Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers. Thoughts?

SSgt David Tedrow — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:17:45 -0400

Could this set the bar for further lawsuits against other gun stores that fail to follow the law?

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html

Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers

Jurors order a Wisconsin gun store to pay nearly $6 million to two Milwaukee police officers who were shot and seriously wounded by a gun purchased at the store.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 8:24 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:24:09 -0400

Wow.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 13 at 2015 9:11 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:11:26 -0400

I wonder what tactics the NRA would use to discredit these officers.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 9:39 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:39:34 -0400

Soooooooooooooooo the shooter(s) don't have to pay a dime then?

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 13 at 2015 9:46 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:46:22 -0400

So... If we can't blame the guns for killing, then lets blame the facility that houses the guns and the owners who owns the facility... There is no way that the person could ever be at fault of his own actions enough to fully enforce, without plea bargains, current laws on the books...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 14 at 2015 12:28 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:28:25 -0400

Alright... so before we get too up in arms about this. There is a "chain of events."

1) Cops Arrest "Thug" and get shot. - Crime #1
2) Thug was prohibited from owning firearm. He rolls on "straw purchaser." Straw Purchasing is a FELONY. - Crime #2
3) Investigation into Straw Purchase lead back to Gun Store, which has a "history" of Straw Purchases. They have changed Corporate Names & Businesses (but not owners) X times over the last few years to limit their Personal Liability. - Enter Civil Case

Judge Realizes that Gun Store OWNERS are Sleazy as hell, and are using Corporate veil to protect themselves from criminal activity. Says "Nope" and allows CIVIL CASE to move forward.

What this means is that you have an Accessory Before the Fact, since the Dealer was NOT acting in "good faith" (within the law). This opened them up to Civil Action.

It doesn't mean that the "Thug" wasn't responsible, but it does mean that "through an unlawful act" the store was ALSO "partially responsible" and can be held liable.

Honestly, I can't see fault in this particular case.

Remember, we're dealing with the difference between Civil & Criminal law here. It's like OJ. Different rules.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 7:13 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:13:07 -0400

... so the rabbit chase started all over again ...

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 7:19 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:19:00 -0400

The shop bare no responsibilities for the shooting. Yes they may have break firearms sales law, but that is a whole different issue! Jurors had brainwashed so much ... now if the gun shop break any rules, and that make them liable for the crime committed by the criminal.

Under informed citizens ...

Well ... at least it is by their peers ... sigh ... this is going to be very bad ... eventually.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 14 at 2015 7:30 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:30:15 -0400

This is like blaming the automobile manufacturer for drunk drivers it makes absolutely no sense

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 8:34 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:34:39 -0400

They must have had evidence to support their claim of the owners or operator at the time having knowledge that the person who was purchasing the weapon was a "straw buyer". If the Gun shop was knowingly participating in this type of activity then they deserved to loose this civil suit. Keep in mind the requirement for a civil suit regarding proof is not the same standard as a criminal case.

Next question is where are the Feds on this case? ATF?

Response by SPC Joseph Bagonis made Oct 14 at 2015 8:38 AM

SPC Joseph Bagonis — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:38:49 -0400

I am probsecond amendment and a retired cop. If their not following the laws and someone is injured or killed because of their improper actions they should be sued.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Oct 14 at 2015 9:11 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:11:54 -0400

I hope so! Follow the law - that's pretty clear - if you don't, bad things can happen!

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 14 at 2015 9:24 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:24:36 -0400

SSgt David Tedrow From what I have seen of this so far (I know that the media only shows what suits their agenda), it looked like the guy buying the gun made no effort to hide that he was buying it for the other guy. While I don't agree with the law suit, I do agree that gun sellers, especially in this time of "take all the legal guns away," need to be far more vigilant in who they sell to. It is sad that it has come to this, but when Swillary gets up during the debate and calls out the NRA (an organization that supports the constitutional ownership of firearms) as the enemy, the only way to combat that is extreme vigilance. As a responsibly armed American, I take for granted that every time I am in direct control of a firearm, I am responsible for anything that happens due to that weapon. That means at the range, in the car, in my home, or when I am carrying for personal defense I am responsible for that gun and need to pay attention. I think that is a huge part of the problems we are facing as a nation. Americans love the idea that we are free, but as of late are not interested in taking responsibility for those freedoms. The preamble to the United States Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It starts by stating who is responsible for this nation. It is us. All of us. It is time that we start acting like we are responsible for our freedom.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 14 at 2015 9:25 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:25:25 -0400

The article states that this store was cited by the FBI as a large 'crime dealer', ie a lot of guns sold legally there ended up on the streets in crimes. That said, unless they didn't run the background check, I don't see how they can be held liable.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 14 at 2015 9:30 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:30:55 -0400

So I have a question for the group that is relevant to the discussion. From my understanding of the term, a straw buyer is a person who purchases a firearm solely for another individual. So if I as a parent decide I want to buy my daughter a pistol, would that not fall under that as well? What about buying someone a gun as a gift? I mean come on, who wouldn't like to receive that kind of a gift?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 9:35 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:35:24 -0400

I see this as a valid case and a just settlement. When illegal activity (fraudulent sales) leads directly to another illegal activity (shooting the officers), it creates the liability. Had the gun shop not made an illegal sale, there would be no liability.
I hope the pro-gun lobby and NRA side with the officers in this one.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 14 at 2015 9:43 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:43:09 -0400

Reading more about this, how do they get an FFL? I mean if the Badger Outdoors was forced to close, so the same owners re-branded to Badger Guns, and that has been forced to close, now it is replaced by another entity owned by the same people, why do they still have an FFL? Seems to me that maybe ATF bears some of the responsibility if they continue to allow people who flaunt the laws to sell firearms.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 14 at 2015 9:50 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:50:12 -0400

And how long before Fox News eats this up, or is it just so wrong that they can't even twist it up.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Oct 14 at 2015 6:51 PM

Cpl James Waycasie — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:51:13 -0400

Time for that store to file bankruptcy

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 15 at 2015 3:06 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:06:01 -0400

I am very pro Second Amendment, member of the NRA, and own several LEGAL firearms. All the guns I've ever bought were through FFL holders and I had to fill out a myriad of paperwork. A lot of the questions were "Will this gun be given/sold to a prohibited buyer" type things.

The article also states "several warning signs were in place that it was a straw buyer." It doesn't state what those warning signs were, but I'm sure an experienced FFL should know them (Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS maybe you could fill me on on that?). With that said I do believe the cops were justified in suing the gun shop owners.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 15 at 2015 6:41 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:41:14 -0400

Being held accountable for negligence? That's crazy talk...

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Oct 15 at 2015 11:32 AM

PFC Robert Falk — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:32:31 -0400

So let me get this straight, if this is allowed then if some one get rather sick from food they bought they could sue the store that sold them the food?

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made Oct 15 at 2015 2:14 PM

PO2 Robert Cuminale — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:14:35 -0400

This gun store has 1800 discrepancies on its record and over 400 guns used in crimes had been traced back to it. These folks were way over due for this. The video camera showed the whole transaction with this underage person selecting the gun he wanted and the purchaser filled out the 4473 incorrectly at first. When the clerk saw the error he lead the guy into the correction. He should have dropped it like a hot potato.
This whole idea that people can sue gun stores and gun manufacturers because someone misuses a product they made and sold will lead to product liability suits against every industry and seller. If someone drives up on a sidewalk and kills pedestrians should GM be sued for that? Sue CUTCO because they made the kitchen knife someone used to stab some one? Few manufactures even sell to end users.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Oct 15 at 2015 4:03 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:03:39 -0400

Unless they broke laws by selling the gun in the first place, this case will not stand.
Further reading, yes they sold to straw buyers, to evade federal gun registration and background check laws.

The only issue I see is not with the judgment , but this news source, stating a "legal" gun was sold for $40. The only way a gun is sold at such a price is if it is a stolen gun in the first place. So this shop was actually also a fencing operation in this crime. I take it these guys are members of an Eastern European mafia. they'll never pay,unless they are arrested under RICO before they disappear.

This case will not serve as any precedence for liability of legal gun retailers.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 15 at 2015 10:25 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:25:00 -0400

The question should be if your are the victim would you sue the gun store?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 1:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:11:06 -0400

So if a drunk driver hits and kills my family, I can sue the dealership that sold them the car? Makes perfect sense.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Oct 16 at 2015 4:25 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:25:06 -0400

If I am understanding the whole situation properly then the Gun store should indeed be held accountable. Its employee was performing straw buys for people that could not legally purchase a gun and this employee knew it.
This gun store should be held accountable for every crime that was committed from any weapon that was purchased during a straw buy because again the employee knew he was performing straw purchases.
I know many will disagree but if a shop is knowingly doing illegal transactions how can anyone support them or their behavior?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 16 at 2015 8:24 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:24:43 -0400

Where are all the felony charges against these mutts? One count for each transaction. I see it as a victory for everyone. These are the kids of people that give the anti-gun people the ammunition they fight us with. Hammer them into the ground and make an example of them.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Oct 17 at 2015 2:32 AM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 02:32:00 -0400

Civil lawsuits is one way to go after gun shop owners, especially if over 500 guns used in criminal activity were traced back to one shop. The penalties for 'straw buyers' should be more than just 2 years...unless you work for Fast and Furious Gun Runners.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Oct 17 at 2015 5:21 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:21:05 -0400

From the circumstances I've read about this case, I think it is justified.