13 thoughts on “Unpossible!”

  1. This sounds a bit careless. I’ll have to see if I can find a news article about this.

    OTOH, I suppose we should be grateful there was only one fatality, considering that the accused was armed with a semi-automatic dipenser of Death. He could have shot down an airliner full of children! [/snark off]

  2. Actually, I think they might have a case. This is a negligence suit, and PLCAA doesn’t specifically prohibit those. The shop in question created the circumstances that lead to the theft of the gun.

    But yeah, I do want to see the other side. I mean, the Bradys aren’t a bastion of truth when it comes to this stuff.

  3. i dont know, it sounds like the store might have actually been negligent in that one… if they did leave someone alone with a gun without supervision, and he was able to just walk out the door without filling out a 4473, then they might have a valid case.

    i did a quick search of a few news articles and they all seem to allege the same thing… so who knows

  4. Sebastian and I discussed this last night. I think because they desperately need a winning case for something this year, they might have been seeking out their own perfect plaintiff outside of NYC, their own Dick Heller, so-to-speak. If they found a situation, more power to them. From their version of the story, it sure as hell sounds like they weren’t on top of the situation. If they are lying, it will come out in court. If not, well, this guy seems to have been asking for it.

  5. “According to Coxe, store personnel did not even notice that Coday or the rifle were missing for several minutes, when $200 was found on the store counter.”

    Negligence, perhaps. Theft? More likely. If I walked into my local gun shop, picked a rifle off the shelf, replaced it with the sale value in cash, and walked out of the store …

    I would have committed theft of a firearm. The defense is going to claim that this Coday stole the firearm. The Bradys are really grasping at straws. Oh yeah … and with all these appeals for money to fight off 2A challenges post-Heller, what are they doing pulling out this bone-headed lawsuit?

  6. Consider this is the Brady Campaign’s side of the story. Also consider that they are apparently suing a store who was the victim of a theft. The person responsible for committing the violent crime was the criminally insane individual, not the gun store. Sure, legally there might be a case against the gun store, but only because we live in a very lawsuit-happy age. If they win a “negligence” suit, it will really be no different legally than a slip-and-fall lawsuit.

  7. Last time I heard a theft was a criminal act perpetrated by the person stealing, not by the shop owner. Where is the shop owner complicit in this? He did not sell the weapon. As a matter of fact, it is easy to say that he is a victim in this case along with the deceased.

    Now it could turn against the shop owner in two ways:
    1. He did not report the firearm stolen.
    2. He did not report the shoplifting incident to the police. (This involving a weapon shows a lapse in judgment)

    I agree that the Brady Camp is grasping at straws. They have had egg on their faces for weeks now with Heller and now with the infamous “mole.” They are struggling for relevance and I believe this case will not help them gain it- Especially in Alaska.

    Also a .22 rifle? I mean I think you are allowed to have that In DC if I am correct.

  8. “Also a .22 rifle? I mean I think you are allowed to have that In DC if I am correct.” If its a 10-22 that’s a “Machine Gun” in DC.

  9. I think one of those Super Soaker water guns qualifies as a machine gun too, that anything shoots nerf darts!


  10. I thought that you could only sue in civil court if the Dealer broke a criminal law. Like the dealer knew the guy was not able to pass a background check so the dealer sold it without a background check.

    Then you can have a civil liability trial.

    If the Dealer did something stupid but not criminal, then the liability shield should prevail.

  11. This is another ludicrous lawsuit. There is no way any reasonable person could conclude that Ray is at fault here. This individual, Coday, came into Ray’s store with the intent of stealing a gun. He was a felon, and knew he was a felon. Ray, unfortunately, does not have Extra Sensory Perception and did not realize this. Not being one to automatically assume that every scruffy-looking individual that comes in to his store is up to no good, Ray respected the guy’s request to look at a weapon.

    Whether or not this weapon was behind the counter is meaningless. There is, like in practically every gun shop in America, a used gun rack right on the sales floor. There is no law that requires the shop owner to hover over a person while they look at the guns. Neither is there a law that requires a background check just to handle one.

    Having been in this store countless times, I imagine the gun was in the used, low priced gun rack. The one with the old Mausers, the AK clones, the single shot shotguns, etc. Coday had probably picked it off that rack and asked Ray a question about it, which I’m sure Ray would have answered. Ray then would have assumed that unless he expressly asked to purchase it, Coday would have put it back where he got it.

    So, while this Coday character is looking over the weapon, Ray decided to attend to some more profitable business, apparently with another customer. While Ray has his back turned, Coday then decided to take the gun without going through the sales process. He just left a couple of $100 bills on the counter and non-chalantly walked out.

    After a couple of minutes, Ray noticed a couple of bills on the counter. He then noticed the rifle missing. He called the police, who, after finding out the situation, determined that Coday didn’t really shoplift since he left some money. When Ray asked about the background check, he was told not to worry about it.

    What more could he have possibly done? Hover over every unkempt person that comes in? That describes every other Alaskan. And what would a video of the incident prove? That Coday stole the weapon? We know that. Would it stop the theft? No. Would it have prevented the murder? No way. Would the family be suing the local hardware store if Coday had used a stolen hammer to murder his victim? Or would they sue a homeowner if Coday had broken in, stolen one of their firearms, and used that to shoot their son?

    Negligence? By the Juneau Police, but not by Ray Coxe.

  12. I’d just like to point out to you guys who aren’t familiar with the standards of evidence that in most civil cases, all the plaintiff must prove is a preponderance of evidence. From Wiki:

    Balance of probabilities, also known as the preponderance of the evidence, is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.

    Sebastian and I happen to agree that from the information available, it’s not unreasonable for a jury to find that there’s a 50.1% or more chance that the actions of the store employees were negligent. Yes, a theft happened. No one here is disputing that.

    However, this lawsuit is asking the question about whether or not a jury of his peers would find that the specific actions, or lack thereof, were potentially negligent given that firearms are sought after in criminal circles – so much so that even the industry organization has a PSA program with the Department of Justice addressing similar crimes related to the illegal acquisition of firearms. It’s impossible to predict what evidence will be presented at trial and how the jury will feel the actions of the store owner compare with the norms in Alaska.

Comments are closed.