Mom sues gun shop that sold to daughter

[Rafterman]

So this one is interesting.

Mother calls a local gun shop and tells them not to sell a firearm to her daughter because she is mentally ill. Two days later, the shop sells a the daughter 45-caliber pistol that she then uses to kill her father.

The daughter is 38-years-old and in 2011 was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was deemed unable to work by the Social Security Administration. According to the news article, she thought she had a chip implanted in her head that controlled her actions.

The lawsuit is being brought by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and is charging negligence on the part of the gun shop owners. We can also assume that since criminal charges have not been brought against the gun shop owners that the Federal NCIS criminal background check was performed and the daughter passed.

This case raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we handle mental health issues when it comes to firearms purchases. Then there's also the question about whether or not businesses have any responsibility based on 3rd party information - what if I called a bar and said "don't serve my wife because she drinks and drives" or a car dealership for that matter? Then there's also the question of why didn't this family move to institutionalize their daughter?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/woman_sues_store_for_selling_gun_to_her_mentally_ill_daughter.html

A Missouri woman is suing the gun shop that sold a handgun to her daughter after she specifically asked them not to -- a gun authorities say the daughter used to kill her father.The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed the wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of Janet Delana, Reuters reported.

According to court papers, Delana, of Wellington, about 40 miles east of Kansas City, called Odessa Gun & Pawn several times in June 2012 to warn them that her daughter had a mental illness and suicidal tendencies and that she wanted to buy a firearm, Guns.comreported.

The daughter, Colby Sue Weathers, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2011. Delana said she called Odessa Gun & Pawn because the store had sold Weathers a gun in 2009 with which she wanted to commit suicide but was taken from her by Delana and her husband, Tex C. Delana, KMBC.com said. Delana provided the shop with her daughter's name, date of birth and Social Security number

Two days after Delana called, the shop sold another gun, a .45 caliber pistol, to Weathers, the suit alleges.

Weathers, then 38, is accused of using the gun that day to shoot and kill her 60-year-old father, KMBC.com said.

[Wickian]

So... she wants to sue a shop that sold a legally sane*typo* person in 2009 a gun because she was later diagnosed as crazy in 2011?

Edited March 14, 2014 by Wickian

[SHaYap]

I don't think the sellers has any policy regarding public complaints on who they can or cannot sell to ~ the key issue is whether the daughter is listed on any database as suffering from schizophrenia ~ or if the daughter bought the firearm using falsified identification ~

Either way ... dad paid for it with his life ... RiP ~

[Leonardo]

This case raises all kinds of interesting questions about how we handle mental health issues when it comes to firearms purchases.

I'm assuming an NCIS background check won't pick up on a medical/psychiatric diagnosis unless the purchaser has already committed a crime and therefore had their condition entered into the NCIS database?

[JGirl]

geez. so unless this woman committed an offense she can be as crazy as a bat in a hat and still get a firearm?

[SHaYap]

Crazy does not equates potential murderer/killer ~ until they kill ~ as long as the buck does not stop there ...

[JGirl]

Crazy does not equates potential murderer/killer ~ until they kill ~ as long as the buck does not stop there ...

crazy should not own a gun.

[SHaYap]

crazy should not own a gun.

Tell that to the dealers ... they might 'fess up and tell that most of their customers are crazy in one way or another ~

~

[Rafterman]

So... she wants to sue a shop that sold a legally sane*typo* person in 2009 a gun because she was later diagnosed as crazy in 2011?

That was the first gun. The second gun with which she shot her father was purchased just this past year.

[Rafterman]

geez. so unless this woman committed an offense she can be as crazy as a bat in a hat and still get a firearm?

Well that's one of the issues - the background checks that are currently in place don't include mental health screenings. They only check for criminal activity. I think most (including the NRA) agree that there needs to be some kind of mental health check. But the problem is that the systems are completely incapable of tracking that information and so much of it is questionable.

For example, what if I was diagnosed as schizophrenic in 2000 - should any firearms I own be confiscated? What if my condition is 100% manageable with medication? And what about things like ADHD or just general depression? What about folks who are somewhat borderline - one doctor might say they are and another might say they're not.

Kind of related to this is the issue of restraining orders. Let's say I'm going through a divorce and my soon-to-be ex-wife has a restraining order enacted against me. Should I have to forfeit my firearms? The knee jerk reaction would be YES. But what if I told you that in a lot of divorce cases, it's accepted legal strategy to have a restraining order sworn out against the husband.

[JGirl]

yes it is a dilemma for sure. i'm not suggesting i have an answer - there seems to be too much grey area to pin down who's nuts and who isn't these days

[Bama13]

crazy should not own a gun.

So crazy does not have the right of self-defense?

Anyone should be able to own a gun. Of course if they are currently locked up they won't have access to their gun, but they should still be able to own one.

I am willing to concede that children should have restrictions on gun ownership. Maybe under 10 can own an air-powered gun, while 10-12 can own a .22 or a 20- gauge. 13+ can own any gun.

~puts on helmet and ducks~

[JGirl]

So crazy does not have the right of self-defense?

Anyone should be able to own a gun. Of course if they are currently locked up they won't have access to their gun, but they should still be able to own one.

oh please get a grip

[Bama13]

oh please get a grip

I have a firm grip, thank you. Sorry if you don't agree with my position, but that is your right.

[JGirl]

not only do i not agree with it, i find it ridiculous, which is my right as you pointed out

[Bama13]

not only do i not agree with it, i find it ridiculous, which is my right as you pointed out

Might I inquire as to why?

[JGirl]

Might I inquire as to why?

unstable and/or violent people should not be owners of firearms. i think the reasons for this are fairly obvious, well perhaps not to you but to most other people.

save me the self defense angle. that's an american obsession

[Bama13]

unstable and/or violent people should not be owners of firearms. i think the reasons for this are fairly obvious, well perhaps not to you but to most other people.

save me the self defense angle. that's an american obsession

People from other countries do not defend themselves? I did not know that. Why don't all the criminals move there then?

Anyone that has been deemed a "threat to themselves or others" should be incarcerated. As I said people currently incarcerated would not have access to their guns. What harm is there is letting them own a firearm if they can not access it? If they are then deemed to no longer be a threat they are released and should have access to their firearms since they are no longer a threat.

Edited to add: leaving for the day. Have a good weekend.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Bama13

[JGirl]

People from other countries do not defend themselves? I did not know that. Why don't all the criminals move there then?

Anyone that has been deemed a "threat to themselves or others" should be incarcerated. As I said people currently incarcerated would not have access to their guns. What harm is there is letting them own a firearm if they can not access it? If they are then deemed to no longer be a threat they are released and should have access to their firearms since they are no longer a threat.

Edited to add: leaving for the day. Have a good weekend.

you are very naive and i'm just not going to bother playing into it

have a good weekend yourself as well

[+OverSword]

unstable and/or violent people should not be owners of firearms. i think the reasons for this are fairly obvious, well perhaps not to you but to most other people.

save me the self defense angle. that's an american obsession

The problem then is how is it decided who is and is not sane/stable enough to own a gun. And once that becomes a standard then who says that a unreasonable standard won't be imposed so that nobody can own one. I know you think that would be great JGirl, but it's not realistic. You will never be able to prove statistically that this is a bigger problem in peoples heads than in the real world. Edited March 14, 2014 by OverSword

[JGirl]

The problem then is how is it decided who is and is not sane/stable enough to own a gun. And once that becomes a standard then who says that a unreasonable standard won't be imposed so that nobody can own one. I know you think that would be great JGirl, but it's not realistic. You will never be able to prove statistically that this is a bigger problem in peoples heads than in the real world.

i dont' claim to have the answer

but if it's known and obvious (as in the case of a violent offender) then that person should not be allowed to own a firearm.

btw, are you under the impression that i am against gun ownership in general?

Edited March 14, 2014 by JGirl

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So crazy does not have the right of self-defense?

Got it in one. People who are liable to hurt themselves or others should not be given the tools to do so.

[acidhead]

drugs... the gov approved type

[+and-then]

I don't think the sellers has any policy regarding public complaints on who they can or cannot sell to ~ the key issue is whether the daughter is listed on any database as suffering from schizophrenia ~ or if the daughter bought the firearm using falsified identification ~

Either way ... dad paid for it with his life ... RiP ~

It really is that simple - and tragic. One group will scream for better laws while others will use it as an excuse to beat the drum for confiscation - same old stuff. I don't understand why the database didn't stop the sale if the woman had been institutionalized. If she were diagnosed but not placed in an institution then it seems to be a risk her family took and it bit them.

[+and-then]

I have a firm grip, thank you. Sorry if you don't agree with my position, but that is your right.

It is amazing how the idea of personal responsibility is so foreign to so many these days. The government has never and can never guarantee safety for every citizen. The rights of the many cannot be taken due to the violence or insanity of the few. It just doesn't work that way - thank the Lord.