Gun shop was found negligent for selling a pistol to a man who shot 2 cops: $5M

[JEDI]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-badger-guns-negligence-lawsuit/index.html

A Milwaukee gun shop was found negligent yesterday for selling a pistol to a man who shot two police officers. The jury awarded the officers a total of $5 million. The officers said personnel at the gun shop, Badger Guns, were negligent because it was obvious another man actually bought the gun for the shooter, who was too young to legally make such a purchase.

It's the second such case to make it to trial since passage of a 2005 federal law granting broad immunity to gun dealers and manufacturers.


never knew they had broad immunity

 

[JulesMaximus]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-badger-guns-negligence-lawsuit/index.html

A Milwaukee gun shop was found negligent yesterday for selling a pistol to a man who shot two police officers. The jury awarded the officers a total of $5 million. The officers said personnel at the gun shop, Badger Guns, were negligent because it was obvious another man actually bought the gun for the shooter, who was too young to legally make such a purchase.

It's the second such case to make it to trial since passage of a 2005 federal law granting broad immunity to gun dealers and manufacturers.


never knew they had broad immunity

Just broads... not dudes.

 

[Kaido]

1. Do something bad
2. Blame it on someone else
3. Profit!

Does this work for food, too? Can I sue McDonalds for making me fat? (let's ignore IIFYM )

 

[clamum]

Well I guess if it was that obvious that it was a straw purchase, then I agree with the ruling.

On the other hand, having gun manufacturers and distributors liable for shooting deaths, like ol' Hillary supports, is fucking asinine.

 

[dabuddha]

How was it obvious? Was the kid hovering around the employee and the purchaser while rubbing his hands and muttering to himself how he was gonna go shoot up some pigs?

 

[John Connor]

On the other hand, having gun manufacturers and distributors liable for shooting deaths, like ol' Hillary supports, is fucking asinine.

^This.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

For those who are interested the complaint and defendants brief for the case are available at:

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/16/court-documents-in-straw-purchase-claim-against-badger-guns/

The complaint (http://www.scribd.com/doc/262088506/Complaint-against-Badger-Guns) is particularly interesting. They asserted a lot of civil counts against Badger Guns. I wonder which of them stuck with the jury.

In any case - the decision is likely to be appealed.

 

[Kaido]

On the other hand, having gun manufacturers and distributors liable for shooting deaths

I'm not for or against guns, but where do we draw the line with liability? Are they going to go after car manufacturers next because someone got in an accident in a 2,000-pound machine going 65 MPH? There are so many guns on the black market already, or people just steal them from their parents (like in the Newtown case)...and like dabuddha said, was it really plainly obvious that they had criminal intent when purchasing the gun?

 

[veri745]

On the other hand, having gun manufacturers and distributors liable for shooting deaths, like ol' Hillary supports, is fucking asinine.

There's a pretty big difference between "liable" and "not immune"

I think it's asinine to hold manufacturer's as liable just for manufacturing, but if they've actually done something illegal or negligent, having immunity is just as asinine

 

[BlitzPuppet]

It's called straw purchasing.

While it can be easy to see that someone else is buying the gun for someone that can't legally own one....how can they prove that this was the case?

 

[Slew Foot]

I'm not for or against guns, but where do we draw the line with liability? Are they going to go after car manufacturers next because someone got in an accident in a 2,000-pound machine going 65 MPH? There are so many guns on the black market already, or people just steal them from their parents (like in the Newtown case)...and like dabuddha said, was it really plainly obvious that they had criminal intent when purchasing the gun?

that idiot actor who died while racing in a porsche, his kid is suing porsche.

 

[Markbnj]

I don't know the back story but if the gun shop knowingly helped someone get around the rules and created a dangerous situation then I don't have an issue with the liability.

 

[DaveSimmons]

How was it obvious? Was the kid hovering around the employee and the purchaser while rubbing his hands and muttering to himself how he was gonna go shoot up some pigs?

In The Friendly Article you'll Read that the kid was in the shop and helped select the gun. There was apparently more than enough evidence to show the shop knew it was a straw purchase.

I'm generally against blaming others for ones own actions, but illegally selling a gun to a minor should make one liable.

 

[notposting]

Haven't looked through the case yet, but as others have mentioned, unless there was something amazingly over the top and obvious, the likelihood of this standing on appeal would be pretty slim.

Same sort of concept as mentioned above - car manufacturers, alcohol producers/bars, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS/WEBHOSTS - all have similar protections. Users are dumb, the provider, assuming they take the appropriate precautions, can't be held responsible. Take that away and watch the economy go backward a century or two.

(Now, did the shop bypass any required checks? Was the shooter there with the buyer, handling the gun and telling him what to buy? Things like that? That would be different. Off to read...)

 

[notposting]

Oh. Well, from the article above, the gun shop owner (they're even on their second shop name and seller license because the first one was so tainted) went with, wasn't me, wasn't there, blah blah.

Also:

Collins entered Badger Guns with Burton, 18, who then picked out the Taurus PT140 he later used to shoot Norberg in the face and fire several rounds into Kunisch, according to the complaint.

Collins then completed an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives transaction form and initially indicated the gun wasn’t for him, which the gun shop employees convinced him to change to indicate he was the buyer, the complaint claims.

 

[dabuddha]

In The Friendly Article you'll Read that the kid was in the shop and helped select the gun. There was apparently more than enough evidence to show the shop knew it was a straw purchase.

I'm generally against blaming others for ones own actions, but illegally selling a gun to a minor should make one liable.

It should make them liable but if all the kid did was help select the gun, that doesn't mean the purchase was made for him.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's called straw purchasing.

While it can be easy to see that someone else is buying the gun for someone that can't legally own one....how can they prove that this was the case?

They make a big deal about the question 11a boxes that were checked, but that's not actually a big deal at all.

My guess is that the jury thinks it's a big deal, though.

It's actually perfectly legal to buy a gun for someone else as a gift. As long as the person can legally own the firearm, and the transfer as a gift is legal. That is not a "straw purchase".

The fact that the "no" box was checked by mistake doesn't necessarily mean anything about the legality of the sale. There is a lot of confusion over the question about being the actual buyer, and I suspect that many people who do not need to answer "no", think they should answer "no".

"Are You The Actual Transferee/Buyer?”

Is the question. If you check "no", that ends the sale.
But here are the instructions for that question:

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),

 

[Genx87]

Well if they helped commit a crime then they should be held liable. Falsifying the federal background check is a crime.

That said the whole incident was another example of police idiocy. It all started over the shooter riding a bike on a sidewalk. There is video of the cops roughing him up on a wall. A series of poor decisions by the cops managed to get themselves nearly killed.

 

[LTC8K6]

Collins then completed an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives transaction form and initially indicated the gun wasn’t for him, which the gun shop employees convinced him to change to indicate he was the buyer, the complaint claims.

That is fairly common in a gun shop, though. People think they should answer "no" because the gun is a gift to a friend or relative.

It's common to have to instruct them that it's correct to answer "yes".

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I'm not for or against guns, but where do we draw the line with liability? Are they going to go after car manufacturers next because someone got in an accident in a 2,000-pound machine going 65 MPH? There are so many guns on the black market already, or people just steal them from their parents (like in the Newtown case)...and like dabuddha said, was it really plainly obvious that they had criminal intent when purchasing the gun?

I think a better comparison would be if someone bought liquor for a minor while the minor was in the store choosing the alcohol and the minor ended up killing someone in a DUI.

 

[shortylickens]

http://media.jrn.com/images/199*217/mjs-burton_-nws_-porter_-1-columbia.jpg

Why did they give him a smartphone but no sleeves?

 

[13Gigatons]

Badger is simply a pipeline directly to crooks. Serve's them right.

 

[blankslate]

The officers said personnel at the gun shop, Badger Guns, were negligent because it was obvious another man actually bought the gun for the shooter, who was too young to legally make such a purchase.

This is the part that sticks out. Straw purchases may be allowed in some states and be illegal in others. So I wonder what evidence the jury has to conclude that the seller knew that it was a straw purchase in Wisconson where it seems that such purchases are indeed illegal.

I doubt that this judgment is broad enough to start suing makers of firearms for deaths involving them.


....

 

[pontifex]

I want to sue restaurants and food makers for making me fat
I want to sue TV companies and tv channels for making me stupid
I want to sue computer manufacturers for allowing a virus ot get on my computer.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Collins entered Badger Guns with Burton, 18, who then picked out the Taurus PT140 he later used to shoot Norberg in the face and fire several rounds into Kunisch, according to the complaint.

Collins then completed an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives transaction form and initially indicated the gun wasn’t for him, which the gun shop employees convinced him to change to indicate he was the buyer, the complaint claims.

If true, that makes all the difference in the world and the shop should certainly be held liable for intentionally abetting a straw purchase. The $64K question is what evidence was there that they did it? They couldn't possibly have been dumb enough to turn in a document to ATF that had the original intent crossed out and the new buyer added in afterwards, could they?