The suit claims Allen Ivanov and his father, Dimitri Ivanov, examined the gun and read the manual together. It also alleges that his mother contacted Cabela’s before the shooting in an attempt to have the gun returned, but a Cabela’s employee told her the store would not accept the weapon. [More]Yeah, news flash: It wasn't her property, so there is no lawful way for her to transfer a firearm she does not own.
The damned ambulance-chasing attorney ought to be sanctioned for this. Cabela's propbably can't counter-sue because of optics, but here's hoping they get attorney fees and court costs awarded to discourage this kind of unethical and subversive lawfare.
Context needed. The mother contacted Cabela's in an attempt to have the gun "returned"?
ReplyDeleteEvery gun seller I've ever visited has a sign up to the effect of, "All gun sales are final."
To whit: No returns.
If you want to sell it back, it's handled as a second sale, at a significant markdown for a "used" gun, and the customer covers all mandated fees.
I doubt Cabela's said they "would not accept the weapon", but they probably couldn't legally accept it from her (since she wasn't the owner), and they probably couldn't accept it as a "return" (meaning a full refund).
IOW, it sounds more like Cabela's would not accept the new transaction on her terms, laws be damned.
I'd need to see more context to verify any of her claims.
As I recall, the original story was that the shooter sat in his car for a couple hours, reading the manual on the operation of the rifle. I never heard before that he and his dad sat and studied it. I never heard before that the mother wanted to return or tried to return the rifle to Cabela's. So, which is it? And how are the staff at Cabela's supposed to know that this individual was contemplating doing evil? Are they supposed to be mind readers too?
ReplyDeleteThe timing of this lawsuit stinks in that it seems to be nothing more than an attempt at a money grab, and maybe more significantly, timed to utilize the sensationalism of the shooting to garner votes for I 1639. Once again, using a tragedy to advance an agenda.
W