Torn

Law enforcement officers, like members of the military, firefighters, paramedics and other first responders are the sheepdogs that keep the wolves at bay. These men and women and their families make sacrifices every day that those of us they protect will never fully understand.

Because of all that these families do for us, when I find myself squaring off against the bereaved widow of a law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty, I do not enter into such opposition lightly.

Mark Tucker, a Wake County, NC sheriff's deputy, was gunned down by Matthew Charles Grant, a felon who didn't want to go back to prison for being the possession of a weapon. Deputy Tucker's widow, backed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, filed suit yesterday against Cary Jewelry & Pawn, saying via a press release:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the widow of a Wake County, North Carolina Sheriff's Investigator, charging that a gun shop's negligence helped arm his killer.

Investigator Mark Tucker was shot in the face with a shotgun and killed on February 12, 2004, by Matthew Grant, a convicted felon. The suit seeks to recover damages from Cary Jewelry & Pawn, who supplied Grant's friend, Van McQueen, with the 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun that was used to kill Investigator Tucker. Grant is also a named defendant.

The suit was filed in Wake County court and claims that Cary Jewelry & Pawn, of Cary, North Carolina, negligently and illegally sold the murder weapon to an obviously dangerous person.

In November 2003, Van McQueen and Matthew Grant went to Cary Jewelry & Pawn to buy a firearm. McQueen planned to purchase a firearm as a straw buyer for Grant, because Grant was a felon prohibited from buying guns, and in return Grant promised to buy McQueen a beer. McQueen was mentally deficient and was obviously intoxicated, and the shop's clerk refused to sell him a gun. Three days later, McQueen returned to the pawn shop with Grant, again wanting to buy a firearm. Although his home address was a local mission, McQueen had $120 in cash to buy the weapon. This time, even though the same clerk who had seen McQueen intoxicated three days earlier was on duty, the shop completed the all-cash sale. McQueen then transferred the shotgun to Grant, who used it to shoot Investigator Tucker in the face, killing him. Grant was arrested, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Investigator Tucker.

"The evidence in this case clearly shows that the gun dealer irresponsibly and illegally sold a shotgun to a man it knew to be dangerous," said Daniel R. Vice, Staff Attorney with the Brady Center. "The gun dealer chose to make a quick buck rather than protect public safety – greed and recklessness caused the death of a brave law enforcement officer."

The commentary in the press release does indeed sound damning when presented in such a manner. The truth, however, is another matter entirely.

The Brady Center hopes to use this case to accomplish via the courts what they have failed to do so legislatively in over a decade of futile attempts, which is to further restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They are more than willing to exploit the loss of a bereaved widow in their cynical attempt.

The fact of the matter is that according to the case laid out by the Brady Center, Cary Gun and Pawn seems to have followed the law exactly as it was written.

Let's follow this through the press release case presented point-by-point.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the widow of a Wake County, North Carolina Sheriff's Investigator, charging that a gun shop's negligence helped arm his killer.

Investigator Mark Tucker was shot in the face with a shotgun and killed on February 12, 2004, by Matthew Grant, a convicted felon. The suit seeks to recover damages from Cary Jewelry & Pawn, who supplied Grant's friend, Van McQueen, with the 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun that was used to kill Investigator Tucker. Grant is also a named defendant.

The suit was filed in Wake County court and claims that Cary Jewelry & Pawn, of Cary, North Carolina, negligently and illegally sold the murder weapon to an obviously dangerous person.

These opening paragraphs outline the basic premise of the case according to the side bringing the suit. According to Brady, a negligent gun shop sold a Mossburg shotgun to “an obviously dangerous person.”

But by what standard can we consider the pawn shop negligent, and by what standard was the purchaser of the firearm an “obviously dangerous person?” Obviously, these are legal standards that must be satisfied, not emotional standards. Even this early on, the Brady case, as presented appears paper-thin.

The Brady release continues:

In November 2003, Van McQueen and Matthew Grant went to Cary Jewelry & Pawn to buy a firearm. McQueen planned to purchase a firearm as a straw buyer for Grant, because Grant was a felon prohibited from buying guns, and in return Grant promised to buy McQueen a beer.

At this point, the Brady Center must establish that it should have been apparent to the employee of Cary Gun & Pawn that this was a strawman sale. Some Monday morning lawyers would opine immediately that when two people enter a store to purchase a firearm, that obviously it should be apparent that a strawman purchase is underway. That is an erroneous assumption.

Most people are not experts in a wide range of subjects. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and as a society we rely upon the expertise of others every day of our lives. We trust pilots to move us in large metal tubes hurtling through the skies, trust doctors to diagnose our ills and sometimes cut into our bodies, and insurance agents to make sure our families are well provided for using formulas and tables we don't always understand. In a nation with 200 million firearms, quite a few Americans know quite a bit about guns.

When members of our families and friends decide they would like to purchase a firearm for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense, they often chose to bring along their own "expert"—often an uncle or a friend—to help them make what they hope will be a wise decision. Because of this, many firearms purchases involve a seller, a buyer, and a third party.

Third party involvement does not mean a strawman sale is imminent, nor is it illegal, or even improper.

The release continues:

McQueen was mentally deficient and was obviously intoxicated, and the shop's clerk refused to sell him a gun. Three days later, McQueen returned to the pawn shop with Grant, again wanting to buy a firearm.

We have two incidents here.

In the first incident, the clerk notices that the prospective buyer, McQueen, is probably intoxicated. The clerk does exactly what he should morally and legally, and refuses to sell McQueen a firearm.

The Brady Center does not help us understand why the clerk should have judged McQueen "mentally deficient," and does not explain whether this deficiency was a permanent condition, or a temporary condition brought about by substance use.

In the second encounter, three days later, McQueen is sober. While the clerk was correct in not selling a firearm to McQueen when he had been drinking, there is no law on North Carolina books that I am aware of that tells a seller or buyer that he must wait a predetermined number of days to purchase a firearm after he had had an alcoholic beverage. As McQueen had not been drinking on the day he tried to make the second purchase, the Pawn Shop clerk had no compelling legal or moral reason to deny the sale at that time.

Although his home address was a local mission, McQueen had $120 in cash to buy the weapon.

Is there a burden of proof upon the seller to verify that the place of residence cited upon the criminal background check is not only valid, but palatable? The obvious answer is no, and even implying such a charge speaks to issues of race and class, where someone literally from the wrong side of the tracks cold be denied their rights as American citizens based upon where they call home.

This time, even though the same clerk who had seen McQueen intoxicated three days earlier was on duty, the shop completed the all-cash sale.

Again, McQueen at this point was dead sober. As there is no statute mandating how many days a purchaser must wait to buy a firearm after imbibing, nothing remotely criminal occurred. All-cash sales, carried out in school lunchrooms across the country, are also not an actionable offense.

McQueen then transferred the shotgun to Grant, who used it to shoot Investigator Tucker in the face, killing him. Grant was arrested, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Investigator Tucker.

McQueen committed a crime by transferring a weapon to a felon. Grant got more time than he deserved. He got a lifetime. He should not be allowed that lifetime, and I'd like to see any cop killer face a mandatory death sentence, but unfortunately, I don't make the laws.

The Brady release concludes:

"The evidence in this case clearly shows that the gun dealer irresponsibly and illegally sold a shotgun to a man it knew to be dangerous," said Daniel R. Vice, Staff Attorney with the Brady Center. "The gun dealer chose to make a quick buck rather than protect public safety – greed and recklessness caused the death of a brave law enforcement officer."

Mr. Vice and I must have different definitions of the word "clearly."

The sale of a shotun to Van McQueen was an issue of judgment, an issue well inside the confines of the law as this case is presented, if oe that had a tragic ending. However, unless the clerk can reasonably be assumed to be psychic, there was no apparent compelling reason for the clerk to withhold the sale of a shotgun to a man simply because he had ingested a few beers some days in the past and went shopping with another person.

The "quick buck" theory—all $120 of it—would hardly seem to be enough of an incentive to build a credible "it's all about the Benjamins" case, especially with only one Benjamin ($100 bill) was involved.

This is less of a legitimate legal case than it is a cynical attempt by the Brady Center to use the grief of a widow to try to generate self-serving P.R. and raise funds. Consider me less than impressed, and more than a little disgusted at their tactics.

My heart goes out to Patricia Tucker for the loss of her husband. I hope she can find peace, but this is a case that she should not win. If she does, we all lose.