On the recordJuly 28, 2005
I missed it. I think the fact pattern goes along the lines of a criminal goes in with a girlfriend or some other person and tries to purchase a weapon. What responsibility would someone have there? If the dealer or the seller or the person in question had a reasonable opportunity to know a crime was afoot, or this was a sham deal, then I argue the bill would cover it under negligent entrustment. But here is what we would not want to do, in my opinion. You wouldn't want to hold the seller or the distributor liable if he had no reason to understand that a criminal conspiracy by two people he is not responsible for was about to happen. Because that would be unfair. But if he had a reason to know, a reasonable opportunity to know, then that would be a totally different scenario. That is a classic example of what we do not want to do. If a person, about to make a sale, should have known something was afoot to violate the law, they can be held responsible. But if you as a dealer are a victim of a criminal conspiracy you had no part or knowledge of, we are not going to make you responsible. That is the essence of this bill. Because to do so would undo legal concepts that stood 200 years, would put people out of business, and makes no sense. I yield back to Senator Craig. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Source
govinfo.gov




