That's something the architect should have known. Someone was negligent in not seeing that it was done properly in the first place.

If they did not know the record of the Bull's Eye retailer, then they certainly were negligent because it was a very blatant, shoddy business that was being conducted insofar as the inventory of rifles was concerned, ... If they did know about it, then most assuredly they have an obligation to withhold the sale and to require them to monitor correctly the sale and the inventory of their weapons.

It's negligent not to take the test. Though it cannot rule anything out absolutely, it is something we all could use to help figure this out.

In the wake of the Stockwell shooting, it would have been completely negligent of us not to review it to make sure of its legality and to make sure that the actual tactical operation of it is reasonable.

Ironically, even though it was a well-known architect who came out on the short end of this, I think it's a victory for architects and the profession of architecture. The court recognized that architectural works are entitled to copyright protection just like any other type of creative work.

Hoping means seeing that the outcome you want is possible, and then working for it.