The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is supposed to protect the gun industry from stupid, ridiculous lawsuits. They can still be sued when they screw up, such as making a faulty chamber on a gun that explodes, but not because someone did something with a gun that was beyond the power of the company in question to prevent.
But what if, after the fact, you can argue that they actually could?
That seems to be what’s going on with a lawsuit against the sporting goods company Scheels, which a judge is allowing to proceed.
Judge Karen Janisch denied a motion by Scheels to dismiss a wrongful death and negligent entrustment lawsuit that was brought by Sarah Van Bogart on behalf of her son, Jordan Lance Markie. It sets the stage for a trial that will pit one of the nation’s largest gun control advocacy groups against a popular sporting goods chain that operates throughout the Midwest.
In 2022, Markie, 19, biked to the Scheels store in Eden Prairie and requested to see a handgun. It was given to him by employee William Ballantyne and Markie ran through the store, loaded the handgun and used it to kill himself.
Alla Lefkowitz, the managing director of Everytown Law, said in a statement that Janisch’s decision to allow the case to move to discovery and proceed to trial is crucial for awareness around suicide in Minnesota, which she said causes 73% of gun deaths in the state.
“It is well documented that putting time and space between a person in crisis and a firearm can reduce suicidal risks and save lives,” Lefkowitz said. “We hope this case raises awareness about taking extra care not to provide a person who is in crisis with a firearm.”
The law firm Cozen O’Connor is representing Scheels and Ballantyne, lead attorney Heather Marx did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
Everytown Law is the legal arm of Everytown for Gun Safety and is the largest legal organization in the United States pressing for gun safety through the courts. They are serving as co-counsel for Markie’s mother alongside attorneys from Arnold & Porter, and Jason Pederson, an attorney out of Bemidji with Fuller Wallner.
The lawsuit claimed that Scheel’s handing of the gun amounted to negligent entrustment because Markie’s erratic behavior and youthful appearance should have set off warnings for the store and its staff.
The “erratic behavior” in question seems to be Markie asking to use the phone and trying to open locked cases. As someone who has worked in retail, though, that’s hardly the most erratic thing I’ve ever seen a customer do.
As for his youthful appearance, it should be remembered that while people under 21 cannot buy handguns under federal law, they can own them. That means someone can gift someone a pistol, and that would be compliant with federal law. Yet if someone under 21 cannot at least handle firearms to decide what they’d like to own, how can someone pick an appropriate gift?
It’s possible, even likely, that the news report summarized some of the behavior in a way that makes it seem less erratic, particularly to someone who has worked retail, but I also find it difficult to see how Scheels is actually responsible.
I’ve never seen a gun store hand over a firearm that was loaded. Scheels didn’t, either. Instead, the kid took off and put his own ammo in the gun. I don’t see how anyone could reasonably expect that to happen. Even if he was acting weird, some customers are just weird. Unless they’re actually trying to buy a gun while freaking you out a bit, it might be deemed better to just humor them. Why would anyone expect a suicide inside the store?
Of course, this ruling isn’t on the facts of the case, only if the allegations are sufficient not to be blocked by the PLCAA. Honestly, based on what we see here, I kind of see where the judge is coming from, though I can’t see how Scheels is responsible unless we’re missing a whole lot of the story.
Read the full article here
