It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

Really? I only saw two guys standing next to each other. What did you see?

Edit: I've been to gun shops with friends who are first time buyers more than a few times. That doesn't indicate they are buying the gun for me. This will go through an appeals process.
edit on 15-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: radarloveguy

Really? I only saw two guys standing next to
each other. What did you see?


Obviously , if that video was used as evidence ,
and I'm assuming it was, the sound was probably
redacted before public release .



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

So you admit you only saw two guys standing next to each other? It was an open session, why would sound be sealed? It will go through an appeals process. The jurors felt sorry for the officers.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
From what I have read about Wisconsin law a person who is 18 years of age or older may possess for transportation provided the hang gun is unloaded and secured. Wisconsin law does not allow a person under the age of 21 to purchase a hand gun.

Wisconsin State Laws - Firearms
edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: radarloveguy

So you admit you only saw two guys standing next to each other?
It was an open session, why would sound be sealed? It will go
through an appeals process. The jurors felt sorry for the officers.


I'm sure that in the court room the sound was ON .
The version we see , the sound is probably 'OFF'.

In the shooters own words ...
"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.

Accused already found guilty in a criminal case ,
case closed , appeal unlikely to succeed ...



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: radarloveguy

What criminal case? This was a civil lawsuit which is why the police officers were allowed to testify. A criminal case could not be brought against the gun shop in 2009 because no laws were broken. I think you are confused about how the US Court system works. That is how I know the video doesn't show or sound like you think it does. Because if it was obvious from sound/video the shop employee and owner would have had criminal charges brought against them.
edit on 15-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

The 18 year old who shot the cops was given 80 years in prison.
The guy who straw purchased the firearm was given 2 years in prison.

What we are seeing now is the conclusion of the civil action.

Criminal actions comes first, civil action comes last.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
No criminal charges were brought against badger...

a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This should highlight a serious need for Leo and atf to work better together.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So by that logic, the entire constitution is null and void. They didn't include parentheses after literally every word to define it for a future race of coddled degenerates who pretend like they need everything spelled out and pretty much understood for them, especially when its something they don't like.

"Define bear arms please", are you 5? This is what I'm talking about above.

Everything you have listed is a perversion of the amendment.

I don't know when they started making people who think like you but i wish it would stop.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
No criminal charges were brought against badger...

a reply to: Xcathdra



As far as I know they are facing only civil action. That doesnt mean the FBI / ATFE arent investigating considering this store apparently has a reputation for ignoring federal law. They could face criminal charges down the road from the Feds.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bundy

The guy did not have his 2nd amendment violated. The 18 year old could have gone and purchased another type of gun, like a rifle, on his own without resorting to violating federal law by pulling a straw purchase.

The violation occurs when the state sets the bar to a level that makes it a defacto ban on being able to obtain a weapon. Washington DC, after they lost the ruling by SCOTUS, established a system for people to get handguns. The process, last I checked, they established is under scrutiny because its taking upwards of over a year for a person to go through the process in order to get the right forms needed and processed. In addition to that the amount of money it takes is up there as well.

At some point the courts are going to review and the outcome is going to be the courts finding DC is using their system as a defacto restriction on the 2nd amendment.

Chicago had an outright ban on handguns.
DC's law went so far as to prescribe how the guns are to be kept in private residences, like not being able to have the gun loaded.

DC and Chicago had some of the most restrictive and ridiculous laws on the books.

The 2nd Amendment is a protection that allows the individual the right to bear arms. Just like your ability to travel inside a state and across state lines is constitutionally protected, the method of travel is not protected, just as the type of firearm is not protected.

If you dont want to go through a TSA checkpoint, find another method of travel. If you cant buy a handgun because of age, then by another type of weapon that is not restricted to being 21 years of age or older.


its not a perversion of the amendment at all. As I have stated in other threads, ignorance is a choice. The right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. The type of gun is not.
edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Incorrect. If the video sound made it obvious there was a straw buyer criminal charges would have been filed immediately.

Edit: Unless I am confused and straw buyers are legal in this state? I assumed it is illegal on a federal level.
edit on 16-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

uhm no what I said is correct -

Criminal charges were filed against the straw buyer and that came on the heals of the investigation into the shooting of the 2 officers. Once the criminal charges were filed and resolved for the guy who bought the gun and the guy who shot the cops with the gun, the 2 officers filed a civil suit against the gun store for allowing the sale.

The store had suspicions the sale was a straw purchase and instead of denying the purchase they went through with it. A federal law prohibits all straw purchases.

Criminal charges occurred first against the guy who bought the gun and against the guy who used it and once complete the civil case was brought against the gun store by the officers who were shot.
edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: raymundoko

uhm no what I said is correct -


Um, no it isn't. Criminal charges between all parties are separate. While related via degrees of separation, they each have their own chance to break the law and have criminal charges filed.


Criminal charges were filed against the straw buyer and that came on the heals of the investigation into the shooting of the 2 officers. Once the criminal charges were filed and resolved for the guy who bought the gun and the guy who shot the cops with the gun, the 2 officers filed a civil suit against the gun store for allowing the sale.


That is correct.


The store had suspicions the sale was a straw purchase and instead of denying the purchase they went through with it. A federal law prohibits all straw purchases.


That is incorrect. The store claims they did NOT have suspicions and testimony confirms that. If they had been suspicious of that or known that and video/sound evidence proved as much they would be charged criminally. Since they have NOT been charged criminally undoubtedly the DA and Justice Dept did not see evidence of criminal activity.


Criminal charges occurred first against the guy who bought the gun and against the guy who used it and once complete the civil case was brought against the gun store by the officers who were shot.


Yes, and those criminal charges are unrelated to any criminal charges which would have been brought against the store.

If it had been a criminal trial, the officers shot would not have been allowed to testify as they had no bearing on if the store broke laws or not. Because this was a civil trial they were allowed to testify and no doubt they garnered a huge amount of sympathy from the jury.

I am not even sure why you are arguing with me because who/what was I replying to? The OP seems to think this was a criminal trial and I was informing him it wasn't. His quote:


found guilty in a criminal case, case closed , appeal unlikely to succeed...

edit on 16-10-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Um, no it isn't. Criminal charges between all parties are separate. While related via degrees of separation, they each have their own chance to break the law and have criminal charges filed.


Yup and as I stated the straw purchaser was charged with violating the law and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The guy charged with shooting the cops was sentenced to 80 years in prison. The business lost its license to sell in 2011. Once the 2 guys were convicted on criminal charges the 2 officers filed a civil suit against the store and its owners under the violated federal law where a person can bring a civil suit if they were injured by a weapon obtained through a straw purchase.

Where do you keep getting this separate charge thing?




originally posted by: raymundoko
That is incorrect. The store claims they did NOT have suspicions and testimony confirms that. If they had been suspicious of that or known that and video/sound evidence proved as much they would be charged criminally. Since they have NOT been charged criminally undoubtedly the DA and Justice Dept did not see evidence of criminal activity.


Apparently someone forgot to tell the store then -
Two Officers Were Shot; Wisconsin Store Liable for Gun Sale

The jury found that the store had been seriously negligent in selling the gun when there were signs that the ostensible purchaser was fronting for an 18-year-old who accompanied him to the store.



In instructions to jurors, Judge John J. DiMotto said they must decide whether a “preponderance of evidence” indicated that store employees “believed or had reasonable cause to believe” that Mr. Collins was not buying the weapon for his own use.



Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that many red flags on the day of the purchase should have aroused suspicion and led the store clerk to question Mr. Collins and his hovering friend more aggressively and to refuse the sale.

Mr. Burton was seen in a security videotape helping Mr. Collins choose the Taurus handgun. The two walked outside together briefly when Mr. Collins did not have enough money in his pocket to cover the $414 transaction.

As Mr. Collins struggled with paperwork, he checked on a federal form that he was not buying the gun for himself, then altered the answer when the clerk noted that it was inconsistent with what he had said on the state form.


From the OP source -

On Thursday, October 8th, Badger Guns' owner took the stand to testify.

One of the key lines of questioning during testimony Thursday centered on Adam Allan's ability to recognize a straw buyer, if one were to come into his shop.



Question asked of Adam Allan in court: "You didn't want to sell to straw buyers, right?"



"No one wants to sell to straw buyers, sir," Allan said.

A key line of questioning centered on claims Allan made in a letter to the AFT -- saying he knew how to screen for straw buyers.

Question asked in court: "Was there something specific that the ATF asked you that led you to volunteer that you're comfortable with screening and you have the know-how for screening straw buyers?"

"No. I volunteered that on myself," Allan said.

Question asked in court: "That was just something that popped into your head and you thought 'hey I'll just put that in the letter to the ATF?'"

"Yes," Allan said.

Allan added that his history and background in working in the firearms industry is why he made those statements to the ATF.

"It's an industry thing. I mean, it's something that every FFL (federal firearms licensee) should understand and know," Allan said.


So, again, yes the employee admitted on the stand that the actions of the purchaser raised suspicion, coupled with the video footage. Considering the store owner stated he knows how to recognize a straw purchase...

If the employees are not properly trained then its negligence.
If the employees are trained and ignore the red flags then its negligence.



originally posted by: raymundoko
Yes, and those criminal charges are unrelated to any criminal charges which would have been brought against the store.

If it had been a criminal trial, the officers shot would not have been allowed to testify as they had no bearing on if the store broke laws or not. Because this was a civil trial they were allowed to testify and no doubt they garnered a huge amount of sympathy from the jury.


and as I have stated several times the action against the store was civil and not criminal.



originally posted by: raymundoko
I am not even sure why you are arguing with me because who/what was I replying to? The OP seems to think this was a criminal trial and I was informing him it wasn't.


Im not arguing with you. You seem to be arguing with yourself considering what you seem to be trying to correct me on are my comments that were correct from the start.


My original response to you revolved around your comment criminal charges couldn't be filed in 2009 because no laws were broken. The law was in fact broken however it was not discovered until after the cops were shot and an investigation was conducted.
edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-10-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is a perversion. Your stance on it is not the end all be all.

Long drawn out explanations for simple matters usually means someone's bull #ting someone. Guess who is who?

You've been sold some b.s. and are attempting to sell me. Sorry, no deal goy.

The founding fathers wrote it as it was intended. You're attempting to shut it up with more words. Shame on you.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bundy

Considering he could have purchased another type of firearm pretty much destroys your position. If you are going to take a plain text reading of the Constitution then do you want to explain to minorities they are only 3/5 of a person and that women cant vote?

His rights were not violated, no matter how much you wish it was.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Wrong again. The law was NOT broken by badger as NO CRIMINAL CHARGES were brought against the store. You are attempting to obfuscate the issue. The OP thought this was a criminal trial, it was not. No laws were broken.

Civil trials do not require a law to be broken to go forward.

And you do realize your quote proves what I said right? The store owner did not believe this was a straw purchase.

a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

In this particular case the Federal law dealing with straw purchases is required to be broken in order for the 2 officers to have standing to file the lawsuit in the manner they did. As for the owner you are correct as it was one of his clerks who called out the purchaser and had suspicions it was a fraudulent purchase. Good thing all that training the owner claimed he had to identify straw purchases was never passed on = negligence.

Secondly this was not even close to being the first incident for the gun store.

* - Badger Guns Sued After Milwaukee Cops Shot in the Line of Duty

* - Badger Guns Found Liable for Negligence in Milwaukee Police Shooting

Badger Guns was also previously called Badger Outdoors, and at times was the No. 1 seller of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. — moving 537 guns that were recovered from crime scenes in 2005 alone, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Norberg and Kunisch weren't the only members of the police force injured by a gun bought at Badger: Between 2007 and 2009, six Milwaukee cops were hurt by guns sold by Badger Guns or Badger Outdoors, according to the suit.



Finally in this instance the law is required to be broken in order for the officers to have standing under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Without the violation the business would be immune from civil actions against them. Absent the violation the business has qualified immunity in state and federal courts from civil actions.


Victims wounded with a weapon can pursue civil damages if the seller of a firearm knew, or should have known, that the transaction was illegal, or that it would very likely pose a danger.


Im not trying to obfuscate anything. Just adding information and correcting errors.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join