It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:59 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Right, and that's its own crime.

But unless you can prove that Badger Guns knew what the firearm in question was going to be used for, then I don't see how you can nail them for what the gun ultimately went on to be used for. Can they similarly prove that all of the bad sales Badger made also became guns used in the commission of crimes?

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 02:42 PM
The terroist that (supposedly) did 911
had knives! box cuters.
but what do you open the boxes with now?
your teeth? oh! ban teeth.

originally posted by: dashen
I say knife companies should be much more liable.
There are many more stabbings worldwide.
people accidentally cut themselves nearly every second.
Also people commit suicide with knives.
The terrorists use knives for beheadings.
If you support or own a knife you are with the terrorists.
A knife never runs out of ammo.
There are even scary tactical knives.
Knives are so dangerous in fact that people put bayonets on the front of a gun to make it even more dangerous.
I say Cutco should be regulated by the government.
they should be forced by the government to pay into a national Band Aid Fund

The government should step in and have all knives be sort of dull.
Anyone caught with a sharpener or whetstone will have a mandatory sentence.

Anyone caught with a knife that can actually slice through anything gets the chair

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:10 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually alcohol has a rich history as far as being essential to life as we know it.

How exactly is it essential? I have drank alcohol maybe 5 times in my life, and never more than 1 glass. Alcohol in whatever form is not something I like. I have actually found it to be very nonessential.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:13 PM
If this happens, does that open up law suits against beer and liquor companies? We can blame him beam for every drinking driving death. More to the point if the story, every place that sells to go adult drinks by a college town. You know that some underage the is going to end up drinking something that was purchased

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:28 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

"Shall not be infringed" is somehow not specific enough for you?

Do you need someone to translate the quoted part for you? I mean, I will.. I just want to know how much I need to dumb this down. I'm not sure how much easier I can make 4 words to understand.

Sorry, people in the past were direct. They weren't as into bull #ting people as much as we are today. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says, there are no other interpretations or hidden meanings.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:01 PM
a reply to: links234

Maybe I am having difficulty communicating...IDK.

That is the story, not the evidence. Did the employee comprehend the intent of the buyer? How do we quantify the degree of comprehension? I wasn't there so I don't know. The "journalism" is so poor in the source, we only get a spin, not facts.

If the employee was fully complicit by any reasonable standard, then he/she would have broken so many laws this would be a slam-dunk criminal matter. Instead, we have a civil trial. Very low bars for evidence as it is simply someone seeking punitive damages. The criminal trial (or that direction) would be mandatory by the county/state/etc as it is a violation of their criminal code. A civil trial is brought to the county/state/etc on behest of someone else seeking reparations. There is nothing mandatory about it.

The last line you quoted is hearsay. It could be accurate, just as likely it is not. I don't know after reading the source.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:07 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

It has nothing to do with what the gun was being used for. The issue is the store admitted they had suspicions the guy was purchasing a firearm for someone else, which is against the law.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:25 PM
a reply to: Bundy

And in the State of Wisconsin an 18 year old cannot purchase a handgun.

What part is tripping you up?

Considering the US Supreme Court just now ruled in 2008/2010 that the 2nd amendment applied to the individual you are going to see these types of laws and court rulings. SCOTUS upheld a Texas state law that prohibits a person who is 18-20 from being able to carry a handgun in public.

SCOTUS has also ruled the Federal government and the states can establish laws governing firearms up to and including the ability to deny gun ownership to certain classifications of individuals (mental / domestic assault / felony convictions / etc) in addition to establishing uniform criteria on the sale / purchase of firearms.

Source info -
* - District of Columbia v Heller - 2008
* - McDonald V City of Chicago - 2010 ruling
* - Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party - Straw Purchase

The other thing people ignore is a restriction on who can purchase a handgun does not automatically preclude the sale of a gun to an individual. As was stated earlier the law allows for minors to possess long rifles for hunting etc. If a law was passed that ignores the 2nd amendment then you would have a valid argument. If an individual wants a fully automatic weapon and finds out state law does not allow the sale of that type of weapon his rights are not violated. He can still purchase a weapon, just not one that has full auto capability.

Since the restriction is on certain types of weapons its not a violation.

edit on 14-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:33 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for a list of violations of the 2nd amendment.

Shall not be infringed.

That's it. Notice how my argument doesn't need source info or any other laws defining it. It is what it is, you're supporting violating the second amendment just say it. You technically have, it's just taking forever and you're never calling it what it is.

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 08:49 PM
a reply to: Bundy

Ignorance is a choice.

Its not a violation of the 2nd amendment and ignoring the Constitution on your part doesn't make the restrictions unconstitutional.

Let me give you another example -
People complain that an airport security checkpoint is a violation of the 4th amendment (which its not). What they fail to understand is travel, inside a state or across state lines, is constitutionally protected.

The method of transportation is not protected. You aren't required to fly. You can walk, drive, take a taxi, hire a private jet, take a bus etc etc.

So yes, you need sources to help you understand the constitutional argument behind it and how it applies. Maybe you can answer this question for me reference the 2nd amendment and the manner in which you choose to interpret it -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Point out where it defines the word "arms".
Point out where it defines age of ownership.
Point out where it says full auto is permissible.

As I stated before anything not specifically spelled out in the constitution is reserved to the States.

For those who wish to learn -
2nd Amendment US Constitution

On the right side of the page you will find links to various legislation and court rulings on this topic. telling an 18 year old he cannot buy a handgun is not violating anything. The 18 year old is free to buy another type of gun.
edit on 14-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 05:48 AM
a reply to: radarloveguy

I don't think the SHOP should be liable, or even the person that sold it.

That should go on the person that did the shooting.

That being said:

1. the person doing the sell should be prosecuted for selling it and if proven that he knew the details he should be given the stiffest penalty.

2. The person that bought it and gave it also needs to be prosecuted.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:31 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

That could be argued. Same as the drinking age of 21 in many ways.

18 has been long established as the age of adulthood in the US.
- When you can legally sign a contract
- When you can vote.
- When you may join the military without parental agreement.
- When you can marry without parental agreement.
- When you are charge as an adult for a crime without special issue.

21 for drinking and handguns flys in the face of this. I'm surprised no one has sued over this yet.

When the voting age was set by 26th, it also set the age that the Constitution sees as being of age.

Also the wording of the 2nd does not set an age limit, and in reality it can not. The "shall not infringe" means that ANY citizen of ANY age has this right. Historically age was not a consideration of owning/using any firearm. Until the age of adulthood you followed the rules of your father. If he said it was ok for you to have a firearm then it was ok.

Currently there are NO federal laws restricting me from buying and allowing my children to use a long arm, and very few state laws.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:49 AM
Well, for the sake of balance, everything I've seen so far on this case does appear to show a 'pattern of behavior' by the shop in question.

The 4473 form for the particular firearm which was used in this case has numerous strikeouts and corrections. This should have resulted in (minimally) a new 4473 being filled out, or the sale being denied.

As a strong supporter of the RTKBA, it is my opinion that shops like these who put $$$ profits ahead of common sense and welfare of others are one of the things which give guns and gun owners a bad name. The old saying "a bad apple spoils the bunch" really does apply here (again, in my opinion).

If the ruling stands (which appears unlikely) the shop will not be able to pay the award. One can hope the shop will be replaced with another which does use common sense and follows applicable laws.

I have little sympathy for businesses which contribute to the problem and not the solution solely for the sake of profits without regard to the larger issue.

My .02
edit on 10/15/2015 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:37 AM
I did some reading on this. Federal law states that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer with a Federal Firearms License. Wisconsin law states that an 18 year old can own a handgun. Wisconsin law allows handguns to be sold between individuals.

So if I take my 18 year old son to the gun shop to pick out a pistol for his Christmas gift, buy it and give it to him I am legal under Wisconsin law, but illegal under Federal law.

If I let my 18 year old pick a pistol out of a catalog and go buy it for him for a Christmas gift and give it to him. I'm covered under Wisconsin law, but, violate Federal law.

If I go to a flea market and buy the same pistol from an individual and give it to my son, I'm good under Wisconsin and Federal law, but, the individual that I buy the pistol from may be violating Federal law.

Technically Federal law prevents me from selling or giving a handgun to anyone because of that box on the form about transferring ownership.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:24 AM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You've pretty much summed up my feelings on this case. If the allegations are true, and that the dealer had ample reason to suspect that the buyer was making a straw purchase, then I have no issue with this ruling. As you say, its the bad ones that ruin it for everyone else.

Otherwise, I expect that the ruling will stand on appeal. If it can be proven that the dealer neglected to perform its legal due diligence on the matter, the PLCAA probably isn't going to apply to them.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: JIMC5499


Just purchase the weapon and let him sign for it and pick it up.

No laws broken.

From what I gathered the only illegal part in your post is someone under 18 buying a weapon but they can own one.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:37 PM
a reply to: radarloveguy

It won't go anywhere if the dealer did not know the persons intent to give the gun to someone else.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:56 PM

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: radarloveguy

It won't go anywhere if the dealer did not know the persons
intent to give the gun to someone else.

The purchaser is serving two years for knowingly buying the gun
for someone else.
That 'someone else' is serving eighty years for the shooting.

The gun store had security cameras that make it obvious ,
the gun was purchased by a 'straw buyer'.

Case closed . Plaintiffs awarded damages .... justice served.

Remember , your rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES ,
...and they need insurance cover .

Again , I think all guns should carry third party insurance ,
to compensate victims of crime . With so many guns in America,
the cost per gun would be small , and could cover crimes where
the gun identity is unknown etc.
Obviously gang participant related shootouts would not be covered,
but bystanders would be.
A no-claim discount could apply to guns after a qualifying period.
Remote location discounts etc etc,

This would cover for example , the juvenile who shoots the next
door neighbours child ....
... and the person shot in a drive off road rage attack .
.. or the victims of a college rampage !

Unlike many other types of insurance,
CTP ( compulsory third party ) provides unlimited indemnity
to the insured.
Benefits paid to the injured party depend on
the extent of the injuries and can include the cost of ambulance,
hospital and medical treatment, rehabilitation, loss of income
and long-term care. Limits may apply with respect to loss of
income (the upper limit being three times average weekly
earnings per week) and limits may apply in certain circumstances
regarding the payment of legal costs.

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: dismanrc

Uhm no. When the 26th established voting age it established solely for voting age and its not used as a guide. What occurs at the Federal level applies to those individuals who fall within the federal judicial jurisdiction (violation of federal laws). Federal Law also establishes 18 years old as an adult. The state I live in classifies adults in 2 separate categories - Criminal and civil.

* - Under Criminal law a person is considered an adult at the age of 17.
* - Under civil law a person is considered an adult at the age of 18.

Drinking age - 21 established by the feds.
* - In reality each state can decide for themselves what their drinking age will be and there is nothing the federal government can do to stop it. If a state lowers the drinking age the Federal government recourse would be to suspend all federal highway funds going to that state. This is something Louisiana has been looking into.

2nd amendment argument -
in the case of the op the 18 year old had no rights violated. He was still able to purchase firearms in the state of Wisconsin, just not the hand gun he wanted. The very fact that he could still purchase a firearm at the age of 18 in Wisconsin demonstrates his 2nd amendment was not infringed on.

It would be no different than a person walking into a gas station with no shoes or shirt. The business can refuse service to that customer. That customer can go to another gas station and get what he needs while wearing no shoes or shirt.

An infringement would be where a person is incapable of acquiring a firearm period because of state / federal action.

Long rifles are a separate category than hand guns when it comes to federal and state law. Also while the law says you must be 21 years old to drink alcohol a parent can give their child alcohol on their own property without violating the law (provided the kid doesn't die / get sick, where you can run into child endangerment issues, just as a parent can run into the same by acting in an irresponsible manner with their guns and their children).

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:04 PM
a reply to: dismanrc

The shop is being held liable for negligence in selling the handgun as a straw purchase. The store had suspicions the guy buying the gun was in fact buying it for someone else. They stated the application form had cross outs among other red flags. When those things occurred, the store should have done more investigating the situation before approving the sale. By failing to do that an individual violated federal law by approving the sale (Federal law will apply because it regulates the firearm sector when it comes to purchasing / FFL's).

The store is not being held liable for the shooting itself. Its being held liable for failing to adhere to the law, which resulted in a person obtaining a firearm they otherwise could not have legally purchased.

The question is -
Did this gun shop, by failing to do their due diligence, contribute to the situation through negligence.

The jury said yes.

As with any private business, they can refuse service to anyone. Even more so when that service violates state or federal law.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in