Interesting Lawsuit - Hi-Point firearms -Cleveland Plain Dealer

[scottb]

I will try to high light the main details, here is the source of the article:

I think the main issue is how can you held liable for the actions of the people that purchase your product? And the underlining issue is if the gun that was used in the shooting was a straw purchase.

There are a whole lot of details in this article.

Be prepared for a giant wall of text.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/ohio_maker_of_hi-point_firearm.html

Summary is a gunshot victim is suing manufacture and the sole distributor of Hi-point pistols because they are inexpensive and the distributor should have known that criminals would be able to obtain these firearms. A person in New York purchased 181 firearms ( appearantly without a dealer license) and the gun used to shoot the victim was traced to this purchase.

It is a long article and I did not want to copy and paste the entire article. From the article, main points in quotes =

"An Ohio gun maker and a distributor are targets of what could be a landmark legal case after a New York appeals court this month decided a gunshot victim could sue both for providing criminals with the pistol that wounded him. "

"whether the gun maker and distributor produced and sold cheap guns that they knew would be popular on the criminal market and ignoredsigns of illegal activity when dealing their wares. "

"Hi-Points have remained for years among the most common guns confiscated by Cleveland police and also comprised the majority of illegally purchased guns in cases federally prosecuted in Northern Ohio."

"

"The Ohio-based companiesargue that Hi-Points are simply affordable firearms, and that MKS Supply owner Charles Brown was conned into selling a gun traffickerand his accomplices hundreds of guns that ended up on the streets of Buffalo. "

"Hi-Points have remained for years among the most common guns confiscated by Cleveland police and also comprised the majority of illegally purchased guns in cases federally prosecuted in Northern Ohio. "

"Police quickly and traced the gun used in the shootingto a sale at an Ohio gun show more than two years earlier.

It was one of 87 guns purchased by an Ohio woman, Kimberly Upshaw. She along with James Nigel Bostic and two other women bought as many as 181 Hi-Points from Brown. His company, MKS Supply, is the sole distributor of the brand.

Bostic told Brown he was planning on opening his own gun shop, according to court filings, though he lacked a federal license to do so and was not likely to obtain one because of past convictions for misdemeanors. "

"

The lawsuit accuses Brown of using his personal federal firearms license to sell large numbers of guns to Bostic's companions, even though Bostic himself picked out the guns and paid for them -- a deal known as a straw purchase. "

"At least 141 of the Hi-PointsthatBostic and two other women bought were later fenced on the streets of Buffalo. A number of them eventually were used in crimes, including the Williams shooting"

"The lawsuit against Beemiller and MKS Supply states that both companies should have known that the guns sold to Bostic would end up in the hands of criminals. Bostic and the women had purchased multiple guns on prior occasions, paid for them in cash and selected Hi-Point 9 mm handguns, which are "disproportionately used in crime" and have "no collector value or interest." All are red flags to a seasoned gun dealer, the suit asserts. "

Regarding Hi-points in general, per the article:

"The guns also have been connected to high-profile shootings both nationally and locally.

Eric Harris used one of the maker's 10-round magazine carbines in the 1999 Columbine school shooting. A straw purchased Hi-Point was used the previous year in the slaying of Cleveland vice Detective Robert Clark.

Several Hi-Point models have been banned in Chicago and the state of Massachusetts by consumer protection laws.

According to the lawsuit, the ATF had notified Beemiller and MKS Supply that 13,000 Hi-Points had been used in crimes between 1988 and 2000. "

"There is nothing that says people only have the right to buy a $1,000 gun vs. a $300 gun," he said. "And many people don't have that choice if they want a gun to protect their family. Hi-Point is an affordable firearm. And there is absolutely a very large, legal market for an affordable, reliable, accurate firearm in America."

Tom Deeb is the owner of Hi-point.

"Among the guns' features are unique rifling in their barrels and extra finishing processes on breech faces that create unique and identifiable striations on spent bullets and shells. Also the guns feature hidden serial numbers that cannot be obliterated by criminals -- making for an easier trace, the nomination form states. The Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners also endorsed Deeb for the award.

Deeb sent a reporter a decade's worth of other commendations and letters of thanks from law enforcement officials and forensic lab technicians in Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan and West Virginia.

"I'm the most decorated gun manufacturer in the world," Deeb said. "[The lawsuit] is pointing fingers at probably the best guy there is in this business."

Deeb said that because his guns are popular among criminals, he felt that helping identify them more easily was the right thing to do. "

[jester3681]

Mac Donald's makes cheap food - that's why Honey Boo Boo's mom is a fat cow. I hate when the premise of an argument is a faulty logic.

I read an article a few years back that found that children with a highly "ethnic" (their word) name, like Shaniqua, was more likely to have lower standardized test scores, and tried to draw that correlation. The logic there is flawed.

Simpson's put it best, you can prove anything you want with facts.

[redkow97]

Dealer might be screwed, but the manufacturer should be fine. Only question is who will step up and sell the brand if the current distributor gets pinched.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

and this is the world we live in... ridiculous...

Waiting for Magz logic to be applied to this one.

[Pokey]

and this is the world we live in... ridiculous...

Waiting for Magz logic to be applied to this one.

People fucking suck, always looking to point the blame at another, and inanimate objects.

[grizzlyar]

And we wonder why more attorneys call the U.S. home than any other country. Sad.

[cOoTeR]

The distributor should be fine. Hell the ATF allowed guns to be purchased illegally and delivered to Mexico. All so they can see who is getting them and track them. Kind of hard to keep track of illegal shit in a country you don't work in so they lost them. Now those guns are being linked to all kinds of violence.

[Tonik]

I think the main issue is how can you held liable for the actions of the people that purchase your product? And the underlining issue is if the gun that was used in the shooting was a straw purchase.

I think the main issue is did the dealer know he was participating in a straw purchase program. IF he did then he should be sued and he should go to jail. Considering that the Feds did not prosecute him then I have to believe there is far more to this story than the anti's at the PD have written and that the distributor got fooled and did not know what was going on.

[Casper]

I think the main issue is did the dealer know he was participating in a straw purchase program. IF he did then he should be sued and he should go to jail. Considering that the Feds did not prosecute him then I have to believe there is far more to this story than the anti's at the PD have written and that the distributor got fooled and did not know what was going on.

That's what I was thinking. If the ATF hasn't been on his ass like white on rice, I'd say it's likely nothing illegal happened.

[Tonik]

That's what I was thinking. If the ATF hasn't been on his ass like white on rice, I'd say it's likely nothing illegal happened.

IANAL but I looked a little at the fed straw purchase laws and I actually don't see anything specifically targeting the seller. And I see a couple of cases where the seller's in these schemes have walked away and none where they where successfully prosecuted. There might be a hole in the law here.

[redkow97]

However unethical it may be to mass-produce affordable firearms that thugs can easily purchase, it's not illegal...

Even if you assume that Hi-Point is doing exactly what this suit accuses and makes weapons that they intend to be purchased by criminals, it's going to be impossible to show that only criminals bought them.

There are people on this site who have (legally) purchased Hi-Point firearms, and use them (legally) at the range, for home defense, etc. You can't restrict that lawful behavior simply because criminals can also afford the same weapon. That logic would effectively make any cheap product that can be used as criminal tool illegal.

"Kia rio's should be illegal, because they encourage poor people to use them as getaway cars in robberies" and so on and so forth... Trying to blame the manufacturer for the behavior of a certain purchasing demographic simply won't work.

[JStump]

Mac Donald's makes cheap food - that's why Honey Boo Boo's mom is a fat cow. I hate when the premise of an argument is a faulty logic.

I read an article a few years back that found that children with a highly "ethnic" (their word) name, like Shaniqua, was more likely to have lower standardized test scores, and tried to draw that correlation. The logic there is flawed.

Simpson's put it best, you can prove anything you want with facts.

People will believe anything you tell them though, even if it is missing crucial details like in the case of the ethnic names. Kids with ethnic names have lower scores because they were born in a situation where the parent has chosen an ethnic name, like in the ghetto, not because of the name.

[cOoTeR]

However unethical it may be to mass-produce affordable firearms that thugs can easily purchase, it's not illegal...

Even if you assume that Hi-Point is doing exactly what this suit accuses and makes weapons that they intend to be purchased by criminals, it's going to be impossible to show that only criminals bought them.

There are people on this site who have (legally) purchased Hi-Point firearms, and use them (legally) at the range, for home defense, etc. You can't restrict that lawful behavior simply because criminals can also afford the same weapon. That logic would effectively make any cheap product that can be used as criminal tool illegal.

"Kia rio's should be illegal, because they encourage poor people to use them as getaway cars in robberies" and so on and so forth... Trying to blame the manufacturer for the behavior of a certain purchasing demographic simply won't work.

Yet they say we can't carry guns in certain areas because they don't want bad guys to do it.

[redkow97]

Yet they say we can't carry guns in certain areas because they don't want bad guys to do it.

That's totally different. If a given establishment wants to prohibit guns, that's their right to do so (and your right to patronize other establishments).

This is about a lawsuit claiming that targeting criminals as customers is illegal.

[Tonik]

"Kia rio's should be illegal, because they encourage poor people to use them as getaway cars in robberies" and so on and so forth...

They even advertise them as perfect for robberies.

http://yangutu.com/video/Bank+robbery-+the+new+Kia+Rio

[cOoTeR]

That's totally different. If a given establishment wants to prohibit guns, that's their right to do so (and your right to patronize other establishments).

This is about a lawsuit claiming that targeting criminals as customers is illegal.

It's the same manner of thinking.

Only criminals buy cheap guns. = Only criminals carry guns. = If someone carries a gun into my store they are going to use it illegally against me. I better tell people they are not allowed to carry a gun in my store I bet they will listen.

It all boils down to the fear of those who are not educated about guns who believe all guns are bad. They are ignorant enough to believe that eliminating the gun will stop the violent tendencies of certain people. As if the person touches the gun then becomes possessed by it and starts commiting crimes. The scary thing is the way the people that live in / around D.C. view guns that way. I have a cousin who lives + works in D.C. along with her husband. They came to Ohio shortly after they got married. This was the first time he had really gotten to know most of the family. He was shocked when we started talking about guns and invited him out to go shoot with us. He was pro-gun and had a 9mm with him but was shocked how open we were about gun ownership. He told us how most of the people he talks to and works with would think he is some kind of criminal for having a gun. That's the common mindset there and its scary because of the politicians that live there some share that way of thinking.

I'm the type of guy that thinks everyone should be armed. I think when you get on a plane everyone should be handed a knife when you go through the gate. That would make it harder to commit your planned act of violence knowing you are out numbered by armed people.

As far as having the right to go else where when a business says no guns. What if that's the only business around that has what I want? Then I've got to give up my right to carry a gun or drive how ever far it is to the next place that will allow me to carry? In my opinion that's crap. What about taking my kid to school or watching sporting events? You can't go to another school and watch your kids play sports. Or school board meetings. People have been shot inside and on the front steps of court houses, another place you can't carry a weapon or take your business else where.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

...and its scary because of the politicians that live there some share that way of thinking...

That their thinking for us mortals while they travel around with armed security and most of the time have firearms on them...