Seriously off-topic, but hey, I didn't start it this time.
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, bluoval wrote:
> "Barry A. Watzman" wrote:
>
> > E-Bay banned fire arms for two reasons:
>
> > First, they couldn't do the background checks or check for stolen weapons. A legally valid reason, but likely an excuse. Second, if someone were assaulted with a weapon bought on E-Bay, the way things are going, E-Bay could be sued, and lose, BIG TIME. That's probably the real reason.
>
> The first is a given, but its not an excuse, its the law. The second is ridiculous, if Ebay sells the firearms lawfully. How could someone sue Ebay for the sale of a firearm used in a crime? That's like suing a gun store for selling a gun to a person who robbed a bank with it. Unless Ebay doesn't sell the gun(s) according to the
> law, Ebay will win. Sure, you can sue anyone for anything, but chances are the person suing Ebay for something like that, and winning, is not likely at all!
Last I checked, Ebay isn't the salesman anyway, it's the auction house
and it never has posession of the merchandise sold. Not that it
matters in the current atmosphere, remember that last month a lawyer in a
black robe in Brooklyn awarded millions of dollars in damages to a gang
member shot in a gunfight and since nobody knew what brand of gun was
used, a dozen or more manufacturers are being made to pay.
Oh, and if a gun is sold across state lines, it has to be shipped to
a federally licensed dealer anyway under a federal law of highly
questionable constitutionality (enacted because Lee Oswald bought his
rifle from a mail-order catalog). Ebay would be in the same legal
position as a newspaper or magazine that printed a want-ad.
--
Ward Griffiths
"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
Received on Wed Mar 24 1999 - 10:00:46 GMT