Another firearms related forum that I am a member of, does not allow it's members to post threads to sell their guns. I'm not saying they are right or wrong in this but what kind of legal liability could they possibly have if someone sold a gun on their site and a problem arose between the parties involved? To me, it's no different then advertising in the paper except it's free. How many times has a newspaper been sued because of gun being sold thru it's classified ads? I'm just trying to understand why they get all bent out of shape when someone even mentions having a gun for sale. Personally, I think they are just being paranoid, but that's just me. The reason I'm posting this here is because they will not even allow the matter to be discussed without locking the thread.
Third party liability when selling a gun on a gun forum
- Thread starter Paten
- Start date
- Status
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The irrational fear of firearms is called "hoplophobia." I don't know what the irrational fear of lawyers is called.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Any fear of lawyers is not irrational. 
MagKnightX
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2003
- Messages
- 867
No, lawyers are fine and nothing to be afraid of, in general. It's the greedy ones who will find a reason to sue for anything so they get more fees from more clients you have to be afraid of.
HABU
Member
People still visit that other site?
OEF_VET
Member
You only need to fear lawyers when you've done something wrong, or have avoided doing something which causes you to liable for something wrong.
Of course, if the administrators of some other site have determined that they don't want to allow transactions to occur through their site, then that's their right. If the members don't lke it, they've got two choices, they can either buck up and live with it, or they can move on to pastures more inline with their likes.
frank
Of course, if the administrators of some other site have determined that they don't want to allow transactions to occur through their site, then that's their right. If the members don't lke it, they've got two choices, they can either buck up and live with it, or they can move on to pastures more inline with their likes.
frank
synoptic
Member
Unfortunately that's not true. The time to fear lawyers the most is when you have done nothing wrong but in the lawyer's eyes you have. We all take that risk every day by carrying, keeping an HD gun, etc... If this wasn't the case the NRA would have no reason to sell insurance to aid in lawsuits.
redneck2
Member
Yeah...
McDonald's did something wrong by selling the woman a hot cup of coffee
Unfortunately, the thing we do "wrong" is to be worth enough money that we can be sued successfully. Until people who bring unwarranted suits are held accountable, it will never change
McDonald's did something wrong by selling the woman a hot cup of coffee
Unfortunately, the thing we do "wrong" is to be worth enough money that we can be sued successfully. Until people who bring unwarranted suits are held accountable, it will never change
TexasVet
Member
We ought to make the opposing lawyer pay for all costs in a case that the jury finds frivolous.
BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
Their house, their rules....don't know what the chances are, but can't say I blame them either.
JohnBT
Member
Their site, their rules, etc., etc., etc...
But now the policy pohibits making posts containing statements such as "Would I be crazy to sell my early Python so I can buy a used Taurus?" This is considered hinting/suggesting/fishing for a sale.
Also prohibited, it appears, would be statements such as "Should I sell my 6 unfired Swensons so I can afford to marry off my ugly 40-year-old daughter."
Their site, their rules, etc., etc., etc.
John
But now the policy pohibits making posts containing statements such as "Would I be crazy to sell my early Python so I can buy a used Taurus?" This is considered hinting/suggesting/fishing for a sale.
Also prohibited, it appears, would be statements such as "Should I sell my 6 unfired Swensons so I can afford to marry off my ugly 40-year-old daughter."
Their site, their rules, etc., etc., etc.
John
That would be true, if there were not lawyers who make a living from bringing baseless or fraudulent claims, or suborning perjury. I'm all too familiar with those.
There are already mechanisms for that (i.e. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11). Unfortunately, they are rarely utilized to the extent needed or justified. Lawyers don't hunt their own.
- Status
