Gun Store Loses Lawsuit Over Sales

[marplots]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-milwaukee-gun-shop-ruling-20151013-story.html

Guns shop sells to one guy, that guy sells to another, cops get shot and sue gun store for allowing "straw purchase." Wounded cops win to the tune of $6 million. Stay tuned for the appeal.

I've mentioned before that liability would be a good tactic for the anti-gunners to pursue. Not changing the Constitution or state laws on guns, but trying to make it too expensive to market and sell them. There are laws in place to protect manufacturers and sellers, but this case may represent a movement toward attaching liability despite legal protections.

Social change by way of lawsuit. It's a thing. We won't prohibit you from doing X, but we'll make it so expensive and onerous, you'll stop doing it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, weren't all the predictions that the gun shop would win?

 

[GlennB]

Out of interest, how was the shop supposed to monitor the progress of that gun after they'd sold it?

 

[marplots]

Out of interest, how was the shop supposed to monitor the progress of that gun after they'd sold it?

Don't know.
I wouldn't mind reading a legal opinion/summary of the logic. My guess is that they sold it knowing it was likely a straw purchase, although I'm not sure.

 

[The Don]

Don't know.
I wouldn't mind reading a legal opinion/summary of the logic.
...<snip>...

Me too, in the meantime I think this is illuminating:

Authorities have said more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes had been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors, making it the "No. 1 crime gun dealer in America," according to a 2005 charging document from an unrelated case.

Maybe the shop has been on the radar for some time and this kind of evidence was presented to the jury.

 

[Noztradamus]

Wow, weren't all the predictions that the gun shop would win?

Cops get affirmative action

 

[marplots]

Don't know.
I wouldn't mind reading a legal opinion/summary of the logic. My guess is that they sold it knowing it was likely a straw purchase, although I'm not sure.

Yep, looks that way. The first few paragraphs of this NYT story says the "straw man" and the buyer were in the store together, helped by a clerk, and, based on video surveillance, it was obvious what was going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-gun-store-trial.html?_r=0

 

[Babbylonian]

Yep, looks that way. The first few paragraphs of this NYT story says the "straw man" and the buyer were in the store together, helped by a clerk, and, based on video surveillance, it was obvious what was going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-gun-store-trial.html?_r=0

During the short time I worked in a convenience store, there were many times when I refused to sell alcohol to a 21+-year-old person when the person(s) with them couldn't provide valid ID. I'm sure they went elsewhere and got what they wanted but it's often extremely obvious what the game is. A gun shop owner/clerk would have more incentive to look the other way since they'd make more money on each sale.

Slightly OT: I was counseled more than once (along with vague near-threats) that my shift (10PM-6AM) was making less money when I worked than when I wasn't. My firm hand with the alcohol was probably a factor.

 

[Beerina]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-milwaukee-gun-shop-ruling-20151013-story.html

Guns shop sells to one guy, that guy sells to another, cops get shot and sue gun store for allowing "straw purchase." Wounded cops win to the tune of $6 million. Stay tuned for the appeal.

I've mentioned before that liability would be a good tactic for the anti-gunners to pursue. Not changing the Constitution or state laws on guns, but trying to make it too expensive to market and sell them. There are laws in place to protect manufacturers and sellers, but this case may represent a movement toward attaching liability despite legal protections.

Social change by way of lawsuit. It's a thing. We won't prohibit you from doing X, but we'll make it so expensive and onerous, you'll stop doing it.

If the net effect of lawsuits was to make it prohibitavely expensive to buy guns, the laws enabling gun lawsuits should be tossed by courts. If no such laws exist, then it should be thrown out on a construction of powers argument.

The decision on a net benefit for society has already been made by The People in their Constitution, and clearly they did not intend any such result.

The purpose for putting things in that require amendment to change is deliberate. If your idea to make a large change like this is so great, most people will think so, not just a simple majority, and they will think it remains a good idea 5 and 10 years down the road, long after the transient winds of political passion, so skillfully and murderously wielded by demagogues over the centuries, have died away.

 

[Cleon]

Some more details here - the staff actively and knowingly aided in the straw purchase.

I'm totally against lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers just because they sold a gun used in a crime - but that's not the case here. They actively skirted the law, and I hope they have the book thrown at them.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Wow, weren't all the predictions that the gun shop would win?

They're not. The argument was that the shop knew or should have known that the sale was illegal but made the sale anyways.

 

[Dr. Keith]

There are laws in place to protect manufacturers and sellers, but this case may represent a movement toward attaching liability despite legal protections.

Social change by way of lawsuit. It's a thing. We won't prohibit you from doing X, but we'll make it so expensive and onerous, you'll stop doing it.

I heard today that they are the only industry to have federal protection against most forms of liability for the sale of their product. Wow.

Glad this went the way it did. Maybe it will clear out some of the bad actors.

 

[theprestige]

Wow, weren't all the predictions that the gun shop would win?

What predictions? I know there was another case discussed here recently, about a gun store selling ammo (IIRC), but I don't think this is that case.

 

[Checkmite]

During the short time I worked in a convenience store, there were many times when I refused to sell alcohol to a 21+-year-old person when the person(s) with them couldn't provide valid ID. I'm sure they went elsewhere and got what they wanted but it's often extremely obvious what the game is. A gun shop owner/clerk would have more incentive to look the other way since they'd make more money on each sale.

It might not be solely a matter of looking the other way for the sake of making money. It's also at least a real possibility that the gun seller personally decided this individual should be allowed to have a gun despite whatever legal restrictions were stopping him from buying one, and thus was willing to accommodate a wink-nudge "legal" sale to the individual's friend (or whomever the straw purchaser was).

 

[Babbylonian]

I heard today that they are the only industry to have federal protection against most forms of liability for the sale of their product. Wow.

Glad this went the way it did. Maybe it will clear out some of the bad actors.

It certainly seems the very least we can do. It would be nice, though, if the store had been able to be closed down by the authorities earlier given the "long history of legal violations, official warnings and machinations to prevent the revocation of its firearms license." The 2nd amendment sure is great.

 

[Babbylonian]

It might not be solely a matter of looking the other way for the sake of making money. It's also at least a real possibility that the gun seller personally decided this individual should be allowed to have a gun despite whatever legal restrictions were stopping him from buying one, and thus was willing to accommodate a wink-nudge "legal" sale to the individual's friend (or whomever the straw purchaser was).

So the sale may have been a result of deeply held convictions? I didn't see that argument made in the couple of articles I've read so far. If you have information on that, it would sure be interesting.

 

[Checkmite]

Purely speculative. Gun sellers are gun owners, and gun owners feel very strongly about gun owner rights. Some of those feelings, held by some of those gun owners, are that gun restrictions are unfair or "unconstitutional" and should be subverted on principle.

 

[Babbylonian]

Purely speculative. Gun sellers are gun owners, and gun owners feel very strongly about gun owner rights. Some of those feelings, held by some of those gun owners, are that gun restrictions are unfair or "unconstitutional" and should be subverted on principle.

Yeah, they're scum, I know. Unfortunately, apparently, the laws aren't strong enough to put scum out of business in a timely fashion.

 

[Giz]

Some more details here - the staff actively and knowingly aided in the straw purchase.

I'm totally against lawsuits against gun stores and manufacturers just because they sold a gun used in a crime - but that's not the case here. They actively skirted the law, and I hope they have the book thrown at them.

This.

 

[blutoski]

I heard today that they are the only industry to have federal protection against most forms of liability for the sale of their product. Wow.

Sounds improbable. The first thing that comes to mind is the federal protection of vaccine manufacturers from liability due to known side effects of proper use.