Yet another wacko calls for gun control...

[HiTemp]

...disguised as "gun ownership laws."

First few minutes of the video are nothing more than a melodramatic showing that a loaded gun and an unloaded gun look alike. Gee, who'd a thunk?

But then he goes on to describe the 2nd Amendment as being linked to membership in a militia, even states it's defined in the Constitution elsewhere (but doesn't say where). Then implies it was always this way until a SCOTUS decision in 1973. So I'm not sure what he's drinking if not kool-aid.

He calls for gun ownership laws using analogies of motorcycle license tests as an illustration of how someone has to demonstrate familiarity and proficiency with something before allowed to use it. Aside from one being a right and the other a state-granted privilege, he's way off the mark. Nothing says anyone who OWNS a gun will ever use it. Some people collect them; some people buy them only for resale later, sort of like an investment.

He claims to be a former policeman which might explain why the no gun registry thing is not important to him at all, and the danger such a list would present seems unimportant to him. He argues a range membership or a hunting license already tells the government that someone is a gun owner, but they don't tell the government what kind of gun nor how many someone owns.

This whole video just makes me want to puke. So, presented for anyone's use as a free screen target.

Video here

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I wish he was drinking kool-aid, then we would not be hearing from him anymore. Unfortunately its just another yahoo who doesnt understands the base concept of a right. That thing where there are no laws restricting people from doing anything that is not hurting anyone else, including trading guns, that's called freedom and it only works when you tolerate others freedom, or eventually you will lose yours.

There are a lot of people like that, some doing videos, some doing blogs, and some even on gun forums, none of them have any ground for reason to say the 2nd amendment is not an individual right. They keep trying to say so because it worked in the past and like most progressives they know if you just keep saying it long enough it become the perception and then becomes the reality. Well there is another reality that these people are going to face someday, that people will not comply and will fight.

[HiTemp]

What he also glossed over was the fact that, though no law DEMANDS a background check in a private sale, some people do their own, though perhaps limited in scope. Nothing is keeping him from conducting just as thorough a check as he wants before selling one of his own guns. He could hire a PI or put in a call to his buddies down the PD to check someone out.

Here in FL, it's extremely common to see in an ad, "FTF only in (local) area, CWFL must be shown." The seller is relying on the state's background check process and their license nullification processes to serve as a background check. If they have a concealed weapons and firearms license, you know they weren't a felon when they got it and probably aren't now because the state is pretty quick about invalidating licenses in the case of felony convictions. Yeah, it's possible they are awaiting trial for a felony, but the odds are well in your favor they aren't.

There was a guy at the range I normally shoot at who was selling a mini-30 some time back, several years. I heard about it and went over to ask about it and he just shooed me away like a fly. I don't like being shooed away, so I hung there until the range went safe again and asked him what that was all about. He said he didn't want to waste my time because he didn't know me and he was only going to sell the rifle to someone he knew. Guess that was his version of a personal background check.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

When you have to ask permission to carry, sell, own, or use anything, its not longer a right but a permission granted by the state. And I am getting damn tired of other people ceding my rights for me.

I have sold privately, you can and should do some basic character assessment and ask questions like can you own a gun legally etc. I have more than once stopped a deal because they wanted to do something that was either illegal or raised a red flag. A new law saying I can't sell without going through stat state isn't going to make a difference, people will just sell them if they want anyway anad hiw would they know UNLESS they register them all. I along with probably millions of others won't comply with that either, so what are they going to do? Start forcing people? Do they really want to go down that road, because I don't really see Americans laying down like Australians or the British did for the fed, not anymore.

[HiTemp]

I don't like the principle of the state telling me what I have to do to sell my own property either. However, in light of how many lawyers have boat payments to make and children to send to college, I would feel a little more comfortable if some set of minimum criteria was established to remove the possibility that I could be somehow negligent by not requiring some condition of sale I didn't think of. Even if it didn't involve calling FDLE for an approval number on an individual sale, it could just be perhaps a list of minimum criteria for a valid sale.

I'd really have no problem doing a mandatory check like making a phone call to some LE organization first but the problem is there is no infrastructure set up to allow individual owners a means to do it. And, if the person is denied an approval, I don't want to be in the middle of their dispute with whatever organization is fielding the requests. I don't want hard feelings toward me if they get denied over some error and I move on to another buyer. Then, assuming a system was set up, are we now going to have to keep records of the transaction and proof that we obtained the approval like a FFL dealer does, proving that we asked if they were a felon, a fugitive from justice, or have ever renounced citizenship? If that's the case, what separates someone selling several guns in a short time from a FFL?
There's just too many knots in that kind of rope as I see it.

There are even questions about if keeping a record of a private sale violates the laws regarding no records or database of gun ownership. Way I see it is there are only 2 situations where a weapon that was once mine (but no longer is) could come back at me. First is if it was stolen then used in a crime, recovered, and subsequently traced back to me. My stolen weapons report to the local Sheriffs Dept. ought to end the matter right there. The second is if I sold it to someone and they used it in a crime, it was recovered, then it got traced back to me. So I think it is prudent to keep a record of that sale; who I sold it to, when I sold it, and what method I used to verify their age/ID. To me that means a bill of sale with name, date, price, make, model, and serial number of the weapon, and either a driver's license, mil ID, or a CWFL number.

Now I've been shredded like a head of cabbage at the cole slaw factory over my ideas on this topic on one of the FL gun forums. Many tell me they wouldn't sign any document, wouldn't allow me to copy their ID numbers/information down, etc. My answer is simple - then you'd have driven a ways for nothing because those are the terms. I'm going to have something in my safe to show any detective who drops by wanting to know what MY firearm was doing at the scene of some crime. My answer to the detective will be that I sold it so-and-so on such-and-such date, I verified he was who he said he was and was old enough by his DL/Mil ID/CWFL number #####, and here is the bill of sale that should have both our fingerprints on it. I think that's just CYA 101 and anyone not seeing the good sense in such a move should buy elsewhere. It's my gun, you meet the terms of sale I set or you don't buy, no different than if I was selling a car or a TV.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I would have no problem with that if it was both up front and voluntary. I live in a place you don't have to ask permission, nor document much of what you do for fear for govt coming back on you. I kind of like it that way, and am not really willing to just roll over for more infringement so some people feel better.

If I saw an ad that said ID and background check required, I would probably pass on it, no harm no foul. I don't sell a lot of guns anyway, I do ask for ID, but I don't make then sign a bill of sale. I am willing to take that chance and explain to a detective if it turns out to have been used in a crime. But like I said I have also walked away from deals that they wanted to sell across state lines or just felt wrong, I don't think having the info on hand would have made me feel any better about the guy who wanted the gun. Honestly, if a lawyer or prosecutor is trying to find liability, I don't think having info on hand is going to save you from having to defend yourself for the sale anyway.

[HiTemp]

It might not keep you out of a civil courtroom but it would definitely X you off the suspect list with those investigating criminal matters.

In a civil trial, you might have to end up in court. I'm pretty confident that no jury is going be told that there are no mandatory gun sale requirements for any individual, yet I took the time and trouble to verify ID, age, and - as best I could with no directions - basic criminal status, and then be found liable for something that doesn't exist in statutes. Showing you complied with the law, even went above and beyond, makes it a very high hurdle for someone to claim the act of my selling was so negligent that it directly caused them harm. If, on the other hand, I had no documentation but only testimony that I thought the guy was at least 18 yrs old and he said he lived in Pensacola, I think I'd be open to valid questions like "Did (I) do anything to try and find out if the guy was a criminal or a mentally impaired person," etc. Also, I wouldn't remember the date or the serial number after a few months, so I'd want that written down if for no other reason than that.

I hear you about the not asking for permission, and I'm not really suggesting we have to ask permission. What I'm asking for is some set of criteria that says if you do X, Y, and Z when you sell a firearm, that's all anyone expects of you. Just to make sure I'm covered is all, which is a lot different that asking for permission to sell it.

If you sell a car in FL, you have to have a bill of sale and it has to include the make, model, year, VIN, price and the odometer reading. Nothing else is required. The first is so the buyer has documentation of the sale price for sale tax purposes (which he will pay when he registers it). The second is milage documentation for the transfer of title paperwork. I don't have to put my name or the buyers name, or anything else. I can simply say "I sold my 1968 Buick Roadmaster VIN#xxx-yyy-zzz with 103,864 miles on it for $11,600."

That's what I'm wishing we had for firearm sales. Not that I can't come up with my own, but without some minimum guidance we'll never know if it's sufficient until way to late.

I don't HAVE TO create or keep ANY documentation of a gun sale according to FL law. But if one of my guns shows up at a crime scene, the presumption is that it (still) belongs to me and it will be me in the interview room with Sippowicz and Simone having to 'splain it all without any way to prove it. If it is recovered by some punk who happens to also be a minor, and said punk swears I sold it to him for 5 bills, it's his word against mine and even if I prove I sold it, I now have to prove it wasn't to a minor - another felony. Now warrants get served on me, my bank records get scrutinized, perhaps my computer gets taken in for a look-see... all because I thought it was too intrusive to keep a record of my sale. I think I'd rather go with keeping some kind of simple record that can stay in my safe unless a situation like that happens.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I think even criminally if a prosecutor wanted to go after you for an illegal sale to someone they claim you might have suspected was a felon or whatever it won't matter if you have their DL number. They most likely won't get it to the point of trial, but if it even looks like they are going to charge you, you will have spent the money on a lawyer so all that saves you nothing. And yes it may take you off a suspect list, but most likely you nor I would not be on one long in any event. I suppose if we had run ins with the law then it would be an insurance policy against a prolonged interrogation or possible search warrant. But I would be far more worried if it was used in a crime, being a suspect of the actual crime due to me linked to my former gun is low on my list of worries when I sell a one, I am more worried about them trying to pin an illegal sale on me instead in that case.

[HiTemp]

Yeah, around here there have been cases of people selling guns to people they didn't know were felons but thus far no one has been prosecuted for it. The only ones who have were people who deliberately straw purchased for someone known to them to be a felon. There is nothing that says I have to conduct any kind of search or investigation to make sure a buyer isn't a felon. That's why I and many people will ask for a CWFL because if they have one in hand, the odds are greatly against them being a felon. Again, nothing requires it, it isn't air tight, but it's only a safety net in case some SA decides to make me the test case. With no number to call, no specified test I have to make the buyer pass, I think asking for the CWFL would pass muster with most jurors that I did make some common sense effort to screen a buyer as best I reasonably could. It also establishes the minimum legal age to purchase a weapon, the only other concern as far as seller legal jeopardy goes.

As I stated, the big concern is that if the gun goes out of my hands, I have a name for whose hand it went into or a police report documenting its theft. Now if the buyer turns out to be a felon or a minor, I'll have proof I looked at something in a good faith attempt to screen for both. If the buyer faked the ID, oh well, I'm not a forgery expert, I did what I could.

There are a couple of my forum pals from down in the Miami area that will not sell FTF, they insist on going through a FFL. To me, that's overkill and more expense that no one needs. I only have one sale to my name as I usually keep what I buy, so wth do I know?

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Yeah, that's kind of been my solution as well, I just don't sell much.

There is a lot of talk about Obama decreeing background checks, I would like to know how that will work, even the BATFE says they can't enforce it anyway.

[HiTemp]

Should be an easy solution... I can just write down the buyer claims he was here illegally, has no ID only a voter registration card with no picture on it. Claimed he was not a felon, here at least, and had no mental defect despite the D on his voter registration.

Good enough!

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Heh, yeah but I think that will only save you if you are the illegal alien democrat voting Muslim, then you would be safe. Maybe have some cards printed up saying that you are a political refugee, pretend you don't speak English hand them the card and answer everything with as-salaam 'alaykum.

[zrct02]

Remember, I civil cases you are guilty until proven innocent.

[HiTemp]

We have that in FL too in the criminal courts. Remember George Zimmerman?

Even if the investigating agency finds insufficient evidence to arrest, and the SA finds insufficient evidence to charge and prosecute, we still have the "visiting SA program" where - like with Zim - another SA looking to make a name will swoop in and find something to drag you to court.

Veering totally away from the thread topic....

A few years ago a bill passed the FL legislature that was intended to protect licensed concealed carriers from arrest due to a brief or inadvertent exposure of a concealed weapon. The original bill had several amendments made to it and one of them added the words "brief" but the law doesn't define it. Marion Hammer, former NRA chair testified then that the changes were problematic because brief could be read by one LE agency as 5 sec or less or by another LE agency as 30 sec or less. She said at the time this was not the ideal, but acceptable as better than no attempt to right the wrong. She also said if time proved her right, she'd be back to change it again.

There are some seven case now, one of them pending before the SCOFL, having to do with people charged for exposing their firearm from - supposedly - concealed. In the case before the SCOFL, a guy with a new CWFL was walking down the street with his gun very much exposed. He was arrested for open carry; cops said it was neither a brief exposure (was several minutes) nor inadvertent because the way he was dressed it wasn't possible to conceal the weapon at all. In another case, a guy's shirt caught on his firearm when he bent and twisted for something, and rather than do what most every other LE would do, they actually arrested him. Most every cop I talk to can tell more than one story about encountering someone whose shirt got snagged and all they did was inform the guy and it got fixed on the spot.

Well, this year both houses of state congress have bills that provide for open carry. This will totally eliminate any possibility of abuse by making it legal to have the weapon exposed. Heads in southern FL are already exploding over this. The bills have passed their first committee in each chamber with 3 more committees to go in each, then to the floor for a vote. Thus far, no amendments but they could surely pop up. I don't expect it to pass, and if it does the big concern is property owner rights, particularly business owners. Some are saying that in order to help this, they want the "no gun" signs to have force of law like they do in TX. Here, now, they have no force of law. If you carry in one and are discovered, most they can do is ask you to leave and if you do then no foul.

The open carry advocates helped draft the law, and that's what it's really about. Personally, I don't care about OC because I won't ever carry that way. Nothing against it for anyone else, but with so much training invested in learning how draw from concealment, including clothing and equipment designed to maximize that method, I don't want to have to reset my learning curve back to zero. I also believe what little I'd gain in speed wouldn't gain me the advantage I'd lose of surprise. Just me, anyone else's mileage may vary.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I carry one of 2 ways deep concealed or open. I can spot most concealed carriers who carry on the waist or sometimes pockets, usually the way they dress is a give away to look if they are carrying. Granted my situation is unique from most people because of minimal restriction on the way anyone carries firearms here. When I conceal its in my boot usually, and I can't get to it very fast, but there if I ever need it. I open carry when I am traveling in state, or when I have been out in the field and I come into town for something. Winter time is concealed carry by default with the coat on. I have no problem with open carry, to me having to go to such pains to hide one and yet be able to draw it like Bill Hickock just seems silly from my perspective. If you need immediate access quickly, a good belt holster is still the fastest. WY has always had open carry, and now with constitutional carry it just seems like an extension of that in practice without worrying about being concealed or not.

I was listening to The Weekend on the radio on Sat, they had a former cop call in and advocate to end gun free zones but was against open carry. He was concerned about the John Wayne effect and people getting freaked out about a open gun. Well just from being in a region where its not all that uncommon to see someone carrying who is not a cop, people don't get freaked, they may look at you, but unless you are brandishing, or carrying a rifle like those activists do, or carrying someplace you are not supposed to, you won't get more than a good glance by a cop much less a 911 call. And the John Wayne effect? it goes away when the uniqueness of carrying does. When people don't pay attention, you just don't feel that special.

This is why when people talk about banning guns I feel like i live on whole other planet than they do, gun are not the issue.

[HiTemp]

The NW part of FL is dotted by a few fairly large cities and even those have rural sections. My address is Pensacola but technically I live outside the city limits in Escambia county. In areas like where I live, especially during hunting season, you can't stop somewhere for lunch without someone in cammo at a table. It's legal to carry openly here when engaged in one of 3 activities: fishing, hunting, or camping including to and from that activity. It's a question whether a stop for gas or grub falls into the okay zone or not, so I often see guys in the parking lot pulling their weapon from a holster and swapping over to a concealed rig while they eat, just to be sure they won't get zinged for OC.

In south and east FL, you have a virtual string of large cities from Miami up to Sarasota on the west coast to Melbourne on the east coast. Not much rural area and it's much like being in a big city with big city kind of "normal." You just don't see a lot of guns. And I have noticed this too even in legal-to-OC states... there just isn't many people who do it. That, more than anything, I think, causes a lot of the fear because people just aren't used to seeing guns and if they do, they go immediately into "something must be up" mode instead of taking a second to evaluate what's going on. Oh, the guy is just walking along the street, not handling the gun, simply walking - not a threat. They just don't think like that. They think it must be a plainclothes cop or a criminal intent on shooting up the place, and say, I don't see any badge on that guy. Just simple fear.

With me, I don't want to be stopped and questioned because someone else refused to use a little common sense. So that's one reason I'd never OC in a highly populated area. The other thing is training. I don't want to be in a situation where I have a literal second to act or I'm seriously hurt or dead and be executing a much practiced move to clear my cover garment, draw my weapon and get it on target only to remember at the last second it's not there, it's being OC'ed on my hip, forward of where it would normally be. It's just the simple philosophy of training the way you'll fight and then fighting the way you trained. In a panic situation like that, I want as many odds in my favor as can be had. Sounds paranoid maybe, but I know from concealed my draw times range from a best-ever of 1.18 seconds to shot fired up to around 2 seconds, with most being right in the 1.5 - 1.6 second range. It takes about 1.5 seconds for most people to recognize a danger and react, so I take that to mean if I can get ANY amount of distraction - tossing my wallet, a noise, whatever - then I'm close to even odds and no longer far behind the 8-ball. Results with airsoft guns bear this out, as about half the time I lost and half the time I won. To me that's a far better chance than being able to do nothing but hand over your wallet and your gun, which any attacker is going to fixate on until you no longer have it, and may have it used on you.

I'll take the fighting chance.

Now if I lived in an open carry state and carried that way a lot, maybe I'd feel differently or would take the time to practice both ways or maybe even OC only, I don't know. I think the activists will run right out open carrying wherever they can and maybe after a few years the fear thing will subside, but until that happens I'll just stick to what works for me.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Well WY does not have any dense urban areas, even the cities are relatively small. Some places like Casper are notoriously anitgun, so if I go there its concealed just to avoid hassle. But I do tend to open carry most places, just to get people used to seeing guns again, and maybe get past the indoctrination that its the old west and a shoot put imminent if you see a gun on someones hip. Of course this is the wild west by some peoples definition, but maybe they can just move to Europe instead of forcing us to become it.

[HiTemp]

We also have two distinct species of critters here in FL that aren't native to the Sunshine State. The first is people who move here from up north because they hate it there but insist on dragging with them all the stupid policies and politics that got it that way. Usually it's people from NY or NJ. The second species is vacationing Brits. Those are a real hoot to find and have a conversation with. Not only are they amazed that so many cops seem to have guns but are absolutely petrified of the thought of so many people around them may possibly be armed. I always wonder why, if they think they are vacationing in a place like Bosnia, do they bother to come here?

My northern transplant brethren are the worst of the lot. They get down here, love the prices, love the fact that there is no state tax and the sales tax isn't too bad. They love the atmosphere of not having to jump through 20 hoops just to get anything done, then turn right around and call for all the same oppression they hated up north the first time they encounter a problem. When they see a person open carrying at a campground they are immediately on the phone to campground management or the local PD to report a maniac. Not that there is the slightest whiff of a crime in progress, just that the person is carrying a gun. It's really amusing to watch the interaction with campground management when they're told, "So? It's perfectly legal and we allow open carry on our campground." Like their heads are going to explode. They just can't wrap their minds around the possibility a person might carry a sidearm and NOT be walking around actively looking for any opportunity to haul it out and start blasting away. The vacationing Brits are much like that only they tend to be a bit more stoic... stiff upper lip and all that.

That's the kind of thing you have to be prepared to deal with if you open carry in an urban area like at a public fishing pier. If this new OC law passes, I'm sure it will be no different anywhere along the city streets. Usually when I go someplace like that I'm there for a reason, to go somewhere specific or do something, and I don't need the interruption of LE encounters even if they go well, and depending on where you are in FL, they may not. Palm Beach County, for example. Their Sheriff has so many complaints and allegations of fraud and corruption there is actually a website dedicated just to that. It hasn't been a friendly area for anyone who doesn't bend to the idea of the law being whatever the deputy says it is at the time. If OC passes I wouldn't OC in that county for any amount of money as I would expect there to be too many LE encounters that would end with .40 caliber incoming.

WY is looking better every day.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Heheh, yeah until about a month or so from now when the wind is up and snow moving sideways. Then politics seems inconsequential for the moment.

Your mentioning vacationing Brits kicked up the dust in my memory that I was filling up gas in a 100 gallon tank at the local station so was there for a little while, and next to me was a British, or maybe a couple from Ireland, I can't recall exactly, I just remember being struck with their accent, and as they were gassing up their rental RV. I was carrying open and they struck up a conversation. They were literally amazed to see it and had to ask if they just let us do that here all over. At 1st I was not sure what that was all about so I was a little apprehensive, but I explained its not allowed all over and that states had differing laws etc, but here in WY, yes. They seemed more fascinated than fearful, asked several more questions about guns what I would use them for and how many people do the same etc. I had to chuckle when they found out I ranched and asked several question about that too. I came way thinking if the urban folks had that attitude and were willing to listen and learn instead of just start shouting their version of reality like an exposed gun being equal to the OK corral, gun control would not be an issue here.

After listening to the debate soundbites last night I see the push is going to be suing manufactures out of business. Hillary said gin manufacturers are the only industry not held liable for their products, which is an out right lie, we don't sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers nor Boeing for 9-11.

[HiTemp]

Oh a few of the Brits are priceless! I had one of those kind of conversations in a parking lot outside my LGS that is also the parking lot of an Office Depot and a buffet joint. I was there to buy a spring kit for one of my pistols and as I got out of the car I unloaded it and locked the slide back, then started for the gun shop. Getting out of a car near me was a guy and his wife and the guy says to me, "Got a bit o' smithing to have done do we?" to which I just stared back dumbly because it took a minute for what he said to register. "OH.. uh, yeah, taking it in for some new springs. Where you from?"

He went on to say he was from Hucknall in England and that I probably never heard of it. I said yeah, actually I have heard of it. Back in my Navy days in the late 80's we had a Brit Sailor cross-deck over onto our ship for a couple months. He was from Hucknall, said it's just north of Nottingham. He looked like I just punched him in the face, total shock. He said that chap wouldn't have been named Michael would he? I said I think so, but we all called him Mick. He sticks his hand out and says, "Mick's never going believe this. He's my older brother. I'm Ken."

Now Mick was a real feisty type and introduced us to many "Mick-isms" one of which was his endearing term for someone who is an ass-kisser. "He's a freekin' butt shark!" Mick would say as he held one hand on top of his head pointing fingers straight up like a dorsal fin. Had us rolling on the floor with a lot of his "isms." So I posed for a picture with Mick's brother while holding the butt-shark pose with one hand while pointing at the camera with the other. I told Ken to tell his brother he was the biggest butt shark I ever met. LOL I often wonder what Mick thought of that; I know he laughed. Let Mick know I haven't forgotten I still owe him a pint, bring him along next time.

Anyway, he did ask me about my gun and how many people were armed in public, etc. He didn't have a problem in the world with it, in fact said that the days when Englishmen could deal with a common hooligan were long gone and he wished it was like here over there. I had lunch with them in the buffet then said goodbye before getting my spring kit. Nice folks, solid a human being as his brother.

As for suing manufacturers, I see a jury in Madison awarded around 6 mil against a gun shop owner. The claim is this gun shop has some 500 gun sales where the weapons later ended up used in crimes. The plaintiffs were two cops who were shop and seriously injured by a .40 cal that was supposedly straw-purchased from the shop. I don't know what the evidence was nor any of the particulars about the "500" incidents, but that does seem rather large. What surprised me is that the guy who was charged with making the straw purchase only got 2 years. So who knows, maybe this one gun shop owner was one who put profit above all else and turned a blind eye when the signs of a straw purchase were there without a tacit admission. See no evil kind of thing. If that's the case, he got what he deserved. If on the other hand the shop employees were truly misled, I don't see 6 million being a fitting end unless 5.5 million of that falls on the guy who actually committed the crime.

I can't possibly foresee any manufacturer successfully being sued. For that to happen there has to be some of defect in the product with demonstrable damage as a result or some kind of misuse that was reasonably foreseen yet no warnings against it were issued. That's why when you buy a microwave oven it cautions you NOT to try and dry your cat with it. My Skillsaw came with a warning to not use it in the shower.

There is no possible way for a manufacturer who is two or three times removed from the retail purchase to possibly predict the criminal or negligent use of a product that has hundreds of legal uses. Manufacturers sell to wholesalers who then sell to retailers, and some wholesalers sell to regional suppliers who then sell to retail outlets. Ruger is an example of the former; Kel-Tec is an example of the latter. How can they even know where their product will end up for end use? I just don't see it happening short of something that makes the gun all by itself some kind of inherently dangerous product. Guns are sold empty, unloaded, so it's no more dangerous than a good stout pumpkin out of the manufacturer's box.