[Kenwood] Question of Credibility

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:43:38 -0500

Yep, been there - seen it happen to a friend who owns a gun shop.

In his case, it was justified, but he lost his business over it (sadly).
His mistake?  Hiring an unscrupulous clerk.

The clerk had a friend, who was a felon (wouldn't have passed B/G check -
would have had to lie on Fed form re: felony convictions).  Of course, the
felon knows this, and has no intention of trying to buy a gun from a
reputable dealer.  He has a friend buy the gun for him.

Nothing the shop owner can do about this, right?

Wrong - because in this case, the felon, his friend (the buyer) and his
other friend (the clerk) all talked it over beforehand.  They came in
(together) when the clerk was there and the owner was not.  They talked
about who's gun it really was.  The money was even handed over by the felon
(although the gun was not - it went to the third friend).  All was caught on
video by the in-store surveillance cameras.

Now, the felon went to prison for illegal possession.  The buyer went to
jail for aiding and abetting (both in the purchase, and it the robbery that
the two of them committed a few days later).  And the clerk went to jail for
knowingly selling a firearm to a felon (even though on the paperwork it
looks like he knew it went to the third friend).

The shop owner was not charged with any crime.  But his name was drug
through the news, as was the name of his shop.  And since a woman was shot
(she survived, thank God) during the robbery, he was also sued in civil
court.

And between the bad press and the lawsuits/judgements, he ended up closing
his business at a loss.

All because he hired a jerk!

Jay
KD5WLX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray V." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Kenwood] Question of Credibility

> This all sounds fine in theory, but you must remember that conditions
> vary by country. In this case we are talking about an issue with the
> USA, the "Land of Lawyers". It has been stated that it isn't illegal to
> sell the radio, just to transmit with it. It has been stated that the
> seller can't be held responsible, only the person that uses it. Sounds
> great but then tell me why there are so many lawsuits against firearm
> (could as easily be radio) manufacturers and lawsuits against firearm
> (could as easily be radio) dealers and lawsuits against former firearm
> (could as easily be radio) owners when it turns out a crime is committed
> by a third party using a firearm (could as easily be a radio) that was
> previously manufactured, sold or owned by a person who had absolutely no
> control over the end use of that firearm (could as easily be a radio).
> There is no common sense involved here, it is how good a case a lawyer
> can make in defending his client. In the case of guns we often see the
> defense use words like "if my client hadn't had such easy access to guns
> he wouldn't have committed the crime" and an equally compelling case
> could be made "if my client hadn't been sold the radio by that
> unscrupulous ham radio nut/store then he wouldn't have been inticed into
> transmitting illegally". Can't happen? Tell my insurance carrier who has
> raised my rates many times over the last few years to cover potential
> lawsuits against my sporting goods business due to otherwise frivolous
> suits. All it takes is one lawyer to smell blood (money).
>
> And see how it works both ways: in one case a ham radio store is sued
> because they DON'T sell a radio and in another case a gun store is sued
> because they DO sell a gun yet in neither case did the store have any
> control over what use the radio/gun was put to once sold.
>
> Yeah, I know people will jump on me and say comparing radios and guns is
> like comparing apples and oranges and yes that is true on one sense, but
> in another sense they are both just items of commerce, something that
> can be bought and sold and the rules of "who is ultimately responsible"
> aren't common sense, although they should be. In fact it's more
> difficult with firearms because we have to have both Federal and State
> dealer licenses and very strict laws we obey as to who we can sell to,
> yet we are still being sued on a daily basis for things that happen
> totally outside our control, even after following all the rules, laws
> and regulations.
>
> So while it isn't "illegal" to sell your radio to someone who may or may
> not use it illegally with or without your knowledge, with today's
> leanings of "it's the other guys fault, I'm not responsible", don't be
> surprised if someone comes back to you 10 years after you sold something
> and try to hold you accountable for something done illegally with that
> radio at sometime in the future, just like they are doing now to the
> firearm industry.
>
> Ray, W2EC
>
> John Shafer wrote:
>
> > I was told a few years back that Ham Radio Outlet (possibly the Oakland
> > CA store) was sued for refusing to sell transceivers to a non-licensed
> > person.  If I remember correctly, the store lost the case and had to
> > stop asking to see licenses before the sale.  Does anyone else recall
> > something like this?
> >
> > A shortwave listening friend of mine bought a TS-450 because it was "not
> > much more expensive than the receive only version", and he "didn't want
> > to limit himself" should his interests change.  He did get interested in
> > more than listening, and later he became my elmer.
> >
> > After getting one refusal from a seller to sell an HF rig to a no-code
> > tech (me at the time), I bought my TS-690 from someone else.  And then
> > listened to the W1AW code practice sessions to work on my upgrade.
> >
> > Owning a rig without a ticket isn't the issue. What a person does with
> > it is their responsibility, and it is their penalty if used outside of
> > the law.  He could send you a copy of his ticket, then still operate out
> > of band.  The enforcement letter goes to... the one most deserving I
hope!
> >
> > Does the above imply that I disagree with listening to your inner voice?
> >  Not at all.  I have and will continue refusing to help CBers add
> > linears or modify for out of band.  Would I sell to a non-ham?  That
> > depends on the circumstance and the indicators that affect the comfort
> > zone.
> >
> > That's what this issue is, neither a right or wrong issue but as you
> > said, a conscious issue.  I respect you Dave for still having one and
> > caring.  The outcome of the sale won't change that.
> >
> > John W6PTT
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul McInnish/Home wrote:
> >
> >> Dave... I would not sell to him... morally you potentially could be
> >> aiding
> >> and abetting a violation of the Fed.
> >>
> >> Not to mention the fact that you will be able to look yourself in the
> >> face
> >> and say, he may get it from someone else that does not care, but he
> >> sure has
> >> heck did not get it from me & my conscience is clean & clear!
> >>
> >> You obviously care or you would not have sent this e-mail message
> >> out... a
> >> tip of the hat to you!
> >>
> >> Paul - K4BET
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Leisman" <[email protected]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:56 PM
> >> Subject: [Kenwood] Question of Credibility
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have a question for the group that I never have anticipated
> >> befpore.  I recently advertised a TS-830s for sale through the QTH.com
> >> classifieds.  Almost immediately the rig was sold to a gentleman in
> >> Florida.  Cashiers check arrives a couple of days later and as I ready
> >> evrything I check, using qrz.com, the guy's call and find out the name
> >> listed with the call and his name are very much different.  I also
> >> notice that he has invited me to join him a "QOS" on a CB frequency
> >> once the equipment arrives and he has everything set up.
> >>
> >> Part of me has a great problem with selling a piece of equipment like
> >> the 830 to a glorified cb operator, especially since ham tickets are
> >> easier to get now that code has been dropped.  I don't like it and I'm
> >> inclined to send the guy's check back and tell him "No deal, I sell to
> >> hams only". This is the moral part of the argument.
> >>
> >> But, another part of me says that if he doesn't buy my rig, he'll buy
> >> one from someone else and transmit anyway.  So, essentially whether
> >> it's a rig from me or someone else, it makes no difference, he's stil
> >> going to violate the law, so why not sell the rig and be done with
> >> it.  This part doesn't settle good with my conscience.
> >>
> >> Anyone had similar experience?  If so I'd be interested in comments.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dave, W8QW
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Your moderator for this list is:
> > Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kenwood mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood
> >
>
>
> - - -
>
> Your moderator for this list is:
> Larry Wilson KE1HZ [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kenwood mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kenwood