January 22, 2015, 02:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
Cops sue gun store
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/wat...289366911.html
The cops could sue the criminals who shot them...but there's no profit in that. So, instead they'll sue the gun store claiming the store must have known who the straw purchasers were. I don't think the cops will be successful, how could they? |
January 22, 2015, 03:04 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
This is the latest in the Brady Campaign's push to label "bad apple" gun dealers and hold them responsible for damages incurred by their wares.
Their claim is generally that a gun store "knew or should have known" that a straw purchase was taking place. They've yet to prevail, but this could set a dangerous precedent if they do.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
January 22, 2015, 04:08 PM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And we don't have any of that information. So how can we discuss this intelligently? All we can do is speculate/guess.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 23, 2015, 09:51 AM | #4 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The operation was formerly known as Badger Outdoors, but the ATF recommended revocation of their license in 2006 for numerous record-keeping violations, so Mick Beatovic- the VP, co-owner, and formal license holder- surrendered the license and "retired"... although he retained ownership of the building. The operation got a new license and reopened under the Badger Guns name. Walter Allan, the former president and other co-owner of Badger Guns, became an employee, and his son Adam Allan, formerly an employee, now became the formal license holder. The record-keeping violations apparently continued, and the "new" store was threatened with license revocation in 2007 and 2009, including for this... Quote:
I assume this means that the buyers checked the "Yes" box somewhere in 11.a through 11.l on the Form 4473, and the store sold them the guns anyway. The operation later surrendered its license AGAIN and reopened as Brew City Shooter's Supply. IOW it sounds like these guys are some combination of incompetent, careless, reckless, and/or willfully disdainful of the law, and they've been playing the federal firearms licensing equivalent of Musical Chairs for some years now. Although I agree that it could set a bad precedent, it sounds like Mr. Beatovic and the Allan family have- forgive the bad pun- had proverbial targets pinned to their backs for some time now, and I presume this is the reason why the pro-RKBA community hasn't come rushing to their defense.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
January 23, 2015, 10:35 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2014
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 543
|
I think the Gun Shop should be protected if the purchaser pass'es a back ground check and the shop gets a proceed from the State . That being said there is a lot of straw purches's that go through . ATF gives alot of guidelines on how to spot them not that thier info is better than instinct but make sure you follow all thier proceadures or you could be getting a visit oneday that you dont want .
|
January 23, 2015, 11:09 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Even the savviest FFL can be fooled by a crafty criminal. We would see a situation in which any gun transfer could end up costing him his business.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 23, 2015, 02:16 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
The background check system is far from perfect, or complete. If the shop is "winking" at the 4473 form (nobody ever checks them anyway) and selling if the phone instant check does not deny or hold, they are still breaking the law. Except they do check the 4473s, from time to time. And while honest mistakes are made, and the shop should not be held criminally liable for honest mistakes, when you get a pattern, over time, of sales due to "honest mistakes" the "honest" part becomes extremely questionable, and so does the idea that these sales were "mistakes", as well. There are two kinds of people who sell guns. Those that obey the laws and those who do not. Despite the efforts of many to claim both kinds are the same, they are not. I do wonder, how does one sue a business? Would not the proper thing to do be to sue the people who committed the acts? The concept of "knew or should have known" also confuses me often. I can understand how we need something so that just pleading ignorance is not a get out of jail free card, but I do not see how it is right to punish someone for something they actually did not know. I suppose that's why we need faith in the jury system. These days, I don't have a lot...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 23, 2015, 11:58 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
If someone is willfully ignorant just to preserve the "I didn't know" defense. I didn't read the 4473 form answers, so I didn't know he said he wasn't allowed to have a firearm. I didn't look behind the box the arms and legs were sticking out from behind, so when I used it for target practice I didn't know someone was actually behind it. I didn't know I'd blow a .2 on the breathalyzer until I was pulled over and told to, so I didn't know I was driving drunk. |
|
January 24, 2015, 02:38 AM | #9 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And given the history of this business and its principals, it's conceivable that we have a gun dealer who knowingly participates in smarmy transactions or proceeds with transactions in reckless disregard of clear warning signs. Either could be a basis for civil liability. We obviously don't have enough information to make an independent assessment of whether that's the case here. But the plaintiffs will have their opportunity to try to prove in court that one of those alternatives is the case. Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, when were talking about serious criminal violations or significant civil liability with regard to important matters, one can be subject to a legal duty to pay attention -- and have liability if he doesn't. The doctor writing a prescription needs to be paying attention, and will be liable when he writes 0.10 gram instead of the correct 0.01 gram because he wasn't paying attention. Or the dealer in dangerous weapons could be liable when, because of a gross failure to pay attention he sells a gun to someone who, had he paid attention to the information in front of him, he should have known was prohibited. The point is that being oblivious is not a free pass.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
January 24, 2015, 01:47 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Thanks for the concise explanation, Frank (again!). I see the points and the reasoning.
If I run a shop and have my employees do shady deals, I am certainly responsible. If I truly do not know they are doing it, I am still responsible, not for them doing it, but for not catching them doing it, which is also one of my legal and ethical responsibilities. Does that about cover it? Quote:
Playing Sgt Schultz (I know NOTHINGGG!) means you know SOMETHING, and are deliberately (premeditatedly?) deciding to ignore additional information. Isn't this the essentially the same as "I vas only followink orders!" (except its you giving the orders) ignoring what you "should" not know? I'm not sure, but I don't think that defense has worked since Nueremburg...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 25, 2015, 10:27 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
I'm not a FFL, so I'm not all that familiar with all of the rules and regulations which a FFL must take into account when selling firearms. However, every transaction which an FFL engages in, must have a 4473 form filled out. If I were a FFL, I'd instruct anyone interested in completing a transaction with me and my place of business that they must fill out a 4473, lying on the 4473 is a felony, and if they answer "YES" to any of the disqualifying questions, I won't be able to do a background check on them. I may even have a sign in my place of business explaining that. That might help to keep the straw buying to a minimum, and might make the BATFE less likely to come in and harrass me.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
January 25, 2015, 03:39 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
The people who know they are breaking the law making a stawman purchace are going to go ahead and lie, anyway. The people who are ignorant that they are violating the law, probably will still stay ignorant. The form says on it, that lying is a crime, and where a "yes" or a "no" answer is disqualifying. My understanding is that it is the license holder's responsibility to see things are done correctly, and legally. The BATFE can really only harass you if they have something to harass you about. Do the job right, all the time, they have squat. What amazes me is how often I hear about a dealer being shut down due to illegal sales/missing guns over a period of years before they are finally shut down. There are two sides to the coin. Some people have been shut down and even wound up in jail for "technical" violations when found, some get chances to clean up their act, and get to operate until they prove they won't or can't. Every situation is different.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 26, 2015, 01:17 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
Yes, Badger Guns in the past has apparently deserved to have their license revoked. This lawsuit, however, isn't about those cases.
Quote:
We can already see that Lowy doesn't have much to go on. He's going to the mat demanding that the jury be allowed to hear that the owners had notice that precautions on straw-buying weren't working and they needed to do more. That is hardly are indictment of wrong-doing. Now if he were insisting that the form 4473 covered in eraser marks signifying disqualifying answers were changed be allowed as evidence; I'd understand that. He isn't, though. He's saying Badger Guns needed to be mind-readers. I wouldn't throw a fit in front of the judge unless my case wouldn't stand up to scrutiny without that 'evidence.' |
|
January 26, 2015, 08:14 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
It did look like they actually tried to work with law enforcement for awhile. Not sure what is happening with them now.
Quote:
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
|
January 26, 2015, 08:45 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
No way would I shop there. It places the customer under a cloud of suspicion until he's proven himself worthy. Furthermore, if this sort of idea should pick up steam and legislation along those lines be considered an option, it would be a very real problem. This is the moral of the story: they want everyone to suffer because a few dealers did a slipshod job of running their business.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 26, 2015, 11:08 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Quote:
Where I work, the form is always checked by at least two people. Also, our forms are subject to audit once a year. So every year any form that you've looked the other way on might be pulled up in that audit. That would be enough to make me not want to do it even if I were considering looking the other way, but I guess that's me as a rational and law abiding seller...
__________________
Certified Gunsmith (On Hiatus) Certified Armorer - H&K and Glock Among Others You can find my writings at my website, pottsprecision.com. |
|
January 27, 2015, 10:44 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
Tom, I agree with you. But they did disclose this to everyone in the "fine print" of there agreement to use the range.
Apparently several of the potential customers at the shop found that little blurp in the fine print and mentioned it in Yelp and Reddit reviews. Off the top of my head, I do not remember when the police officers where shot, but you can bet if they are allowed to use information after the fact, the gun shop is going to use the police chiefs statement and show how they "tried" to clean up their act. It is a slippery slope.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
January 27, 2015, 01:05 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Furthermore, they're not using the NICS system--they're simply reporting names to the local sheriff for these "checks." The difference is, the NICS system erases the data after the check clears. I have no idea what information the sheriff is retaining or what he's doing with it.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 27, 2015, 05:35 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
I recall a story from some time back, about a fellow who rented a car, and after its return got something like a $500 charge for speeding with it. Not a speeding ticket from the cops, a charge from the rental company. It was in the fine print, of the contract he signed. The car's GPS showed positions and times that showed he had been speeding. The cops never caught him, his car "turned him in". And, he had agreed to it, in the contract. He paid. Background checks on everyone who used the range...after the fact, right? And without the knowledge of the range users? (meaning no wait to clear the check to use the range, just a buried in the fine print statement that one would (could?) be made? I suppose the Sherriff would be happy to know if someone they were looking for, or just "on their radar" was using the range, but aside from that, what's the point, and what good could it do? Was the idea that they might actually be able to catch someone breaking the law? How...novel...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 14, 2015, 01:04 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Badger Guns was found negligent and ordered to pay almost six million dollars. So, is this a unique situation or could it signal a willingness of juries to hold gun shops responsible for how the guns they sell or used.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ooting-n443951
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
October 14, 2015, 01:39 AM | #21 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
The shop and its principals have a pretty long history of trouble with ATF.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
October 14, 2015, 06:28 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Badger Outdoors was a rogue outfit that should have been shut down years before this incident. No one who was ever associated with the original Badger management should be allowed to have an FFL.
Last edited by thallub; October 14, 2015 at 06:41 AM. |
October 14, 2015, 08:07 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
The video I saw made it apparent that there was a straw sale in progress. I don't know where it came from.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
October 14, 2015, 08:17 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
|
|
October 14, 2015, 10:23 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,254
|
This lawsuit seemed to really be about a gun store that's been shut down numerous times for violations and used shady practices to stay open. This isn't about a couple of cops who are suing a shop that did everything the right way and something slipped through the cracks. They knew that they weren't following the law and instead of fixing the issues, they just reopened under a new name and made someone else at the store the owner "this time".
|
|
|