Milwaukee gun shop must pay ~$6 million to cops wounded by gun bought there

[Kirk Freeman]

The concept of prohibiting "straw purchases" is unconstitutional, because the concept of "prohibited persons" is unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural and civil right that is constitutionally protected against infringement.

You're going to lose that argument in court.

 

[chipbennett]

Based on what I've seen / heard, the case looks legit. It could be a positive - shows that enforcing existing laws can help. Might make shops think twice about straw purchases.

If the case is legit, where is the arrest, prosecution, and conviction for unlawfully, knowingly selling to a straw purchaser?

 

[chipbennett]

You're going to lose that argument in court.

Understood. The courts are wrong, though.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

1. How do you legislate straw purchases to make them impossible (without overdoing it, which is what they'll probably aim for)?

2. Aside from "prior knowledge" from the buyer about the recipient... wouldn't any legislation to "prevent" straw purchases also make gifting guns illegal? Or would UBC be the method of fixing that?


I don't think you can prevent/ban judgement calls. Current methods to fix this seem like they have to be done in good faith, and can't actually be verified.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Even before the concept of "straw purchase", this would have been a tort.

You cannot sell guns that will have a high probability of falling into the hands of mental defectives, drunkards, or the criminally prone, even before the creation of "prohibited persons".

 

[Kirk Freeman]

1. How do you legislate straw purchases to make them impossible?

They are not impossible, just illegal.

2. Aside from "prior knowledge" from the buyer about the recipient... wouldn't any legislation to "prevent" straw purchases also make gifting guns illegal? Or would UBC be the method of fixing that?

Gift != straw purchase.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

They are not impossible, just illegal.



Gift != straw purchase.

I know these things... but as far as the government trying to stop them... is it even possible to do it without punishing law-abiding people

 

[chipbennett]

You cannot sell guns that will have a high probability of falling into the hands of mental defectives, drunkards, or the criminally prone, even before the creation of "prohibited persons".

How do you prove that the seller knew that the purchaser was a "mental defective", "drunkard", or "criminally prone"?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well did they do something wrong/illegal by/in supplying the shooters with the guns used in the crime?

You have a link to anything?

Edit: Looks like they encouraged a straw purchase... So they did do something wrong but 6 million is a lot of money. You'd think there would be some other form of discipline. It'll knock them out of business surely.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ops-wounded-gun-bought-there.html#post6123737

another thread just got going on this too

I get the feeling that was the entire point of such a huge judgement. At that amount, it pretty much rules out a liability insurance payout saving their bacon and allowing them to stay in business.

 

[Leo]

Only the gun shop is being sued.



Well, no one said that the shop used the firearms against the officers. But you can be negligent for allowing a firearm to fall into the hands of a criminal.



I don't foresee this case going up to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.



I think you overstate the impact of the jury's finding.

I cannot argue with your opinions, as I am not in the legal profession. I do think this will not be the last we hear of this case, and I predict it will not be positive for the Constitution, esp. the 2nd amendment. I hope I am wrong. I will gladly accept an "I told you so" for that matter.

Can you comment on the court findings when Gary, Indiana wanted to sue the gunshops in Merrillville and Griffith?

 

[HoughMade]

There is a similar case pending in Indiana.

This is a bad precedent, conceptually, if not legally. The best idea may be to pay the judgment and not appeal. If they appeal arguing something like the intervening criminal actions of another, they risk making bad precedent that will extend beyond the facts of his case.

Based upon the names of the attorneys involved, I can tell you that the heavy hitters of the Brady Center and the NSSF were involved in this case as they are in the Indiana case. This is not a novel case, but part of a national strategy.

 

[T.Lex]

Bad cases make bad precedent.

This is a lesson to gun stores to be REASONABLE. If it looks like a straw purchase, stop the transaction and forego the 10% margin (or whatever number people are claiming nowadays). It. Is. Not. Worth. It.

The shop should do us all a favor and get out of the business. They aren't doing it right. At any level.

 

[danielocean03]

Bad cases make bad precedent.

This is a lesson to gun stores to be REASONABLE. If it looks like a straw purchase, stop the transaction and forego the 10% margin (or whatever number people are claiming nowadays). It. Is. Not. Worth. It.

The shop should do us all a favor and get out of the business. They aren't doing it right. At any level.

Excellent post, I agree completely.

 

[cbhausen]

The pile of excrement masquerading as the human being named Julius Burton bears far more responsibility than Badger Guns. That having been said, this P.O.S. could and would have illegally acquired a weapon without a gun shop's help. More fuel for the antis.

 

[T.Lex]

The pile of excrement masquerading as the human being named Julius Burton bears far more responsibility than Badger Guns. That having been said, this P.O.S. could and would have illegally acquired a weapon without a gun shop's help. More fuel for the antis.

Absolutely true. But the shop owner would have been better off - morally and legally - to say, "Good luck finding the gun you want elsewhere."

There is an educational component to this, too. Gun shop owners need to understand what is and what isn't a red flag (sorry to bring color into this).

 

[calcot7]

You're going to lose that argument in court.

Yes, but not because it is untrue.

 

[LP1]

How do you prove that the seller knew that the purchaser was a "mental defective", "drunkard", or "criminally prone"?

See if they have a profile on INGO and read their posts.

 

[DragonGunner]

Bad news, and sounds like they were in the wrong and did us all a bad service, but like what was said, the criminal still would of got a gun somewhere and same thing would of happened, and 6 million is a lot. What about the guy in law enforcement who in Ft. Wayne took a gun that was suppose to of been destroyed, a Python I believe and stole it, then his son stole it from him and killed a cop with it…..think all he got was fired from the force……? Fair…..?

 

[foszoe]

See if they have a profile on INGO and read their posts.

I'll second this. I read up on folks posts... I did go out on a limb once....with a Mr. Churchmouse, but I came out unscathed.

 

[Lucas156]

So I guess when I get in an accident I'll blame the dealer I bought my car from. This is some ****ed up logic in today's society. Wow we really are headed in a bad direction here.