|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IN: High Court Dismisses Damages Claims Against Gun Seller Filed By Shot Cop
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A firearms dealer isn’t completely off the hook after it sold a gun that later was used against a police officer, but it has avoided paying compensation to an injured police officer, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on April 24. The case stems from a 2011 incident where Demetrious Martin, a felon who couldn’t legally purchase or own a firearm went into KS&E Sports with Tarus Blackburn. Martin and Blackburn looked at the firearm available for purchase, and Martin identified for Blackburn at Smith & Wesson handgun he liked. Later that same day, Blackburn returned to the store, alone, and purchased the gun Martin had identified for $325. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/3/2017)
|
| The shop did not sell the firearm to martin, are they supposed to read minds now? How are they able to tell a straw purchase as opposed to a legal purchase, unless it was discussed in front of the store personel? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
