Posted on Oct 13, 2015
Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers. Thoughts?
7.21K
52
67
7
7
0
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
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article39000663.html
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms Sales
Police
Firearms Sales Police
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
CPL Scott Krause
The difference is negligence, doesn't have to do with shootings or anything, the bad business practices is what they were found guilty of, they did not do their due diligence while selling guns.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 (Join to see) - "If" Car Dealerships had a Legal Responsibility to ensure that the people they sold cars to were not Prohibited from owning them, and the forms they filled out, didn't specifically ask if the Cars were intended for a "Prohibited Person."
This is more akin to Alcohol or Tobacco. If a convenience store sells booze to someone who is underage (illegal act), and that person gets into a collision, you can then go after them, because they violated the law. If they carded the person, and the ID was "good" no foul. If the ID was "bad" it opens up liability.
This is more akin to Alcohol or Tobacco. If a convenience store sells booze to someone who is underage (illegal act), and that person gets into a collision, you can then go after them, because they violated the law. If they carded the person, and the ID was "good" no foul. If the ID was "bad" it opens up liability.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S This dealership (FFL Holder) had been previously investigated for "widespread" issues.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S I've heard in the realm of 500~. The ATF had them on their radar for revocation under one of their previous "incarnations" (previous owner, previous "company," same location). I give a better decription in my response to CPT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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?
Next question is where are the Feds on this case? ATF?
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
I agree. I hate the analogy, but I am going to use it anyway. If a person drives drunk, they face consequences. IF that same person does it repeatedly, they lose their license. Why? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Selling firearms is a privilege, not a right. If these people are constantly violating the rules for selling firearms, they should lose their license, not be allowed to re-open under a new name.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT (Join to see) It looks like the ATF was actually doing "some" due diligence on this, however they have legal and bureaucratic constraints.
The problem you run into is the "Corporate Veil" and how it affects things. This case highlights how "bad players" can manipulate things, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Here is the sequence of events:
1) Father is FFL holder. ATF is going to "revoke" his FFL license.
2) He decides he is going to shut down shop (before revocation). No revocation, no foul.
3) Son applies for own FFL, and opens up shop, at SAME LOCATION. Different company name.
The ATF "can't" consider that. They are different people, and different companies. The location is technically irrelevant. It's just a good spot for a gun store.
Make sense?
CC: PO3 Steven Sherrill
Now, the Judge (Civil Case) CAN look at that, and realize there is "shady" things happening.
The problem you run into is the "Corporate Veil" and how it affects things. This case highlights how "bad players" can manipulate things, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Here is the sequence of events:
1) Father is FFL holder. ATF is going to "revoke" his FFL license.
2) He decides he is going to shut down shop (before revocation). No revocation, no foul.
3) Son applies for own FFL, and opens up shop, at SAME LOCATION. Different company name.
The ATF "can't" consider that. They are different people, and different companies. The location is technically irrelevant. It's just a good spot for a gun store.
Make sense?
CC: PO3 Steven Sherrill
Now, the Judge (Civil Case) CAN look at that, and realize there is "shady" things happening.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - CPT (Join to see)
After re-considering this case, I think the civil penalties are going to be more painful than any criminal penalties could be. If the family cared about obeying the law, then they would have prevented the illegal sales. Their unwillingness to deny the sales shows that they are only interested in the money. So by taking mass quantities of money in civil penalties, they are actually being punished in a far more personal manner.
After re-considering this case, I think the civil penalties are going to be more painful than any criminal penalties could be. If the family cared about obeying the law, then they would have prevented the illegal sales. Their unwillingness to deny the sales shows that they are only interested in the money. So by taking mass quantities of money in civil penalties, they are actually being punished in a far more personal manner.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Steven Sherrill I'm a big proponent of "escalating self interest." In this specific case, the Civil Route does that.
I'm not saying that is always the correct action, but if you want to stop someone from doing something, figure out how to hurt them. The wallet is an effective means. If you want someone to do something... figure out what motivates them...
I'm not saying that is always the correct action, but if you want to stop someone from doing something, figure out how to hurt them. The wallet is an effective means. If you want someone to do something... figure out what motivates them...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
1stSgt (Join to see)
I a in Wisconsin and this has been in our news for some time now. According to reports, the gun store owner was a dirtbag.
"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 federal case. A former federal agent has also said the shop had failed take necessary precautions to prevent straw purchases." Pretty much sums it up.
"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 federal case. A former federal agent has also said the shop had failed take necessary precautions to prevent straw purchases." Pretty much sums it up.
(2)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
This is the one I saw from 2010; Badger is fairly infamous even outside Wisconsin:
http://m.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/93866189.html
http://m.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/93866189.html
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SSgt David Tedrow
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I'll need to do some research onto the particulars of this case, but the most common is two (unrelated) people coming into a gun store together. One person makes the decisions, while the other does the paperwork transaction (4473 plus whatever state forms may/may not be required).
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Thanks for sharing your experience and I look forward to hearing your input on this and other FFL issues!
Thanks for sharing your experience and I look forward to hearing your input on this and other FFL issues!
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO1 John Miller - Happy to help. The thing about this case is that it wasn't an isolated instance. There was a "trend" and a massive one (500+) from that particular set of Owners.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Agreed brother. I read the article and noticed that too. If 500+ weapons all from the same FFL have been used by prohibited owners, there is a bigger issue.
Agreed brother. I read the article and noticed that too. If 500+ weapons all from the same FFL have been used by prohibited owners, there is a bigger issue.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
Simple answer: kids.
In this case, the father originally held the FFL; when he lost it, one of his sons picked it up with a "clean slate".
In this case, the father originally held the FFL; when he lost it, one of his sons picked it up with a "clean slate".
(0)
(0)
CW4 Guy Butler
Brushed "post" too soon...
The conspiracy allegation rose out of how the store went from being Badger Outdoors to Badger Guns in 2007.
In 2006, regulators from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recommended revoking Badger Outdoors' license. But there was no revocation.
The players then took on new roles and a new license was issued to Adam Allan, the son of former owner Walter Allan, creating what one federal official called a "clean slate," a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation found. The other owner of Badger Outdoors, Mick Beatovic, said he always planned to retire.
The jury did not hear evidence about that recommended revocation because the owners said they didn't know about it until they read it in the Journal Sentinel.
Heaton Juarez said the jury of eight women and four men wondered if Badger Outdoors was in jeopardy of losing its license when the store changed hands. He said had they known revocation was recommended, they may have found in favor of the officers on that question, too.
Top crime gun sellers
Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade. In 2005, Badger Outdoors was the top seller of crime guns in the nation with 537 such weapons recovered.
Such gun trace data has not been released recently because of a secrecy measure passed by Congress.
Badger Guns' license was revoked by ATF in 2011 but the Jacob Collins transaction was not cited as a violation, so the jury did not hear that the store's license was revoked.
Michael Allan, Walter's other son, now runs a gun store in the same location
http://m.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
The conspiracy allegation rose out of how the store went from being Badger Outdoors to Badger Guns in 2007.
In 2006, regulators from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recommended revoking Badger Outdoors' license. But there was no revocation.
The players then took on new roles and a new license was issued to Adam Allan, the son of former owner Walter Allan, creating what one federal official called a "clean slate," a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation found. The other owner of Badger Outdoors, Mick Beatovic, said he always planned to retire.
The jury did not hear evidence about that recommended revocation because the owners said they didn't know about it until they read it in the Journal Sentinel.
Heaton Juarez said the jury of eight women and four men wondered if Badger Outdoors was in jeopardy of losing its license when the store changed hands. He said had they known revocation was recommended, they may have found in favor of the officers on that question, too.
Top crime gun sellers
Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade. In 2005, Badger Outdoors was the top seller of crime guns in the nation with 537 such weapons recovered.
Such gun trace data has not been released recently because of a secrecy measure passed by Congress.
Badger Guns' license was revoked by ATF in 2011 but the Jacob Collins transaction was not cited as a violation, so the jury did not hear that the store's license was revoked.
Michael Allan, Walter's other son, now runs a gun store in the same location
http://m.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SSgt David Tedrow
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
I hope so! Follow the law - that's pretty clear - if you don't, bad things can happen!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
From the circumstances I've read about this case, I think it is justified.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google