are not enforced so we need more laws.

    Another side note: The ISP has a fund from the FOID program that is supposed to support the operation of that statute. It had amassed 29 million dollars, BUT which has been raided to be put in the General Fund black hole of the state's failed economic policies.
    You mean toll booths every ten miles didn’t help? I’m in Ohio now, but I grew up in Chicago.
    Czechbikr likes this.
    I don’t know what my spirit animal would be, but I’m pretty sure it has rabies.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms, that right is inherent. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon that right.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Member #
    49535
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    midwest usa
    Posts
    3,174
    Liked
    3699 times
    Quote Originally Posted by coopercdrkey View Post
    I don't intend to derail this thread, but I will take it onto a side spur, so let me say at the beginning that I do not believe this suit will go anywhere. Armslist was never the owner of the Glock so how could they be responsible for a negligent transfer? I would be interested in finding out how similar on line marketers avoid the issue.

    Now, an interesting speculation-

    The objective of virtually every lobbyist is to promote legislation that benefits the principal. In many cases that means to pass a revenue generating statute. I don't know if the licensed gun dealers of America have a trade organization or if they employ lobbyists.

    If I were a FFL holder I would be torn between wanting each and every gun transfer to pass through my license or that of a fellow licensee, versus abhorring any arms limiting legislation. What would win out, in your opinion? The revenue stream or the high ground?

    And before you advance the argument that a pitiful little $25. or so fee isn't worth the debate, rest assured that the fee would be raised significantly if the law required it.
    Maybe the fee will be raised, maybe not. Politicians are very good at unfunded mandates on businesses or certain local governmental institutions, trying to tell them what they can and cannot do. For example, a background check proposal currently in the works in Ohio mandates a background check fee no higher than $10.00.

 

 

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New | Subscribed Threads | My Threads | My Posts

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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