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

[TwinReverb]

No, it doesn't. It's called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Straw purchases are, have been, and probably will always be illegal. So you can't be protected against illegal actions with an act that states "lawful".

So if they proved in court that this place knew it was a straw purchase and yet proceeded anyway, which is against the law, and they proved in court that they knew (not should have known), they have something.

According to the charging document, in 2005, 537 guns recovered from crimes were traced back to Badger Guns, which "ranked as the number one crime gun dealer in America."

If they've really had that many guns recovered from crimes traced back to them, I'm pretty sure they're already doing something wrong, as that high a number is just plain ridiculous.

So what I'm saying is that if a gun store knowingly facilitates something illegal like a straw purchase, they get what's coming to them. We can't be demanding our freedoms when we can't obey the laws we have. That's hypocrisy.

My advice to gun stores: if you know it's a straw purchase, don't sell. My advice to those who would straw purchase: stop doing it, you're making us look bad, and giving ammunition (pun intended) to the anti-gun crowd.

 

[chipcom]

I don't see any precedent here. The gun store obviously, willfully, broke the law. This isn't about firearms liability, it's about stupidity liability.

 

[MEHavey]

The gun store obviously, willfully, broke the law.

Where in the trial transcript were those two facts located?
I must have missed it.

 

[joem1945]

In reading all the info presented here it looks like they were somewhat dirty and should be put out of business. I do fault the attourneys and judge that he kept some information about the owners and business practices from the jury.

 

[gvaldeg1]

I also would like to thank Frank for his clear and cogent post.

 

[MEHavey]

it looks like they were somewhat dirty and should be put out of business.

That may be so, but I'm still waiting for the evidence that they "obviously" and "willfully"
were party to what they knew to be a straw purchase.

If legal guilt were judged by the standard of "somewhat is good enough"... we'd all be in jail.

 

[Highcaliber]

According to another report, the "purchaser" actually answered "NO" on line 11-A, while right in front of the sales clerk, THEN scratched it out and entered " YES" as to whether he was the actual buyer.

The "scratched out" 4473 was admitted into evidence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Where in the trial transcript were those two facts located?
I must have missed it....

What a ridiculous statement. Have you read the trial transcript? Do you even know what a trial transcript is?

....Unless someone has details of the evidence and testimony presented during the trial,....

The trial started on 30 September, and the case went to the jury on or about 12 October. During that time the jurors heard the testimony of witnesses, saw physical and documentary evidence introduced, listened to the arguments of counsel, and were instructed in the applicable law by the judge. (The instructions in the law given the jury by the judge were hashed out among the judge and counsel first.)

The trial transcript in which all of that has been recorded, including copies of documentary evidence, no doubt runs several thousand pages. The jury made its decision on all that information.

In contrast, we've seen here only a few pages of news reports.

So the jury had a huge amount of information on which to base its decision. We don't have the information. The jury knows a whole lot more about what went on and what the facts and law are than we do. And with all of that information, which we don't have, the jury found the gun shop liable.

Now if the gun shop believes that legal errors were made at trial, with regard to the evidence allowed to be presented, the arguments made by the plaintiff and or the instructions given the jury about the applicable law, the gun shop can appeal.

 

[chipcom]

Where in the trial transcript were those two facts located?
I must have missed it.

The straw buyer checked 11a on the 4473 NO and the clerk had him change it to YES. It's not my fault you can't dig any deeper than a headline.

 

[ford8nr]

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

The straw purchaser WAS charged and is doing jail time in respect to the shooting. Badger has always had ATF problems, missing guns, bad paperwork ... I almost didn't buy from them once just because of that, but the deal was too good to pass up. I did witness a woman come in and ask for a specific model caliber of handgun and when presented to her she stepped back and said 'I don't want to see it, I want to buy it." Might have been for her, I don't 'look at' guns I buy online. On the other hand if I was the salesman I would have followed up with several questions. I know for a while the Milw. Police dept was doing a sting and pulling over people who left the store for traffic violations. They caught a fair number of people who shouldn't have had guns, wether they ever got prosecuted is anyone's guess.

 

[MEHavey]

It's not my fault you can't dig any deeper than a headline

During the purchase, Collins initially checked “no” on a federal firearms transaction form
that asked whether he was the actual buyer of the weapon, before a gun store employee
told him to change his answer to “yes,” the lawsuit said.

I asked for trial evidence, not "headlines.'
I can convict a ham sandwich on headlines.

The officers' lawyer, Patrick Dunphy, told jurors there were several tipoffs that should have been sufficient
to cancel the sale, including improperly marked forms and the behavior of the buyer, Jacob Collins, and
the eventual recipient, Julius Burton, who was too young to buy the gun. Burton was with Collins when
the purchase was made. Dunphy also said the shop failed to verify Collins' identification at the time of the
transfer.

The form of ID is always noted in writing on the form for any weapon I've ever bought.

As to "behavior," was there a video (or something else that escapes me beneath the headlines?)

 

[danez71]

http://fox6now.com/2015/09/30/trial-to-begin-for-lawsuit-involving-west-milwaukee-gun-store/

In opening statements as this trial began, Dunphy showed the jury surveillance images of Burton entering Badger Guns a month before the shooting. He came with a friend, Jacob Collins -- paying him $40 to purchase the gun.

A federal form, Dunphy says, asks whether the buyer is purchasing the weapon for himself. At first, Collins said "no," and then changed his answer to "yes." He changed his address as well. Dunphy said the Badger Guns salesman should have asked questions.

Its pretty damning evidence when your own store camera catches you witnessing the straw-man change his answer to the straw purchase question and then also changes the address.

The video also showed the 18 yr old giving lots of input as to which gun to buy to the straw-man.


The store has also been busted a few times in the past for the same thing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I asked for trial evidence, not "headlines.'
I can convict a ham sandwich on headlines.

The jury had all the evidence introduced at the trial, and the verdict speaks for itself.

We don't have all the evidence, and we won't have all the evidence. The trial transcript is not freely available.

Do you have anything useful contribute to the discussion?

 

[MEHavey]

Don't get me wrong.... Everything I've read about this particular gunshop describes it as THE poster child for everything any "let's shut'em all down" gun grabber has recommended.

.... but like Thomas More, I remains concerned at the precedent of feel-good legal actions w/o the benefit of actual law.


As to "...the verdict speaks for itself...."
Frank, I'm surprised.

And have nothing else pending appeal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... but like Thomas More, I remains concerned at the precedent of feel-good legal actions w/o the benefit of actual law.

Fine, but we're not going to get anywhere here with the extremely limited information available to us.

We've seen that under the PLCAA there are circumstances in which a dealer does not have protection from civil liability. But the reality for us here is that without access to the actual trial transcripts we have no way to assess whether the totality of the evidence properly, under the applicable law, supported the jury's finding of liability.

What we know is that there was a trial and that the jury found liability. We have no reason to believe that the finding of the jury was improper: whether because it did not comport with the evidence; or because evidence which should not have been allowed was allowed; or because evidence which should have been allowed was not; or because the judge's instructions to the jury on the law were faulty. Those are all matters which might be addressed on appeal.

On the other hand, we have some limited information regarding the gun shop's history of regulatory problems and some details of the transaction itself which seem supportive of the verdict.

So the verdict does speak for itself unless or until we have something solid with which to challenge it.

...And have nothing else pending appeal.

In these cases there are always a bunch of post verdict motions. The defendants will ask for a new trial and/or that the verdict be set aside and judgment entered in their favor and/or a reduction in the damages. Such motions are common in civil actions, especially with large awards, but without more information we have no way to assess whether such motions might have any legs here.

There are also probably settlement negotiation going on even as we speak -- the defendants will offer to waive an appeal if the plaintiffs accept some amount less than the judgment in satisfaction. That's also SOP.

 

[Sunray]

Wonder where they think a Wisconsin gun store is going to get 6 million bucks. Even one that's front for gang bangers. Mind you, if it's like it is here(highly unlikely), the cops will have to collect themselves. A judgement does not mean a cheque automatically gets written. Don't know for sure.
"...Bars can be, and often are..." Certainly are, up here. It's illegal to be drunk in public or allow somebody to get drunk, here. Bars are responsible if they serve you when you are drunk too. The server(working at lower than regular minimum wage) gets a higher fine than the owner too.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Apparently police traced over 500 guns used in crimes back to this specific store. If that evidence is true i think it would be awful coincidental.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The trial transcript in which all of that has been recorded, including copies of documentary evidence, no doubt runs several thousand pages. The jury made its decision on all that information.

In contrast, we've seen here only a few pages of news reports.

Exactamundo. Which means there are pretty much two options for qualified comment on the case right now: 1) Having sat through the trial -or- 2) An amazingly impressive ability to read at a frightening pace documents that aren't available to the public.

 

[MechAg94]

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.

Saw this on the previous page.
A guy I know used to run a pawn shop. They called in the information on every gun they pawned/purchased. I thought they did it while the seller was still in the store.

 

[MechAg94]

Apparently police traced over 500 guns used in crimes back to this specific store. If that evidence is true i think it would be awful coincidental.

That fact by itself isn't very meaningful without knowing how many guns they sell each year. If a big gun store sold 50,000 guns in the year, that is only 1%. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it just puts it in perspective.

All the facts I am seeing indicate this is in fact negligent conduct by the gun store. We will see if more facts come out.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I'm sure the devil is in the details here. However, signs of a straw purchase would have to be rather extreme to be distinct from perfectly legal activities like a person picking out their own gift or a friend or relative offering hands-on advice on the purchase.

Even if the verdict is supported by the facts, the interpretation of the verdict by FFL's, their legal advisers, insurers, or employees (who run the full gamut of intelligence and common sense variation) might not be so clear cut. I'd hate to see those above legal and common scenarios result in denials of sales by the dealers on their own volition over and beyond have requirements of the law.

I'm sure we've all had experiences with clueless people. I had a 4473 on a black powder gun because "it has serial numbers". A clerk at a common carrier who would not let me ship a scope (had to take it down the street), and one that told me I could not ship a knife except to a dealer or "maker".

Mike

 

[Agsalaska]

It seems to be this would be a loss for the Brady Campaign, assuming the facts about the gun store are true. We want shops like that closed. It strengthens the purpose of the law does it not? It proves the law works as written.


Maybe I am confused.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

If they've really had that many guns recovered from crimes traced back to them, I'm pretty sure they're already doing something wrong, as that high a number is just plain ridiculous.

Maybe, maybe not. If you sell a lot of guns, some will end up stolen and some of those stolen guns will end up in a crime, just statistics. Not saying that the gun shop is innocent, because it seems they have been found guilty (again) of criminal activity, but just having a lot of guns involved in a crime is only a flag for further investigation, not enough to convict on its own.

My advice to gun stores: if you know it's a straw purchase, don't sell. My advice to those who would straw purchase: stop doing it, you're making us look bad, and giving ammunition (pun intended) to the anti-gun crowd.

I don't think straw purchasers care. They are buying a gun for someone who may well intend to commit murder with it. Honestly, the straw purchaser in this case SHOULD get time for accessory to attempted murder.

 

[wickedsprint]

Red flags are like herring, if there is no prosecution by the ATF no crime happened. No crime, no liability.

There is a different burden of proof required for criminal and civil liability.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

This case is not about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (as much as the anti-gunners would want it to be).

This case is about a gun shop with a history allowing straw purchases go down right under their noses. I am willing to bet that this particular store has developed a "street rep" of selling guns to unqualified buyers and suspects have told the police that during questioning.

Allowing transparent and blatant straw purchases for prohibited actual buyers is not lawful commerce in arms and deserves no protection.

Defense attorneys all the time will put up claims that have no actual merit. I do not believe this was a PLCAA case.

I think it may open lawsuits against gun shops who allow straw purchases.

I do not believe this case it will be the anti-gunners' wet dream of opening up lawsuits against any or all gun shops to put them out of the business of selling guns period. Oh, they will try to make it so which is why the PLCAA was passed in the first place, but this is not only the wrong case to use PLCAA as a defense, it is also the wrong case to try to use to undermine the PLCAA.