Dealers on trial.

Every year millions of people are victims of violent crime, many, increasingly, by minors. One urban crime reporter opined that older teens are now considered the most dangerous people in America. Many of them are armed.

Dealers and employees must follow the law carefully when making a sale of a firearm to a minor. This must occur, regardless of the stated purpose for purchasing the firearm, even if the minor is known to the dealer. All this is vital to avoid any costly criminal and/or civil liability.

In the early 1900s, courts began upholding the limited legislation that regulated sales and distribution of firearms and ammo. This especially applied when sales were to children and others of so-called reduced judgmental capacity.

Today, with more seller accountability expected, to not be found in some degree responsible for the after effects of a particular purchase is more the exception, rather than the rule. However, all is not lost for those who are cautious, as the following case illustrates.

The family of a victim, who had been shot with a pistol, sued a retailer for selling .357 Magnum ammunition to a 19-year-old. The buyer had claimed the ammunition was for use in his rifle.

The court found no violation of the Gun Control Act that prohibits selling pistol ammunition to individuals under 21 years of age. In this case, the buyer was old enough to purchase rifle ammunition. The fact that the ammunition could be used in either a pistol or rifle (an expert witness testified to this fact) did not automatically target the seller for damages when the ammunition was used later in a pistol.

The store clerk, it was shown, took all the right precautions with the customer to shield his employer from legal action. The clerk pointedly asked what type of firearm would be used and verified the youth's age. The cheaper of two brands was purchased, reinforcing the youth's statement that the ammunition was for target practice.

The clerk could do no more. There was no breach of duty in complying with federal firearms statutes. In negligence actions, courts must determine:

* Was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff?

* Was there a breach of that duty?

* If so, was the breach a substantial cause of the injury?

* Was the risk and harm within the scope of the protection afforded by the duty broken?

Whether a defendant owes a legal duty is a question of law. Whether it was ignored is a question of fact based on surrounding circumstances. The diligence or laxness of a gun dealer's staff can often tip the scales.