Is Badger Guns liable after officers shot? Store owner testifies: “No one wants to sell to straw b

Looks like the jury has held the gun shop liable..

Gun Shop Held Liable for Purchase Linked to Shooting of Police

A jury in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on Tuesday held that a gun shop that sold a pistol to a straw purchaser was negligent and ordered it to pay $6 million to two police officers, The Associated Press reported.
Stories from Our Advertisers

The suit, brought against Badger Guns, a gun shop just outside Milwaukee, was closely watched by gun-control advocates, the firearms industry and legal scholars because it involved a rare test before a jury of the responsibility of gun sellers for the criminal use of their products.

Gun-control groups hoped that a victory would embolden more victims and lawyers to sue what they say is a small minority of gun stores that make questionable sales.

The case arose in May 2009 when a 21-year-old man bought a Taurus semiautomatic pistol at Badger Guns on behalf of an 18-year-old friend. The friend, Julius Burton, who was too young to legally purchase a gun, accompanied the buyer to the store and helped select the weapon.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Adam J. Allan, right, the former owner of Badger Guns in West Milwaukee, and Milton Beatovic, who co-owned a previous gun shop at the same location.
Trial in Wisconsin Tests Gun Store’s Judgment on Illegal SalesOCT. 12, 2015
The Roseburg Gun Shop in Roseburg, Ore., the town where a gunman killed nine people and wounded nine others at a community college last week.
Gun Safety Group Sees Room to Reinforce Existing LawsOCT. 4, 2015
A customer at KC’s Exchange, a gun store in Roseburg, Ore., in May, the month that Gov. Kate Brown signed a new background check law.
Prospects for Change: Oregon’s Gun Debate Goes Beyond Liberals vs. ConservativesOCT. 2, 2015

Weeks later, Mr. Burton used the gun to shoot two Milwaukee police officers in the face, leaving one with brain damage and a blind eye. Mr. Burton is serving 80 years for attempted murder, and the buyer, Jacob Collins, served two years for the illegal purchase.

The two officers and the City of Milwaukee sued Badger Guns, arguing that its employees either knew the sale was illegal or were grossly negligent in allowing it to proceed.

click link for remainder of article.

people need to keep in mind this was a civil trial and not a criminal one. The standards for evidence are less than a criminal trial and a majority of jurors is all that is needed for guilt. Instead of probable Cause they only need Preponderance of the evidence.

Without the details of the 'evidence', how on Earth is anyone supposed to conclude anything? It's just some fluffy story.

Since it is a civil trial, I am more inclined to believe it is someone looking for a pay out rather than some touchstone ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

If the dude walked in and admitted he was purchasing the gun for someone who couldn't, that is a slam dunk criminal case. If some of the paperwork was messed up but the dude was still cleared for purchase, so what? Maybe some negligence and the FFL loses his licence, store is shut down, but none of that happened.

But $6 million in damages? Eh...

a reply to: ABNARTY

That is the general purpose of civil law. An injured party seeking monetary damages.

a reply to: ABNARTY

This paragraph explains it;

The case arose in May 2009 when a 21-year-old man bought a Taurus semiautomatic pistol at Badger Guns on behalf of an 18-year-old friend. The friend, Julius Burton, who was too young to legally purchase a gun, accompanied the buyer to the store and helped select the weapon.

Add to that, the quote from the guy who shot the cops;

"Everybody knew about Badger, know what I`m saying?
That`s where a lot of people go and that`s why I was like,
'Imma go there,'" Burton said.

I imagine the civil trial is for the victims, the criminal trial could likely be next after this ruling.

Jury nullification all the way. Is one liable for all the mass murders one's government commits? What jury would even entertain such a preposterous notion? What this company should be doing is counter-suing for malicious prosecution. Frivolous case. Where's corpus delecti? Also, what's wrong with riding a bike on a sidewalk? Why did they choose to harass Julius Burton that day?

As a Wisconsinite, what surprises me is not the shooting and not the ruling, but the fact that Collins and Burton bothered to go to a gun store. It isn't that difficult to acquire a gun in private sale, especially in Milwaukee...

I'm surprised the gun shop was found liable (in civil case), since the law that bans selling handguns to anyone under 21 is only for gun stores. A private party seller can sell a handgun to anyone 18+, so technically, his buddy can purchase the firearm from the store (as long as he is 21+) and turn around and sell (or gift) the gun to his friend that is 18+.

I know, it is a bit shaky; but, that is how I understood it from my concealed carry class.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Its against the law to purchase a firearm for someone else.

Federal Law says a person must be 21 years old to purchase a firearm (Form ATF Form 4472 - Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-the-CounterDownload link

At the top of the form on Page 1 -

WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et. seq. , are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.

* - 18 USC 921 - Definitions

As for Wisconsin law I would assume that an 18 year old cannot legally purchase a firearm considering he had to have a friend buy the gun for him. The articles in question raised that point about purchase age.

originally posted by: radarloveguy

Then impede away. I think your splitting hairs here.
Rights come with responsibilities ...

Drunk or not. Owner of car , or not .
3rd. party personal insurance does NOT discriminate ,
and will compensate .

YOU may want to throw away more money to one of the biggest scams in existence - but I certainly don't.

Insurance industries do not need their pockets lined with even MORE profits than they already get. You can certainly claim the rates will be fair or low, but that's all a matter of opinion and I don't know any insurance company that doesn't find SOME way to hike up your rates every chance they get.

This is just a bad idea and it amounts to an infringement anyway that that could potentially prevent people from being able to exercise guaranteed rights under the constitution.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of my rights being chipped away because of a small percentage of people who are equal to the lowest common denominator.

Of course, I also think it's ridiculous, this whole "sue in civil court if we can't get them on a criminal charge" thing because I've read case after case where it's been abused to the umpteenth degree.

If the gun shop did everything by the book, they shouldn't be liable civilly or criminally. Our corrupt justice system is just of the big issues that need to be addressed.

This a load of male cow crap. The only thing that should be asked is did Collins purchase the gun legally? If so, what he did with it after he purchased it is his responsibility and no one else's. That's it plain and simple. I'm sorry about the police officers, but, this is just a damned trial lawyer going for the deep pockets of Badger Gun's liability insurance.

This is how they ban guns slowly.

Perhaps we will see a rise in homemade gun sales.

They will seek to shut down all paths of ownership.

They will put everyone between a rock and a hard place and then claim they are bound by laws and it is outta their hands.

In my opinion, Badger Guns isn't any more liable than a homeowner would be if their dwelling was broken into and the guns that were stolen and used in the commission of a crime.

What is the precedent?, or are they trying to set one?.

a reply to: Xcathdra

"It is against the law to purchase a firearm for someone else".

No it is not in all cases but in some cases it is.

The most wise way to purchase a gun for someone is too just pay for it then have the other person go in and sign for it.

The law says you are innocent until proven guilty so what would give a gunshop liability for selling a gun to a legally licensed person? You cannot say that because guns can kill that there is an expectation that somewhere in the future that gun will be used to murder people. This is like saying that because fertilizer containing ammonium nitrate can be used to make a bomb (ammonium nitrate+ fuel oil) that there is an expectation that somewhere in the future someone will use that fertilizer to kill people so the fertilizer manufacturer would be liable. It is totally nonsense to make manufacturers liable for the misuse of their products.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Xcathdra

"It is against the law to purchase a firearm for someone else".

No it is not in all cases but in some cases it is.

The most wise way to purchase a gun for someone is too just pay for it then have the other person go in and sign for it.

Sure however my post was in reference to federal law and Wisconsin law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

isnt there a federal law baring this from happening? ie you cant sue gun makers/sellers at least according to some federal law? ah its an act not a law

en.wikipedia.org...

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1] In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.

seems this would be a federal law/act and wound then trump state law or is this not relevent to a civil trial? it seems to say that they get immunity from civl actions and suits so i think this should be what gets badger off the hook for this

a reply to: radarloveguy

The man who shot the police should not have had to use a straw buyer. His constitutional rights are being violated right there. The case should go no further, he should be awarded a settlement. Maybe he was angry with the establishment over this ordeal and that led to the killings.

No one has said anything about the shop and the law infringing on this mans right to own a gun. You haven't forgot about "shall not be infringed," have you?

originally posted by: Metallicus
Gun stores should be liable in this case only if automobile dealership are responsible for selling a car to an unlicensed driver. It is the exact same thing when we sell an inanimate object to someone in both cases.

You don't have to have a drivers license to buy a car from a dealership. Nothing illegal about it. You do have to be a licensed driver to get insurance though.

This is the part which allows it to happen -

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas

en.wikipedia.org...

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005, by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005, it was passed by the House of Representatives 283 in favor and 144 opposed. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005, by President George W. Bush and became Public Law 109-92. The National Rifle Association thanked President Bush for signing the Act, for which it had lobbied, describing it as, "...the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years into law."[1] In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.

seems this would be a federal law/act and wound then trump state law or is this not relevent to a civil trial? it seems to say that they get immunity from civl actions and suits so i think this should be what gets badger off the hook for this

The argument in the civil trial was the store knew the person buying the gun was buying it for someone else. They have the camera footage showing the 18 year old picking out the gun he wants before leaving the store. Once he left the buyer bought that specific gun.

Since the guy was charged tried and convicted to 2 years in prison for a "straw purchase" of the weapon, coupled with the statements made by the store employees during the civil trial there was enough red flags to call the sale into question yet they went forward with the sale.

Also if I am not mistaken this store has a bad habit of selling guns in a manner that violates federal law.

a reply to: Bundy

HIs rights were not violated at all. Anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is reserved to the states. Feel free to point out where the 2nd amendment lists the age of adult and age able to purchase a firearm.

The states and federal government have legal grounds to restrict the sale of firearms to people of a certain age and above. Under Wisconsin state law an 18 year old cannot purchase a handgun and under Federal law a person must be 21 in order to purchase a handgun.

There are exceptions under Wisconsin state law allowing for the purchase transport and use of long rifles for hunting and sport to individuals under 18.