If the liberal courts can’t physically take the guns from American citizens, it looks like they’ll try to shut down the gun stores instead.
Jurors ordered a Wisconsin gun store to pay a whopping $6 million on Tuesday at the conclusion of a negligence lawsuit against Badger Guns, a shop in suburban Milwaukee.
The lawsuit said the shop sold a gun that was later used to shoot two officers, after the legal buyer turned around and illegally sold the gun to someone else. It’s called a straw purchase, and the ruling sets precedent that gun shops may be responsible for their customers’ actions.
Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch were both shot after they stopped Julius Burton for riding his bike on the sidewalk in the summer of 2009. Investigators said Burton got the weapon, a Taurus .40-caliber handgun, a month before the confrontation, after giving $40 to another man, Jacob Collins, to make the purchase at the store in West Milwaukee.
Jurors ordered the store to pay Norberg $1.5 million, Kunisch $3.6 million and punitive damages of $730,000 because of Julius Burton’s actions.
Badger Guns, previously known as Badger Outdoors, has since closed.
The officers’ lawyer, Patrick Dunphy, said Tuesday he anticipates years of appeals.
Defense attorneys declined to comment after the verdict was read. The owners and operators of the gun shop weren’t in court to hear the verdict.
The liability issues raised in the case gained national attention when U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently said she would push to repeal a George W. Bush-era gun law that shielded gun stores from such claims.
The gun shop’s attorneys denied wrongdoing. They said the owner of the store at the time of the gun sale, Adam Allan, couldn’t be held financially responsible for crimes connected to a weapon sold at his shop and that the clerk who sold the weapon didn’t intentionally commit a crime. Rather, they said Collins and Burton went out of their way to deceive the salesman.
Burton pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree attempted intentional homicide and is serving an 80-year sentence. Collins, the man who purchased the gun, got a two-year sentence after pleading guilty to making a straw purchase for an underage buyer.
The Associated Press contributed to this story
This will never stand up to an appeal!
Agreed. This is toast on appeal.
This verdict is the result of a liberal hoplophobe judge allowing an obviously flawed lawsuit to go to trial before a jury of 12 morons, knowing that a verdict favorable to the plaintiff would cost the defendants (the gun store) tons of money to appeal, even though federal law specifically prohibits such suits.
I dont think the gun shop owner should have not pay any thing. the law should go after the one that buy a gun for some one that could not buy a gun make them pay.
If the law prevents the gun store from being held liable I’m having trouble understanding how a court could assess the penalties.
The person who made the straw purchase and the shooter should be held liable and forced to pay the damages. The shooter should have been sent to death row and the legal purchaser should have received a life prison sentence for his role in the process. When legal purchasers are held criminally responsible for reselling guns to those unable to purchase one legally then things will change. The original purchaser’s two year sentence was way too light.
I agree with you. This is crazy, blaming the gun shop owner who was clearly deceived. Reminds me of the bar owners selling booze to someone who gets drunk, causes an accident which kills people then the law goes after the bar owner. Crazy world we live in, huh?
what another worthless back-round check,how come they’re not suing the feds for okaying the purchase?
Because Badger Guns was accused of shoddy practices including not training their employees in filling out background forms correctly, and had a history of their guns showing up in crimes. in this case, there were several red flags that it would be a straw purchase, and they were completely ignored. Again, improper training of employees.
Why isn’t Eric Holder in jail for fast and furious.
If the shielding of gun stores is taken away, as per Hillary’s idea, then the shielding of drug manufacturers whose products kill people need to be taken away also. At last count to my recollection, that was about 6 times as many per year as those killled by the use of guns.
Go one step more and go after the elected officials we have that bend the laws to their warped ways of thinking PLEASE VOTE WISELY and many of these problems will go away
The judge’s decision is illegal because the law says the opposite. Another example of the Liberal’s “‘Political Correctness”. What
a SHAME. Another legitimate business forced to close even though the sale was registered and law abiding. Another one of those “You Can Keep Your Doctor” promises.
This story reminds me of the one about the guy suing the phone company for getting hit by a car: when you first hear it, it sounds stupid, but then–as Paul Harvey says– you hear “the rest of the story” and find out the phone booth was unusually close to the street and patrons had complained repeatedly about the door getting stuck (this was back in the 1980’s), and realize the phone company WAS actually responsible.
Same here. Before you all go off about this being a liberal attack on gun owners, you should know that this article has been HEAVILY spin-doctored. The author has COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that “Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade” before the incident that led to the suit. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 (two years after the incident).
Look here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
And if you’re too lazy to do that, here’s the first paragraph:
“Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury’s foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn’t train workers, didn’t have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn’t even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.”
Those are the type of gun store owners who, like the criminals they supply, give a bad name to all the others. I’m a Life Member of the NRA but if those facts are true about the store, glad they are gone.
Even if what you say is true, it still doesn’t remove he fact that the purchasers deliberately deceived the seller.
Furthermore, the federal and state authorities who receive those improperly completed documents should review them and sanction the gun shop or at least reject the paperwork if it is incorrect, no? Suspend their license? Why didn’t they simply suspend the shops federal firearms license? I’m guessing it’s because of the $200 fee and $90 renewal fee.
Shouldn’t those agencies be sued for failure to properly regulate the purchases? IT’S THE SHOP’s GOVERNMENT ISSUED LICENSES WHICH GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE SALES AND PURCHASES IN THE FIRST PLACE/WHICH EVEN QUALIFIED THE PLACE AS A GUN STORE.
Is he still selling Taurus 40 calibers for $40?
You missed that the $40.00 was the fee that the straw purchaser received for buying the gun.
Well, this sets a new precedent ! Now auto dealers can be sued because they sold a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident ! Wow. The lawyers will be happy to hear this ! I need to look into this. I may be able to make some money too ! I lost part of a finger from a table saw. Maybe I can sue the dealer that sold the saw ! 🙂
The fact is, there is no Constitutional guaranty of the right to purchase and own a firearm, as anyone with a fifth grade reading ability should be able to understand. The first part of the 2nd Amendment, the part that sets the conditions as to WHY any person should have a gun — ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state’ — is always blithely ignored by gun proponents. The Colonies had no standing army, and did not want one; they did not trust any Government that had its own army. Therefore, in order to provide for defense of the nascent nation they were trying to establish, the framers of the Constitution provided that every male citizen who had come of age was, by virtue of his citizenship, therefore a member of the state militia, and could be called to muster at any time. And when they reported for duty, they were expected to show up with everything they would need to provide for themselves while in the field, including clothing, shelter, provisions, and, yes, a weapon and ammunition. The fact is, most colonists did not even own a gun. Much of the weaponry that was used in the Revolutionary War was taken from fallen comrades in battle, or pilfered from British troops after ambush raids upon their ranks — a guerrilla technique learned from the native peoples who had already inhabited the area. We have not had a state militia made up of private citizens since the Civil War, when Congress first enacted the military draft, and found it necessary to appropriate funds to establish, mount and equip a standing professional army. Since all gun laws in the country since that time have been based upon strong lobby efforts by groups like the NRA to pay and persuade our law makers to preserve an antiquated notion that no longer serves any practical purpose, any court decisions in either direction regarding gun control is therefore rendered of no value or purpose, other than to perpetuate a myth. The irony is, I never used to really care that much one way or the other about guns per se. I just resent any self-serving group of hypocrites like the NRA trying to shove their point of view down my throat, while pretending to cloak themselves in the Constitution.
Randy-It is plain to see that you have not read any Supreme Court rulings pertaining to guns and who may have them. Nice try. Until the Supreme Court over turns the 2nd Amendment and states that “Unless you are a member of the state militia you will not be able to have a weapon to protect yourself or loved ones” then your are out of luck. Why don’t you come and try to get my weapon from me-slick.
Randy,
I don’t know where you get the idea that there is no 2nd Amendment right to owning a firearm (“The fact is, there is no Constitutional guaranty of the right to purchase and own a firearm,…”). The right of individuals to own, possess and use a firearm was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. That was essentially the base issue for bringing the case.
The Colonies had a standing army when Congress appropriated the money to raise one. The Colonial forces also relied heavily on pre-existing colonial militias to fight the British. The idea that few colonists owned firearms is one being put forth by the left these days, but if you read old historical accounts of the early colonial settlements, you would know that many of the colonists were armed out of necessity to hunt for food and to protect themselves from potential Native American assaults. 10 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section 311 defines the militia as being constituted of two classes: the organized militia (such as the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, composed of the citizens. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311. Some states have or recently have had state militias separate from the National Guard: Ohio, Texas and Florida are three.
Opponents of the 2nd Amendment like to make much of the militia provision, but to the Founders and Framers of the Constitution, it was widely understood and recognized that the people were the militia. The militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is an antecedent clause inferior to the main clause of, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The main clause is at the heart of the meaning of the amendment.
.
So, Randy, when you are confronted by a criminal intent on doing you harm, what will you do, hit him over the head with a copy of the Constitution?
Sorry buddy you are wrong about the 2ed amendment. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Japanese didn’t invade America and the second world war after they bombed Pearl Harbor. The reason they didn’t want to attack the United States was because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass! I’m sorry I don’t remember who said that, I think it was Hirohito. I’m still waiting for all the Wildwest shootings that would happen with the concealed carry law, I wonder if that is because grown people can make wise decisions! And the number of people who have had their CCW revoked are very few.
The fact is, there is no Constitutional guaranty of the right to purchase and own a firearm, as anyone with a fifth grade reading ability should be able to understand. The first part of the 2nd Amendment, the part that sets the conditions as to WHY any person should have a gun — ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state’ — is always blithely ignored by gun proponents. The fact is, we have not had a state militia made up of private citizens since the Civil War, when Congress first enacted the military draft, and then had to appropriate funds to establish, mount and equip a standing professional army. Since all gun laws in the country since that time have been based upon strong lobby efforts by groups like the NRA to pay and persuade our law makers to preserve an antiquated notion that no longer serves any practical purpose, any court decisions in either direction regarding gun control is therefore rendered of no value or purpose, other than to perpetuate a myth. The irony is, I never used to really care that much one way or the other about guns per se. I just resent any self-serving group of hypocrites like the NRA trying to shove their point of view down my throat, while pretending to cloak themselves in the Constitution.
The fact is, there is no Constitutional guaranty of the right to purchase and own a firearm, as anyone with a fifth grade reading ability should be able to understand. The first part of the 2nd Amendment, the part that sets the conditions as to WHY any person should have a gun — ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the preservation of a free state’ — is always blithely ignored by gun proponents. The fact is, we have not had a state militia made up of private citizens since the Civil War, when Congress first enacted the military draft, and then had to appropriate funds to establish, mount and equip a standing professional army. Since all gun laws in the country since that time have been based upon strong lobby efforts by groups like the NRA to pay and persuade our law makers to preserve an antiquated notion that no longer serves any practical purpose, any court decisions in either direction regarding gun control is therefore rendered of no value or purpose, other than to perpetuate a myth. The irony is, I never used to really care that much one way or the other about guns per se. I just resent any self-serving group of hypocrites like the NRA trying to shove their point of view down my throat, while pretending to cloak themselves in the Constitution.
Before you all go off about this being a liberal attack on gun owners, you should know that this article has been HEAVILY spin-doctored. The author has COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that “Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade” before the incident that led to the suit. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 (two years after the incident).
Look here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
And if you’re too lazy to do that, here’s the first paragraph:
“Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury’s foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn’t train workers, didn’t have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn’t even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.”
This story reminds me of the one about the guy suing the phone company for getting hit by a car: when you first hear it, it sounds stupid, but then–as Paul Harvey says– you hear “the rest of the story” and find out the phone booth was unusually close to the street and patrons had complained repeatedly about the door getting stuck (this was back in the 1980’s), and realize the phone company WAS actually responsible.
Same here. Before you all go off about this being a liberal attack on gun owners, you should know that this article has been HEAVILY spin-doctored. The author has COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that “Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade” before the incident that led to the suit. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 (two years after the incident).
Look here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
And if you’re too lazy to do that, here’s the first paragraph:
“Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury’s foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn’t train workers, didn’t have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn’t even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.”
This story reminds me of the one about the guy suing the phone company for getting hit by a car: when you first hear it, it sounds stupid, but then–as Paul Harvey says– you hear “the rest of the story” and find out the phone booth was unusually close to the street and patrons had complained repeatedly about the door getting stuck (this was back in the 1980’s), and realize the phone company WAS actually responsible.
Same here. Before you all go off about this being a liberal attack on gun owners, you should know that this article has been HEAVILY spin-doctored. The author has COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that “Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade” before the incident that led to the suit. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 (two years after the incident).
Look here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/jury-finds-for-wounded-officers-in-badger-guns-lawsuit-b99596217z1-332567372.html
And if you’re too lazy to do that, here’s the first paragraph:
“Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury’s foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn’t train workers, didn’t have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn’t even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms.”
Look, I agree that the penalty in this is far in excess of sane execution of our laws by the courts. One has to also admit the people doing the wrong here are not the ones doing the time, so to speak, but that is the way of the land. It has all been established so that the people who are lawyers will forever and ever, amen, make a good and substantial living. This will be appealed and if not thrown out be far more substantially and fairly concluded. It is our way today, and the creeps like Obama and his criminal Chicago mob will continue to forget we have a constitution in place, that is there to protect us from criminal elements in the government. We shall overcome this black gangster and his attempt to bring ud down from the inside. Lets us all be sure we spend the rest of our lives making this guy pay for his stinking rotten crimes against America.
it’s unconstitutional to hold someone responsible if they sell a gun and then that person sells it someone else who uses it to commit a crime. somebody cannot be held responsible for a crime commitTed by someone they don’t even know or even have any knowledge of a crime taking place. ONLY THE PERSON WHO COMMITS THE CRIME CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.. this is al liberal SCAM LAW to take away people constitutional rights.
I got an idea that means every time a drunk driver kills someone we should be able to sue the car company for building the car and the tire company for making the tires and ban cars and tires LOL typical liberal illogical thinking.
Here is one better the Terry family should be able to sue Erick Holder for allowing the fast and furious sales to the Mexican cartels and then sue Obama for appointing Holder to attorney general that would have prevented Agent Terrey’s death. Liberals will strop at nothing to take our guns away.
If we use this ruling as a precedent, automobile manufactures could be held liable for someone who purchases a car and intentionally runs down someone. These stupid lawsuits have got to stop! You cannot stop someone who plots and plans to do someone harm. They will figure out a way around the laws.
The biggest crime was fast and Furious and obama and holder planned the whole thing along with the DEA and ATF, that got two Americans killed with weapons they allowed to get into Mexico. As a matter of fact, they allowed straw purchases buying weapons to the tune of 2500, assault weapons, grenades, AK-47’s 50mm high profiled weapons, and our Border Patrol agents had their side arms that fired Bean bags, because obama and holder did not want the murder of Cartel members, but they had no problem settling with Blood on their hands from Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata.
The corruption within the obama administration is the worst miscarriage of Justice ever to occur, and there is no stopping the Criminals who are at the Highest levels of our Country. I recommend buying and reading the Book Fast and Furious, written by Katie Pavlich, it will make you sick as you witness the corruption that was allowed, with Eric Holder leading the pack, and obama sitting back denying any involvement.
My Dear Americans, We are going to lose our Country to Communism if the criminals being led by obama are allowed to continue with their Lawlessness and corruption.
If they can charge a person owning a store for someone’s death because that person buying the product, sold it to someone else. Then if I sell my car to you, and you kill someone with it, am I responsible for selling the car as a car Dealer to you who sells it to someone who uses it to kill someone? What the HELL has happened to us? Hillary you are a joke in my opinion.