24 Mar
1999
24 Mar
'99
10 a.m.
Seriously off-topic, but hey, I didn't start it this time.
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, bluoval wrote:
"Barry A. Watzman" wrote:
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
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!