Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Gun store found liable in cop shooting 0:33
One of the nation's biggest sellers of crime-linked guns was found liable for negligence Tuesday in the case of two Milwaukee officers wounded by one of the shop's firearms.
Jurors in Milwaukee County have ordered Badger Guns to pay almost $6 million to Officer Bryan Norberg and now-retired Officer Graham Kunisch, who were both shot in the face while in the line of duty in 2009.
Related: Closing Arguments Made in Trial of Gun Shop Over Cops' Wounds
The two officers sued for negligence, alleging that the West Milwaukee gun shop should have known that the gun eventually used in the shooting was initially sold as part of a "straw" purchase. In those cases, someone buys the gun on behalf of someone else who is not legally permitted to purchase a gun.
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Jury Finds Gun Store Liable in Milwaukee Police Shooting 1:05
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.
Kunisch himself was shot several times by a gun-toting bicyclist in a 2009 attack, losing an eye and suffering a brain injury. He had to retire from the police department, he said.
Jurors on Tuesday ordered Badger to pay him $3.6 million, Norberg $1.5 million, plus another $730,000 in punitive damages.
The case has been a rare trial pitting law enforcement against a gun seller, and has been in the public spotlight after Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton mentioned it on the campaign trail as part of her call for gun reform.
An attorney for the two officers said Tuesday that he hopes the case can change the way guns are sold in straw purchases.
"I would hope so. That might be asking for too much," attorney Patrick Dunphy said after the trial concluded. "One verdict in Milwaukee is a good step. Time will tell."
Apparently this store is well known to authorities. With Many Criminals testifying that they got their guns there, with help from the store owner on how to properly fill out the form .
Aswell with nearly 600 of the guns used in shootings since 2005 in milwakee directly linked to them.
I thought this was about guns shooting badgers as ammunition. Then I thought it might be about the Battle of Badger Mountain. I am disappoint.
To the topic-sounds like a good verdict to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/05 21:39:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Sounds like it was a good verdict. The sellers known, or ought to have known, that they were facilitating straw purchases and had habitually done so in violation of the law.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sounds like it was a good verdict. The sellers known, or ought to have known, that they were facilitating straw purchases and had habitually done so in violation of the law.
The one thing that seems somewhat odd to me is, if the authorities knew what was going on, was there anything they could have done to actually shut down the shop?
I suppose that if they couldn't get the legal means to shut them down, then perhaps a large enough civil suit would do the trick.
Short of the person walking into the store with the minor/felon standing right next to them picking the weapon out, how could the shop possibly know that the weapon was going to be part of a straw purchase?
The number of incidents at this particular store were ludicrous, but in general, straw purchases are not usually obvious. I think in this case they are getting what they deserve after several decades of essentially condoning illegal activities for the sake of profits, but I don't think shops that sell guns and go through all the proper paperwork and conduct background checks should carry any responsibility in what that person uses the purchased weapon for.
You wouldn't fine the car dealership if someone drove off the lot in a brand new F250 and smashed it into a bus full of nuns a week later, nor would you fine a department store if someone bought a cutlery knife set and murdered their family with them. Again, this case is pretty clear cut, and they have numerous pieces of evidence to substantiate their claims, but I hope this doesn't set a precedent of allowing the blame to be shifted to gun shops.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Short of the person walking into the store with the minor/felon standing right next to them picking the weapon out, how could the shop possibly know that the weapon was going to be part of a straw purchase?
The number of incidents at this particular store were ludicrous, but in general, straw purchases are not usually obvious. I think in this case they are getting what they deserve after several decades of essentially condoning illegal activities for the sake of profits, but I don't think shops that sell guns and go through all the proper paperwork and conduct background checks should carry any responsibility in what that person uses the purchased weapon for.
You wouldn't fine the car dealership if someone drove off the lot in a brand new F250 and smashed it into a bus full of nuns a week later, nor would you fine a department store if someone bought a cutlery knife set and murdered their family with them. Again, this case is pretty clear cut, and they have numerous pieces of evidence to substantiate their claims, but I hope this doesn't set a precedent of allowing the blame to be shifted to gun shops.
but we did fine the tobacco companies many times for selling a harmful product and lying about how harmful it is.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Short of the person walking into the store with the minor/felon standing right next to them picking the weapon out, how could the shop possibly know that the weapon was going to be part of a straw purchase?
The number of incidents at this particular store were ludicrous, but in general, straw purchases are not usually obvious. I think in this case they are getting what they deserve after several decades of essentially condoning illegal activities for the sake of profits, but I don't think shops that sell guns and go through all the proper paperwork and conduct background checks should carry any responsibility in what that person uses the purchased weapon for.
You wouldn't fine the car dealership if someone drove off the lot in a brand new F250 and smashed it into a bus full of nuns a week later, nor would you fine a department store if someone bought a cutlery knife set and murdered their family with them. Again, this case is pretty clear cut, and they have numerous pieces of evidence to substantiate their claims, but I hope this doesn't set a precedent of allowing the blame to be shifted to gun shops.
but we did fine the tobacco companies many times for selling a harmful product and lying about how harmful it is.
And how is that relevant?
Are gun manufacturers lying about how dangerous guns are?
Did the stores who sold the cigarettes get fined?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Short of the person walking into the store with the minor/felon standing right next to them picking the weapon out, how could the shop possibly know that the weapon was going to be part of a straw purchase?
The number of incidents at this particular store were ludicrous, but in general, straw purchases are not usually obvious. I think in this case they are getting what they deserve after several decades of essentially condoning illegal activities for the sake of profits, but I don't think shops that sell guns and go through all the proper paperwork and conduct background checks should carry any responsibility in what that person uses the purchased weapon for.
In a lot of cases the signs are evident. Of example;
- Person A goes into the store and asks a lot of questions but he does not seem to understand the questions that he is asking. When being shows the firearms be asks to take a lot of pictures of them and says he'll be back later. Rinse and repeat.
- Person B and Person C come into the store. Person C asks all the questions, selects the firearms to examine, and leads the transaction all the while claiming that the gun is for person B who is standing there looking completely disinterested. When the firearm is chosen by B and it is time to fill out the 4473 form (background check) B makes sure that C is the one to give his details.
Captain Fantastic wrote: You wouldn't fine the car dealership if someone drove off the lot in a brand new F250 and smashed it into a bus full of nuns a week later, nor would you fine a department store if someone bought a cutlery knife set and murdered their family with them. Again, this case is pretty clear cut, and they have numerous pieces of evidence to substantiate their claims, but I hope this doesn't set a precedent of allowing the blame to be shifted to gun shops.
This is what the Protection of Lawful Commerce laws prevents - lawsuits against manufacturers because of the actions of 3rd parties. A Federal Firearms Dealer is not obliged to sell a firearm to someone that he is not comfortable dealing with, and is not legally permitted to sell a firearm to a disqualified person.
Your analogy would be better if you considered that the car dealer was selling a vehicle to someone who was intoxicated. Both cases concern negligence by the seller.
Frazzled wrote: I thought this was about guns shooting badgers as ammunition. Then I thought it might be about the Battle of Badger Mountain. I am disappoint.
To the topic-sounds like a good verdict to me.
I thought it was about guns for culling badgers.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I think this decision is really problematic, actually. I'm not clear how a clear a gun store is supposed to be able to reasonably determine if the person who comes into the store and passes a NICS check is actually going to give that product to someone else afterward; and that's really not a burden we place on any other type of retail establishment either that I am aware of.
A person who works the gun counter at Walmart for minimum wage probably doesn't have the skillset to determine if someone is planning on using the shotgun or rifle they are buying for a crime. Even if they do suspect it, do you refuse to sell something to someone based upon a hunch? Seems like you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit that way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/06 11:16:41
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I would like to read some of the evidence that was brought to trial here, but another source I read suggested that the defendants also counselled people about what information to withhold when completing the 4473.
If true that crosses a pretty significant threshold. Add in the fact that in one year (2005) over 500 of the guns you sold turn up in crime scenes and this reveals a pattern of behaviour that is very different to your WalMart example.
Is it a dangerous precedent? This looks like the application of pre-existing tort law. The defendants at the time they were in business owed a duty of care when carrying out these transactions, and prima facie it appears that they were negligent on an almost industrial scale.
Had it been the case that a criminal omitted critical information on a 4473, that the seller had no reason to believe that the person buying the firearm was prohibited, and that the NICS was passed then I would agree with you.
The case was being closely watched across the country, WISN 12 News investigative reporter Colleen Henry said. It's the first plaintiff's verdict in a series of lawsuits against gun dealers for injury caused by the guns they sell.
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."
In 2005, Congress passed a law to protect manufacturers and dealers from this kind of lawsuit with a few exceptions. That includes sales where the dealer was negligent in making the sale.
This jury said Badger Guns should have recognized this was a shady transaction.
"I want gun dealers to be on notice. They have a responsibility. They have a responsibility to make sure individuals cannot legally possess guns or get their hands on guns,' Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said.
It sounds very close to one of the examples I gave above.
About as pro-gun as they get but from visible evidence I can see no fault in this verdict. Its good they got rid of a bad apple with an obvious track record of being a bad apple.
Didn't get rid of him you say? Most small businesses cannot absorb a $6 million dollar fine and stay in business. Unfortunately they will go bankrupt and the officers will not see a lot of that money. But at least they wont be selling to criminals as it appears they were intentionally doing.
If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM!
Ouze wrote: Even if they do suspect it, do you refuse to sell something to someone based upon a hunch? Seems like you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit that way.
That's exactly what you do, and the law provides for FFL dealers to refuse sales to anyone, for any reason. A lawsuit would go nowhere.
I used to work at a sporting goods store and refused sales to a few people. Of course they get mad and want to see the manager, but usually the other staff then see the behavior and come to the same conclusion.
Frazzled wrote: I thought this was about guns shooting badgers as ammunition. Then I thought it might be about the Battle of Badger Mountain. I am disappoint.
To the topic-sounds like a good verdict to me.
I thought it was about guns for culling badgers.
Way ahead of you.
The latest and greatest in anti badger weaponry. The crew served anti Badger cannon
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I agree they're probably dirty, but this seems like a dangerous precedent. However, I don't know what the jury knew.
I think I'd want to hear what specifically they counseled them on regarding the NICS form.
Evidently they've been shut down several times and just re-open under another relatives name. Find me a better criminal law to shut this stuff down and I will support it with enthusiasm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/06 13:27:03
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Col. Dash wrote: About as pro-gun as they get but from visible evidence I can see no fault in this verdict. Its good they got rid of a bad apple with an obvious track record of being a bad apple.
Didn't get rid of him you say? Most small businesses cannot absorb a $6 million dollar fine and stay in business. Unfortunately they will go bankrupt and the officers will not see a lot of that money. But at least they wont be selling to criminals as it appears they were intentionally doing.
I think the way the media portrayed this (correctly) has led to those of us who are pro-gun being against this store, or at least unwilling to support them. If this had become a case of "evil gubmint trying to take our guns away by shutting down gun store" we'd have had a kickstarter or 3 already started to cover these expenses.
Ouze wrote: Wait, so there was the eventual owner pointing to a gun and saying "that's the one I want" while someone else was filling out the form?
If so, that's.... pretty clear cut.
Pretty much. The only others signs that you need to throw up at that point to give the seller the idea you are a prohibited person is a copy of your felony conviction, restraining orders, drug addiction referrals, and involuntary committal paperwork.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think the way the media portrayed this (correctly) has led to those of us who are pro-gun being against this store, or at least unwilling to support them. If this had become a case of "evil gubmint trying to take our guns away by shutting down gun store" we'd have had a kickstarter or 3 already started to cover these expenses.
No one who is pro-gun should have supported the gun store owners given the evidence of their conduct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/07 00:47:34
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think the way the media portrayed this (correctly) has led to those of us who are pro-gun being against this store, or at least unwilling to support them. If this had become a case of "evil gubmint trying to take our guns away by shutting down gun store" we'd have had a kickstarter or 3 already started to cover these expenses.
No one who is pro-gun should have supported the gun store owners given the evidence of their conduct.
While I agree with that statement, I think you and I both know that if "The Media" ™ had billed this differently, some of the more Westborough-esque gun supporters would be trying to start kick starters and the like.
It's a situation where presenting facts as facts really does help resolve the situation.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While I agree with that statement, I think you and I both know that if "The Media" ™ had billed this differently, some of the more Westborough-esque gun supporters would be trying to start kick starters and the like.
It's a situation where presenting facts as facts really does help resolve the situation.
Certain individuals and groups will always use any firearm related to attack responsible gun owners, and judge them guilty by association. It is imperative that responsible gun owners distance themselves from obviously unconscionable conduct by those in the firearms community.
One Presidential candidate has tried to use the Badger Guns case to show that the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act should be repealed/amended. If anything this case should prove that the law is good as stands. The existing law has provisions to hold negligent FFLs accountable for their actions.
We've refused service to people who ask about buying a gun for someone who cant otherwise buy one, despite having the "Dont Lie for the Other Guy" posters around the store.
Filling out the 4473 incorrectly/lying is a felony. This FFL was an idiot. You dont have to take drastic measures in order to lower your level of liability, what this guy did was negligent bordering on unethical/criminal behavior.
Spacemanvic wrote: We've refused service to people who ask about buying a gun for someone who cant otherwise buy one, despite having the "Dont Lie for the Other Guy" posters around the store.
Filling out the 4473 incorrectly/lying is a felony. This FFL was an idiot. You dont have to take drastic measures in order to lower your level of liability, what this guy did was negligent bordering on unethical/criminal behavior.
I think the whole point was that IT WAS INTENTIONALLY unethical/criminal behavior.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Intentional at least in the sense of deliberately turning a blind eye to the obvious defects of the illegal applications.
Frankly, if a weapon shop owner is too stupid not to notice the discrepancies in illegal applications, perhaps he ought not to be allowed to do the job he is in.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your analogy would be better if you considered that the car dealer was selling a vehicle to someone who was intoxicated. Both cases concern negligence by the seller.
I don't think that there is any law against selling someone a car when they are drunk. You might be able to suggest that the contract is invalid due to the purchaser being drunk and therefore potentially lacking capacity. There is not even any legal requirement (as far as I am aware) to not hand over the keys and give them a cheery wave as they drive off.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Your analogy would be better if you considered that the car dealer was selling a vehicle to someone who was intoxicated. Both cases concern negligence by the seller.
I don't think that there is any law against selling someone a car when they are drunk. You might be able to suggest that the contract is invalid due to the purchaser being drunk and therefore potentially lacking capacity. There is not even any legal requirement (as far as I am aware) to not hand over the keys and give them a cheery wave as they drive off.
Its not illegal for someone who is drunk to own a vehicle. Its only illegal for them to operate one.
As opposed to a felon who is not legally allowed to own a weapon, and its illegal to knowingly sell or purchase a firearm for them.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The one thing that seems somewhat odd to me is, if the authorities knew what was going on, was there anything they could have done to actually shut down the shop?
I suppose that if they couldn't get the legal means to shut them down, then perhaps a large enough civil suit would do the trick.
As some one who has lived in the area my whole life (45 years old) I can tell you this place has been in the news for this as long as I can remember. They get brought up on charges, fined, lose their license, etc. Then they sell the place to another family member change the name and reopen. I think I can recall at least five times the name of the store has changed, but it has always been owned by the same family. This is the first time they have been prosecuted for negligence for the criminal results of one of the guns they sold. Hopefully this will shut them down for good but I doubt it. Also they only mention guns used in Milwaukee, and not all the guns that they have sold that make there way to Chicago. The ones found in Milwaukee are a drop in the bucket compared to their total gun sales.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/09 20:06:03
The one thing that seems somewhat odd to me is, if the authorities knew what was going on, was there anything they could have done to actually shut down the shop?
I suppose that if they couldn't get the legal means to shut them down, then perhaps a large enough civil suit would do the trick.
As some one who has lived in the area my whole life (45 years old) I can tell you this place has been in the news for this as long as I can remember. They get brought up on charges, fined, lose their license, etc. Then they sell the place to another family member change the name and reopen. I think I can recall at least five times the name of the store has changed, but it has always been owned by the same family. This is the first time they have been prosecuted for negligence for the criminal results of one of the guns they sold. Hopefully this will shut them down for good but I doubt it. Also they only mention guns used in Milwaukee, and not all the guns that they have sold that make there way to Chicago. The ones found in Milwaukee are a drop in the bucket compared to their total gun sales.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/09 21:22:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
8000pts.
7000pts.
5000pts.
on the way. 