It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: alienjuggalo
So if I take my emplyees out to lunch as they get food poisoning and die...I am going to be held directly responsible?
Maybe a work comp claim...but legally?
Unless the gun shop sold the firearms with explicit intent to use to kill LEOs, I vail to see responsibility on behalf of the legal tranaction from the guun shop.
Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury's foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn't train workers, didn't have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn't even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.
In the Badger Guns case, there was video showing the straw purchase. Jurors saw evidence of the buyer struggling with the forms, and the man who shot the officers pointing to a gun, saying, "That's the one that I want."
originally posted by: lovebeck
What about all the other guns sold by this store used in crimes? Can THOSE individuals also sue for negligence if they were harmed by an "illegal" sale? Or is this just because it is two police officers that were harmed? Is the average Joe also able to sue and be compensated, I wonder??
Crazy times we are living in, that is for sure...
What about all the other guns sold by this store used in crimes?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80
There was testimony in court that the shop didn't train employees including the one that made the sale, had no policies in place regarding the purchase of firearms, was either unaware or noncompliant with federal regulations, and some other stuff. There was also testimony that the guy who purchased the firearm had to look up information on his phone, was visibly nervous and agitated, couldn't recall basic information for the application, etc. The testimony made it sound like a reasonable, trained employee would have had suspicion of the nature of the purchase.
So essentially Badger Guns finally got their ass handed to them for not training people and not being compliant with firearms purchasing laws.
In general I don't care for this kind of verdict, just as I don't care for holding a legal gun owner liable for what happens with his/her weapon if it's stolen. But Badger seems to have thrown up a building, stuffed it with firearms, and sold them to anybody who could hold a pen.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey
According to documents filed with the suit, the employee making the transaction noticed the buyer had ticked off the box saying the gun wasn't for him. Instead of taking that as a red flag, along with all the other corrections made by the buyer including simple things like his address, the employee had him change the form to state the gun was for him.
Seems pretty negligent to me.
Authorities have said more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes had been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors, making it the "No. 1 crime gun dealer in America," according to a 2005 charging document from an unrelated case.