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

a reply to: Xcathdra

Women can vote, unfortunately, for the time being. I'm sure they are working on their Caitlyn Jenner for prostitute campaign as we speak.

Still, by your logic the entire U.S. constitution is nothing more than a bazooka bubblegum cartoon. I wouldn't expect you to try to defend it in any way, you're busy trying to bury it.

Anyone who needs a compendium of accompanying texts to understand ( here we are using understand but actually meaning undermine) the constitution isn't trying to understand it, see my parentheses. I added them just for you.

Good people aren't going to watch those with quick lips try to run this circle around us forever. Some of us see what you are doing.

Wrong. You misunderstand the law. That protects dealers if no laws were broken and no negligence was involved.

In this case it appears negligence was involved even without laws being broken. Again, because you are trying to confuse people: If badger guns broke the law criminal charges would have been filed. They were negligent yes, but no laws were broken. You ARE attempting to obfuscate to change the narrative.

a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: raymundoko

Think what you want.. I have tried to help you out and for whatever reason your gonna go down swinging. It protects dealers / gun shops if the law is broken and the store did everything required for qualified immunity. It prevents the acts of a 3rd party from being held against the gun shops if the shop did everything right.

If a person makes a straw purchase and the store failed to do its job, as in this case, they can be held liable by extension IE they can be held liable for the actions the 3rd party took (in this case shooting 2 police officers).

The law I linked you to flat out states these shops have qualified immunity from civil actions unless the shop has cause to believe a sale is fraudulent and they do noting to stop the sale resulting in injuries / death. That is what occurred in this case and when the guy who bought the guy was charged with making a straw purchase it opened the door. The video and clerk testimony sealed its fate.

Read the law.
Read the definition of qualified immunity and how it applies to this situation.

Police officers have qualified immunity when performing their duties. If an officer violates the law / departmental policies they can lose qualified immunity, opening them up to a lawsuit. Absent the violation an officer who is sued can invoke qualified immunity, usually the moment the paperwork is filed, the quash the action.

The gun shop lost their qualified immunity by selling the firearm in violation of the federal law.


Law - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Section 2 (p3)

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

B(1)

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

Liability -

`(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

In 10 years only 2 civil suits have made it to the courtroom. This incident and one in Alaska, where the store owner won. All other actions have been dismissed based on the qualified immunity. When the guy was convicted of a straw purchase the investigation looked into the stores actions, and as I pointed out the clerk selling the gun had ample evidence the sale was not above board and went ahead with the sale anyways.

The civil action against the store stemmed from the criminal conviction of the straw purchase. Without that conviction the store could have invoked their qualified immunity and this would never had made it past the filing stage.

Im not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine apparently.

a reply to: Bundy

Yup and I pointed out the kid had the option of purchasing a different type of weapon where you only have to be 18 to do so. The simple fact he is still able to buy a weapon does not restrict his 2nd amendment right, no matter how much you wish it did. Secondly State and Federal law (state law for Wisconsin) requires a person to be 21 to purchase a hand gun.

A plain text reading of the Constitution does not work.

Again, you are obviously trying to make it seem this store broke the law. We're criminal charges filed against the store? No. So you ARE trying to confuse the uninformed. Your bias is obvious as well as your intent. Again, and you said it yourself above, if negligence was involved the store is liable. They didn't do everything they could have. That doesn't mean they broke the law. Obfuscate, obfuscate then obfuscate some more. You're doing a poor job of it. If the store broke the law criminal charges would have been filed.

a reply to: Xcathdra