• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun maker & seller settle for $2.5M in Washington area sniper case

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: sward666
Fairly detailed article on Bull's Eye investigations
Lee Boyd Malvo has told investigators he shoplifted the 35-inch-long carbine from the supposedly secure store.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Pretty informative:
n theory, such dealers cannot hide from enforcers. In the early 1990s, the ATF developed indicators, or red flags, that alerted it to gun dealers that might be illegally trafficking in guns.

Bull's Eye displayed every one of these indicators for years:

? Guns stolen from inventory.

? Missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes.

? Having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes.

? Frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers.

? Short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes.

An analysis of records obtained by The Seattle Times through a freedom-of-information lawsuit against the ATF shows that between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by Bull's Eye were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults - a rate the ATF considers alarming.
Click to expand...

"What you have in front of you is a case study in what is wrong with this system," said Jerry Nunziato, a former director of the ATF's National Tracing Center who reviewed Bull's Eye's 283-page file.

"This shop has all of the obvious indicators that something's wrong. When the bureau looked at it and found the problems were true, nothing was done."

Four inspections in five years

On average, the ATF looks at less than 4 percent of dealers in a year. But the agency inspected Borgelt's operation four times in five years - 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002 - and cited it for violations at least 15 times.

"He had a lot of attention," said Richard Van Loan, the ATF regional director for industry operations in Seattle. "The guy wasn't ignored."

But Borgelt is open for business today, even though he can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.
Click to expand...

IMHO the plaintiffs should have sued the store and the ATF for negligent enforcement. That store should have been shut down years ago.
 
its tricky. initially it seems as if the gun manufacturer should not be responsible for the illegal distribution of its firearms. however, this case sends out the message that its the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure its products do not end up in the hands of illegal distributors.

its nice to (hopefully) see manufacturers take a larger role in insuring that its products are not illegally sold.
 
Originally posted by: maziwanka
its tricky. initially it seems as if the gun manufacturer should not be responsible for the illegal distribution of its firearms. however, this case sends out the message that its the manufacturer's responsibility to make sure its products do not end up in the hands of illegal distributors.

its nice to (hopefully) see manufacturers take a larger role in insuring that its products are not illegally sold.
Click to expand...
The only message that Bushmaster's settlement sends out is that it is better to take it up the ass for $500,000 than for $2,000,000.
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The gun was STOLEN & they paid out?

WTF were they thinking.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet they were thinking: "This fvcking bullsh!t is going to cost us a fortune in legal bills, so lets just throw a little cash at it to make it go away."
Click to expand...

I know that, but damn that sets a seriously bad precedent.

If someone steals a Hummer from a car dealership & joyrides through town running over pedestrians nobody would stand for a lawsuit against the dealership or GM.

Fvcking BS.

I need to pick up an AR once the AWB sunsets, it won't be a Bushmaster.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...


I would rather have a Rock River over a Bushmaster ANY day.
 
Originally posted by: cablegod
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The gun was STOLEN & they paid out?

WTF were they thinking.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet they were thinking: "This fvcking bullsh!t is going to cost us a fortune in legal bills, so lets just throw a little cash at it to make it go away."
Click to expand...

I know that, but damn that sets a seriously bad precedent.

If someone steals a Hummer from a car dealership & joyrides through town running over pedestrians nobody would stand for a lawsuit against the dealership or GM.

Fvcking BS.

I need to pick up an AR once the AWB sunsets, it won't be a Bushmaster.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...


I would rather have a Rock River over a Bushmaster ANY day.
Click to expand...

Bushmaster is at the bottom of the totem pole.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: jyates
What did the gun shop do wrong in order to be sued?
Click to expand...

It sounds as though they sold the rifle illegally without a background check. They had something like 238 guns go missing from their store mysteriously, but never reported any to ATF as stolen - it sounds like they were selling them under the table. IIRC they had no documentation of this sale or any background check.
Click to expand...

IMO there are two issues.

1 - The actions of the snipers. Their actions are theirs alone.

2 - How they bought the weapons they used. If they purchased the weapons legally with all the correct paperwork then their is no issue. If they purchased the weapons illegally from a street source. Then their are problems but you aren't going to stop all crime. Just fund LEO's better and maybe cut down some of the access to the weapons. In this case it appears that the gun shop/owners had a history with the ATF of, at a minimum, bad record keeping that should if the laws could be enforced have led to the gun shop losing its license. If as some articles have it Bushmaster knew of the continuing problems and continued supplying product to the problem dealer then they have a certain amount of lack of responsibility. The ATF, NRA, Congress, and we bear some responsibility for not supporting the ATF when they have justifiable reasons to pull a dealers license and close them down.

Maybe, but I doubt it, this will be a kick in the pants for the NRA to get off their anti-gun policy, yes anti-gun policy, and start working with gun control people and Congress to actually create a sensible regulation system.
 
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
For anyone that enters this thread and thinks the "assault weapons" ban was a good idea, you're right. Instead of THIS, you get THIS. Doesn't that second gun just scream, "LOOK AT ME WITH MY FRILLY FURNITURE, DON'T I LOOK ALL SAFE AND CUDDLY TO YOU? YOU CAN THANK BILL CLINTON FOR THIS!"

<---still pissed at Bushmaster and is going to bed.
Click to expand...

Well, you must've been quite tired to completely blame Clinton for the assault weapon ban when, in reality, it was Ronald Regan's lobbying FOR its passage that moved it to pass by the two votes it did pass by.

Among the unforgettable images from Reagan's presidency......are scenes from the March 30, 1981 attempt on his life. That day introduced the world to the bravery of the Secret Service and the law enforcement officers who protect the President. And it forever changed the life of Mr. Reagan's press secretary, James Brady.

John Hinckley's deed left Brady paralyzed - and determined to end America's "no questions asked" firearm policies. Brady and his wife Sarah got behind a proposal that would require criminal background checks for firearm sales through licensed dealers. It later became the Brady Bill.

President Reagan played an instrumental role in passing this landmark legislation. In late March of 1991, ten years after the shooting, Reagan joined his former press secretary at George Washington University Hospital. There, at the very hospital at which both men were treated for their near-fatal wounds, Reagan said " You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law in 1993.

Later, in 1994, Reagan directly lobbied Members of Congress to pass the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed the U.S. House of Representatives 216-214, a margin of just two votes. One of those votes was cast by former Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who credited Reagan?s direct involvement for his "aye" vote. Swett told the Boston Globe, "he made up his mind after being lobbied by the idol of GOP conservatives, President Ronald Reagan."

Reagan also won over the second vote that made the Assault Weapons Ban law. According to Wisconsin's Capital Times, former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI) voted for the assault weapons ban only after a "last-minute plea" from Reagan.

Said the Times: "For Klug...the defining moment came when he received a personal message from former President Ronald Reagan. A handwritten note from Reagan was faxed to Klug, asking the Wisconsin congressman to support the ban. The note said, in part: 'Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.'"
Click to expand...

So, while Congress passed the legislation and Clinton signed it, if it was not for Regan's lobbying hard for its passage, it probably would have died then instead of now.




 
Originally posted by: TheAudit
Originally posted by: cablegod
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
The gun was STOLEN &amp; they paid out?

WTF were they thinking.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet they were thinking: "This fvcking bullsh!t is going to cost us a fortune in legal bills, so lets just throw a little cash at it to make it go away."
Click to expand...

I know that, but damn that sets a seriously bad precedent.

If someone steals a Hummer from a car dealership &amp; joyrides through town running over pedestrians nobody would stand for a lawsuit against the dealership or GM.

Fvcking BS.

I need to pick up an AR once the AWB sunsets, it won't be a Bushmaster.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...


I would rather have a Rock River over a Bushmaster ANY day.
Click to expand...

Bushmaster is at the bottom of the totem pole.
Click to expand...

True, I would have said so, but I didn't want to look like a gun snob to the owners of bushmasters.
 
Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

So, while Congress passed the legislation and Clinton signed it, if it was not for Regan's lobbying hard for its passage, it probably would have died then instead of now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, President Reagan's role in the AWB is well-documented, though conveniently ignored by people looking to further tar and feather President Clinton.

What I wonder, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, is whether President Reagan still had his marbles when he wrote this letter. IIRC he suffered from Alzheimer's more or less throughout the Clinton era.

 
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Way to set a precedent, Bushmaster. :|

Dumbasses.
Click to expand...

Settlements don't establish precedents. Plus, a $500 grand hit to their insurance won't make a blip in their costs, while costly and high profile court drama could. ~$2 million is a low pay out. The insurance companies are the ones getting screwed, but who cares about their bottom line? 🙂
Click to expand...

I do. When their costs go up you and I end up paying more for insurance. You're a dumbass if you don't care about this.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
So what's a good manufacturer since BM sucks?
Click to expand...

Rock River Arms is currently rather popular with the AR crowd right now.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok. Does Colt make a civilian AR?
Click to expand...

I don't think they do anymore, but I am not sure. There are some AR junkies around here who should chime in.
Click to expand...

They used to, I'm not sure if they do currently. That was the best.
Eagle Arms is good.
 
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
So what's a good manufacturer since BM sucks?
Click to expand...

Bushmaster is by no means at the " Bottom of the Totem". Bushmaster produces a quality product. I have owned rifles from both Rock River and Bushmaster and both have performed flawlessly. I would have to give the upper hand to Bushmaster only because of their great customer service and the fact that their rifles come with a stock chrome lined barrel unlike Rock River rifles that come with a cheaper chrome moly barrel.
 
Before everyone gets in a tizzy and decides to boycott Bushmaster, you should read what they have to say about the settlement.
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est

Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company?s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims? families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims? families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group?s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: sward666
Before everyone gets in a tizzy and decides to boycott Bushmaster, you should read what they have to say about the settlement.
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est

Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

<snip>

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims? families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group?s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Wow, I think the hypocritical Brady Group just got bitchslapped.
 
You should also be aware that if you boycott Bushmaster, you will be helping the likes of the Brady Campaign and the VPC accomplish their goals in bringing these suits in the first place - putting manufacturers out of business.

I don't know about you, but I would get up pretty early in the morning if it meant an opportunity to piss in Sarah Brady's corn flakes.

If that's not enough incentive, you will make Baby Jesus cry as well. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: crumpet19

Personally I think Bushmaster paying for the gun shop's illegal distro. of weapons is a crock. Though, it does send a good message to the public.
Click to expand...

The only justification I can see for Bushmaster paying anything at all is the fact that this gun store had several violations in the past. They had lost track of several guns, and couldn't find records for other sales. In that case, I think Bushmaster should have stopped shipping them guns.

I agree that the AWB was a waste of time and money. Like you said, all it did was ban ugly guns.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: mwtgg

Wow, I think the hypocritical Brady Group just got bitchslapped.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the issue of the merits of the Brady Group, how does that correction show that they are hypocritical? It clearly states that Sarah Brady did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

I posted the "correction" because if I posted the first article, I would get the correction slammed in my face. But anyway, no she did NOTHING wrong at all, but she went against anything she 'believes' in. "Guns are bad.... but only for you, my son can have one."

Uhhh? Maybe I'm missing something, enlighten me please.
 
Originally posted by: mwtgg

I posted the "correction" because if I posted the first article, I would get the correction slammed in my face. But anyway, no she did NOTHING wrong at all, but she went against anything she 'believes' in. "Guns are bad.... but only for you, my son can have one."

Uhhh? Maybe I'm missing something, enlighten me please.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Brady Campaign has ever said "guns are bad," or words to that effect. FWIW, I am a gun owner and enthusiast, and agnostic toward the Brady Campaign, but they don't advance banning guns altogether. I don't see how it's hypocritical for Mrs. Brady to buy her son a rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top