Cops win lawsuit against gun store that could set precedent against the PLCAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
Some have said this may set precedence against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.





ttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/13/wisconsin-gun-shop-ordered-to-pay-millions-to-injured-police-officers/






Wisconsin gun shop ordered to pay nearly $6 million to injured police officers

Associated Press
Published October 13, 2015

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

The ruling came in a negligence lawsuit filed against the store, Badger Guns, by the two officers. The lawsuit alleges the shop allowed an illegal sale despite several warning signs that the gun was being sold to a "straw buyer," or someone who was buying the gun for someone who couldn't legally do so. Jurors sided with the officers, ruling that the store was negligent in selling the gun.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/milwaukee-police-officers-sue-badger-guns-store-owners-negligence/



Milwaukee officers' lawsuit could set gun law precedent

CBS NEWS

Oct 6, 2015 7:01 AM

A trial that could set a gun law precedent resumes Tuesday in Milwaukee, where two police officers shot in the line of duty are suing the owners of a gun store. They claim the owners were negligent in selling the weapon used in the shooting. In opening arguments, the defense argued that gun sellers cannot be held responsible. President George W. Bush signed a law in 2005 that shielded the gun manufacturers and dealers from civil liability resulting from "the misuse of their products by others." "I wouldn't be shocked if there were a jury verdict in this case that favor the plaintiffs. But then the question would be, would that jury verdict hold up on appeal?" Bloomberg Businessweek's senior writer Paul Barrett said.

That law protecting the gun industry from civil suits was passed a decade ago with bipartisan support, reportedly after lobbying from the NRA. In opening arguments, the defense argued that gun sellers cannot be held responsible. President George W. Bush signed a law in 2005 that shielded the gun manufacturers and dealers from civil liability resulting from "the misuse of their products by others." "I wouldn't be shocked if there were a jury verdict in this case that favor the plaintiffs. But then the question would be, would that jury verdict hold up on appeal?" Bloomberg Businessweek's senior writer Paul Barrett said.
 
Last edited:
From usmarine0352_2005:
Some have said this may set precedence. I'm not sure.

The mainstream media source I first hear report it sure wants it to be a precedent, as do all anti-American Lefties.

However, I do not know all the facts and there do seem to have been some real red flags for this particular buyer, who ended up shooting 2 cops.
 
Red flags are like herring, if there is no prosecution by the ATF no crime happened. No crime, no liability.
 
Just because a trial judge does not do their job and ignores a law does not set precedent. Odds are this will not hold up on appeal.
 
BobTheTomato said:
Just because a trial judge does not do their job and ignores a law does not set precedent. Odds are this will not hold up on appeal.

Totally agree. This inane decision will go down in flames. :fire:
 
Badger Guns? Is this the same gun store that we have heard the stories of gross negligence of, year after year for, how many years now?

Or a different one I hope?
 
As I understand the law, it is not intended to protect gun makers and dealers against all suits, only those based on strict liability. That is the doctrine that a product is by nature so dangerous to everyone that a maker or seller is strictly liable for any damage it does, no matter what the circumstances or the actions of the person using it.

The law does not protect makers or sellers against suits resulting from a defective product or negligence/misfeasance in selling the product. Nor does it protect a maker or dealer from liability for his own violation of the law.

The suit was not based on the idea that the product is inherently evil, but on whether the dealer knew the buyer was unsuitable and chose to sell to him anyway. Some dealers take the view that even when they know a customer is not suitable (is obviously drunk or drugged, say, or is personally known by the dealer to be a nut case), or is lying on the 4473, they will sell anyway if the background check comes through clean.

It is about the same as the situation in which a bartender continues to sell drinks to someone already intoxicated, knowing that that person will drive a car. Bars have been held liable in such cases.

The Lawful Commerce Act would not seem to apply here. The left wing, including Bloomberg himself (who influences everything put out on his network of TV and publications) wants to see the law repealed, which is why the writer cites it in such a way that it seems the law should protect the dealer, when it does not and was not intended to.

Jim
 
Badger Guns? Is this the same gun store that we have heard the stories of gross negligence of, year after year for, how many years now?

Or a different one I hope?

Believe it is the same and they changed names but same owners? Not sure as not many "FACTS have been reported yet.
 
From the reporting I heard the purchase was video taped. The actual purchaser (an 18 year old) stood right next to the straw purchaser and gave some direction about the purchase. It's a trial decision, limited to the facts of the case. If similar facts were presented to twelve different jurors they may come to a different conclusion.
 
The store in question is a front for gang activity in Milwaukee.
It's been closed for illegal activity atleast 3 or 4 times, & reopened with another family member's name as the owner.

While I hate to see the liberals win anything, this was a situation that needed to be addressed.

If memory serves me correctly, the last 6 or 7 Milw area LEOs to be shot on duty,
were shot with guns coming from this same store but under several different names.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
Some have said this may set precedence against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act....

  1. The correct term is "precedent." This might seem overly pedantic, but in discussing legal matters precision of language is very important.

  2. A jury verdict does not set precedent. Rulings on matters of law at the trial court level do not set precedent.

  3. It's important to understand the limits of the protections afforded under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (15 USC 7901, et seq). To do so, one must look at the actual law.

    • Under 15 USC 7902:
      (a) In general

      A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court....

    • A "qualified civil liability action" is defined in 15 USC 7903(5):
      (5) Qualified civil liability action

      (A) In generalThe term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—

      (i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

      (ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

      (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

      (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

      (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;​

      (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;

      (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

      (vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18 orchapter 53 of title 26.​

  4. Thus there are circumstances under which a civil liability action against a gun dealer might be pursued.

We have only limited information from the news report, and can only speculate as to whether the plaintiffs properly made their case that the situation is outside the protection of this law. We'll probably have to wait for a ruling from an appellate court.
 
As much as we would like to think that all gun owners and gun dealers are good guys, unfortunately that is not true, and this may be a situation in which a gun dealer does not deserve our support. What is bad, though, is that BATFE apparently failed in its basic job of checking on FFL applicants. They seem to have time to "crack down" on a widow selling her late husband's guns, but are too rushed to check out the names on FFL applications.

Jim
 
^ if that's the case then the joint needs to be shuttered and the owners prosecuted. We talk about needing enforcement of existing laws versus passage of more laws. If the above post is true then we should be cheering any verdict against this store.
 
Hopefully, I get this accurately laid out, but it's from memory based on numerous articles and conversations with officers.

The store was originally named Badger Guns & Outdoor or something like that, and had issues that I can't specify. However, they led to the that owner being about to lose his license. So, it was reorganized as Badger Guns and the new owner and licensee was one of the guy's sons.

Badger Guns also had issues. During a couple year period when these 2 officers were shot, 4 additional Milwaukee Police Officers were also shot with guns that had been sold from Badger Guns. Word on the street was that if you wanted to get a gun, it was easy to have someone buy it for you from Badger Guns. During that same period when these officers were shot, 1800 guns used in crimes throughout the US were traced back to Badger Guns. It was reported that Badger Guns was the largest seller of guns recovered during criminal activity in the entire US.

Due to all this, it looked like Badger Guns was going to lose it's license. So, it was again reorganized and another son of the original owner became the owner and licensee. However, it's now a much tighter operation and you can't even buy a gun there unless you're a "member" of the store. I'm not all that sure what being a member is, but it entails a yearly fee and you get a break on the hourly price of the range.
 
Jim K said:
....What is bad, though, is that BATFE apparently failed in its basic job of checking on FFL applicants...
Apparently Badger Guns has a history of problems.

  • This 2011 story mentions that Badger Guns surrendered its license:
    A West Milwaukee gun shop that sold firearms used to wound Milwaukee police officers and has been a top seller of crime guns is surrendering its license.

    But guns will likely continue to be sold from the location now occupied by Badger Guns on S. 43rd St., on the border with Milwaukee.

    Details of that new gun-dealing operation are not clear, but one possibility is that the brother of the current owner will pull a fresh license and continue an operation with a new name - legal under laws written by Congress that can protect stores that have violations.

    Badger Guns owner Adam Allan said Tuesday he is giving up his license after losing a yearlong battle with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to renew it....

  • And this 2010 letter from Congress Member Gwen Moore suggests that the principals of Badger Guns (and its apparently related companies) were making full use of their available, legal tricks to stay in business:
    ...On January 3rd the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the current licensure status of a gun dealership in my district. In 2006, federal investigators with ATF recommended that the gun dealership license for Badger Outdoors be revoked. Unfortunately, before the process was completed, the owner gave up the store and opened a property management business. His co-owner’s 28 year-old son and former Badger Outdoor employee, Adam Allan, became the business’s new owner despite his lack of business experience. Mr. Allan then took out a new dealership license under the name Badger Guns. He now pays rent to the store’s first owner, and employs his father and former boss as a staffer at Badger Guns.

    Even though the same two principals remain involved in the day-to-day operations of Badger Guns, the revocation process has been halted because ATF claims it cannot use the violations of Badger Outdoors in a case against Badger Guns....

  • According to this 2012 story:
    Federal regulators found numerous serious violations at Badger Guns, prompting them to take the rare step of revoking the gun store's license last year, newly released documents show....

  • Some of the checkered history of the shop is laid out in this recent story:
    Badger Guns was cited for 130 violations of federal gun regulations in the nearly two years before it sold a handgun used to wound two Milwaukee police officers, but the shop owner testified Friday he made no major changes as a result of the violations....
 
Last edited:
I like the part where if you use a gun illegally it's the sellers fault, but if a guy goes face first through a windshield after a night of drinking nobody makes the argument that the bar should pay for the damages.

I find a lot of parallels for how this country views drinking and how we should view guns.
 
The Exile said:
...if a guy goes face first through a windshield after a night of drinking nobody makes the argument that the bar should pay for the damages.....
Wrong. Bars can be, and often are, held liable:
... "dram shop" laws in most states allow victims of drunk driving accidents (or their families) to hold bars and alcohol retailers accountable for the death, injury or other damages caused by an intoxicated customer...In one such case, a New Jersey jury awarded $135 million to the family of a girl paralyzed in 1999 after a drunk driver collided with the car in which she was riding. The drunk driver reportedly had a blood-alcohol concentration that was double the legal limit after leaving a New York Giants football game. It was determined that the concessionaire at Giants' Stadium shared the liability for the victim's serious injury....
 
The CBS evening news last night showed a surveillance video that if reported on correctly sure looked like a possible straw buy. The employee helped the two individuals filling out the paperwork and one was ID'd as the shooter who was at that time reportedly underage. More facts are in order before we jump to any conclusions but if it was illegal with a long history of violations then throw the book at them IMO. If the whole thing is proved a bad LGS using illegal sales tactics then they should be prosecuted by the BATF as well.
 
Frank, thanks for laying out the law. I had a feeling that this wasn't exactly what the news reports have made it out to be.

Was the straw man charged?
Was the straw man in the lawsuit?

I'd really love to hear this. All the talk in last nights Democratic party debate about straw purchasers had me yelling at the TV to just prosecute them under existing laws...
 
There are good and bad gun stores, just like everything else. Some will turn away a guy selling a firearm they suspect is stolen, others gamble and make a lowball purchase offer and hope they don't get a NCIC *stolen* hit.

I've looked at a criminal suspect's driver license photo, then at store managers and said, "You honestly thought THIS guy looked okay?".

For some, the dollar often beats discretion.
 
MEHavey said:
I'm waiting to hear the details of why "the gunshop should have known" this was a straw purchase.

Thank you.

It is entirely possible that the gun store is not shielded by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act based on the details of the transaction. If the gun store acted in a negligent or criminal fashion during the transaction, no protections apply to them.

Unless someone has details of the evidence and testimony presented during the trial, it's a bit premature to assume that a precedent has been set or law ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top