Remember that line in Breaking Bad where Jesse and Walt go to see “Better Call Saul” and Jesse advises Walt “sometimes you need a criminal lawyer. I mean a CRIMINAL lawyer.” The same is true for gun stores- sometimes you need a criminal gun store and Badger Guns is the No. 1 crime gun dealer in America.
Future criminal Julius Barton, 18, needed a gun but was too young to buy one. So he just got a 21 year old friend to accompany him to Badger Gun Shop in Wisconsin to buy the piece. Burton pointed to a semi –automatic and told the clerk “that’s the one I want.” The clerk then showed the of-age friend how to fill out the buyer form to list the friend as the buyer. A month later Burton shot two police officers with the gun. Well, you can’t blame the gun store for this, can you? I say…yes. The two police officer have sued Badger Gun Shop for making a sale that the shop knew, or should have known (c’mon on –they knew) was illegal. The case went to the jury Monday. I love this. The straw man purchaser problem is a huge loophole in our “gun safety” laws. (We ‘re not calling them “gun control” laws anymore- that riles the Second Amendment cowboys too much). If the jury will hold this gun shop liable, then there will be a wave of new lawsuits against gun shops, and maybe we can put them out of business and open a location for a less odious business, like an adult book store, or a Planned Parenthood clinic. At the very least, gun shops will have to pay big bucks for liability insurance and will raise the prices they charge for guns, so we can at least discourage young buyers who lack the dough. The plaintiffs seek 7.6 million. And how about punitive damage….Yes, come on jury...one-off because the jury had to be very sympathetic to the plaintiffs - cops who were shot in the face. It will also be appealed and the jury award will probably be reduced (assuming it stands at all).
-- Modified on 10/13/2015 10:58:07 PM
Why is that so important? Because the gun shop's liability insurance will not cover that and the gun shop owners will have to pay themselves. Yay.
One off? I think not. If you root this verdict in sympathy for the police officers, wait till you see how much sympathy a gun shop has the next time it makes an illegal sale to a mass shooter.
Verdict reduced? Maybe the punitive damages award, although the ratio is pretty good here. But the officers suffered big medical bills, permanent injury and disfigurement, and loss of his job for one of them. I say additure.
If it was so easily provable that the clerk knew there was a straw purchase taking place then wasn't he in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)?
"if an FFL knew that the statements on Form 4473 were false and that a straw purchase was taking place, the FFL has also violated federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) prohibits any individual from selling a firearm to a person whom they know or have reason to know is a criminal or other prohibited buyer."
http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/
As has been pointed out by me and others here, violations of federal firearm laws go un-prosecuted A LOT of the time. Criminals should be prosecuted. Firearm laws need stiffer and mandatory penalties and consequences for those that refuse to prosecute.
Read my post again – I said the shooter was a “future” criminal. He was not a criminal at the time of the sale, or other prohibited buyer within 922(d).
But you are absolutely right that we need to enforce the existing laws. But guess what- the Republican controlled Congress isn't too keen on raising the ATF budget. In this case, the ATF did revoke the gun shop owner’s license, although apparently bc there were 130 other violations of federal gun regs. But the ATF has no power to fine and no budget to inspect the 110,000 gun stores. That is why we need to close as many as possible. Civil lawsuits will do that.
The clerk was a defendant in the lawsuit and presumably was cast in judgment with the gun store (I’m guessing-have not read that) although I suspect he is judgment proof
Not being a criminal at the time is not the issue. The statute ends with ". . . or other prohibited buyer." That would include Burton's status of being under age thus prohibiting him from legally purchasing a hand gun. He was a prohibited buyer.
The problem isn't the ATF. It's the DOJ. When criminals are apprehended for other crimes and they possess an illegal firearm they are typically not prosecuted fully.
Sounds like you're OK with closing more than just the ones committing crimes. That sounds rather fascist.
-- Modified on 10/15/2015 10:28:33 PM
The statute does not end with “other prohibited buyer” – that is what your post says. And you read your link out of context. The link is referring to buyers prohibited by 922(d), not ATF regs or other laws. 922(d) does not list “underage buyers” in any of the 8 categories of prohibited buyers. So this is why the clerk was not prosecuted by DOJ for violating 922(d)- he did not violate it.
Gotta go to the original- you just read the wrong thing and misinterpreted what they said. For your reading pleasure, here is the statute:
18 USC 922(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of
any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause
to believe that such person —
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to
any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien —
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in
section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who[fn2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
[fn2] So in original. The word "who" probably should not appear.
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his
citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or
child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct
that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury
to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a
court order that —
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible
threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child
that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of
a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or
ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities
pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter
My mistake was trusting these anti-gun people and quoting their misrepresentation of the law. Initially my gut told me to do more confirmation research but I thought, how could a place called "Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (because smart gun laws save lives)" steer me wrong.
So now it's clear I should no longer trust anti-gun people to properly represent their position, or probably at least most of them.
Regardless, the reporting on this case made it clear Burton was underage to own a hand gun in the State of Wisconsin (by state law). So are you claiming for certain that if the sales clerk knew or had reason to believe the true purchaser was Burton that the sales clerk absolutely broke no state or federal law?