Wisconsin Gun Shop order to pay millions in lawsuit

[Artful]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-shop-ordered-pay-millions-injured-police-officers-223257328.html


Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers
http://enews.earthlink.net/static/1575281022/harvest_xml/NEWS/img/20151013/f5c76cf9-d97d-48c8-b791-861095428cc0.jpg (http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pho?guid=20151013/f5c76cf9-d97d-48c8-b791-861095428cc0&article_path=/article/top&article_guid=20151013/f5c76cf9-d97d-48c8-b791-861095428cc0)Former Milwaukee police officers Graham Kunisch right, and Bryan Norberg left, who were shot and seriously wounded by a gun purchased at a Wisconsin gun store, leave court after jurors ordered the gun store to pay nearly $6 million in damages, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Milwaukee. The ruling came in a negligence lawsuit filed against the store, Badger Guns, by the two officers. The lawsuit alleges the shop allowed an illegal sale despite several warning signs that the gun was being sold to a "straw buyer," or someone who was buying the gun for someone who couldn't legally do so. (Rick Wood - Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP)

By GREG MOORE
From Associated Press
October 13, 2015 7:36 PM EST
MILWAUKEE (AP) — Jurors ordered a Wisconsin gun store to pay nearly $6 million on Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by two Milwaukee police officers who were shot and seriously wounded by a gun purchased at the store.

The ruling came in a negligence lawsuit filed by the officers against Badger Guns, a shop in suburban Milwaukee that authorities have linked to hundreds of firearms found at crime scenes. The lawsuit said the shop ignored several warning signs that the gun used to shoot the officers was being sold to a so-called straw buyer who was illegally purchasing the weapon for someone else.




Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch were both shot in the face 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.

One bullet shattered eight of Norberg's teeth, blew through his cheek and lodged into his shoulder. He remains on the force but said his wounds have made his work difficult. Kunisch was shot several times, resulting in him losing an eye and part of the frontal lobe of his brain. He said the wounds forced him to retire.

Jurors sided with the officers, ruling that the store was negligent. Jurors ordered the store to pay Norberg $1.5 million, Kunisch $3.6 million and punitive damages of $730,000.

The officers' lawyer, Patrick Dunphy, said Tuesday that he said his clients "feel very relieved," though 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 Rodham Clinton recently said she would push to repeal a George W. Bush-era gun law that Badger Guns' lawyers said shielded the store 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.

Badger Guns, previously known as Badger Outdoors, has since closed and been replaced by a gun shop called Brew City Shooters Supply. All three entities have been run by Allan family members.

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.

Norberg and Kunisch cited that detail in their lawsuit, saying it showed a history of negligence.

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.

[Bzcraig]

Looks like the store owners were not completely legitimate

[starmac]

They were probably not legitimate, but if that is the case and 500 (sounds like sa stretch) of the guns they sold were used in crimes, why were they not investigated and fined, jailed, or at the very least shut down?
How is it that they can be sued, if no criminal charges had been filed and proven?

[pretzelxx]

I remember when I went there a number of years ago to rent a gun..they rented to two people within a week who committed suicide on their indoor range.

I'll have to show my dad the link, he bought my 18th birthday gift there

[lefty o]

They were probably not legitimate, but if that is the case and 500 (sounds like sa stretch) of the guns they sold were used in crimes, why were they not investigated and fined, jailed, or at the very least shut down?
How is it that they can be sued, if no criminal charges had been filed and proven?its called a civil lawsuit, no criminal charges are needed.

[starmac]

its called a civil lawsuit, no criminal charges are needed.

No doubt, but I thought there were laws in place to exempt gun shops, manufacturers and the same for ammo if they were legally sold.
If they were not legally sold and there was any proof he was intentionally selling to straw buyers, why was he not charged?

[9.3X62AL]

The "straw buyer" statute are both Federal and State violations in California, but not all states have laws that parallel Federal statutes. Getting a U.S. Attorney to file a case in some areas (e.g., Central District of California, the Los Angeles/Inland Empire area) is all but impossible. Federal statutes have MUCH stiffer sanctions, State laws can be filed more easily but result in much lesser sentences and fines. I'm not keen on retailers being fanged for actions taken by others than themselves who misuse their sold merchandise, but a proven unlawful sale in the context of habitual repetition of such courses of conduct.......well, shame on 'em. I'm sure this isn't the final chapter in this novel, but FFLs need to hew to due diligence in their dealings.

Given the info that the shop in this case has changed hands among the family members a few times, I suspect that past "straw man sales" have been noted and the shop's license got fanged administratively by BATFE. The business re-constituted itself under new management, and went back to work. The administrative remedy seems to not have driven the point home about crossing "T"s and dotting "i"s on transactions, maybe a $6 million dollar wake-up call won't just be stored on voice-mail. My own thoughts are that some folks at that shop need to see prison time if their action is that scandalous, but the first thing to do is to WAKE UP the U.S. Attorney. Laws exist in abundance to address this problem, but the orderers need to bestir themselves and do their %$#& jobs.

[starmac]

I have a hard time beliveing that 500 of their sold guns have turned up in crime scenes, without some serious intervention from the Batf, unless there was some other motive behind their continued sales.

[starmac]

If they could be sued without any charges proven, then how come any gun shop can't be sued at every whim. Right or wrong, win or lose, it would still bankrupt many dealers with attorney fees, and the antis know it. I thought that was why the laws were put in place so they can't be sued to start with.

I am not saying the owners in this particular case is or isn't scumbags, nor saying the injured police doesn't deserve the settlement, though I doubt seriously they ever collect.
What I am saying is how was it even allowed with no charges of any wrong doing?

[toallmy]

The man who purchased the guns got two years i think he is the straw purchaser ,and should be held responsible ,but I think something's hinkie at the gun shop. A corrupt gun shop makes the gun world look bad in the public eye . I don't know who to believe 500 sounds like the seller was a criminal the buyer a criminal . But I don't really believe the prosecutor I have saw the gov.make up stuff or leave out things to bias some studies first-hand so have to think of the fast and furious scandals. But If they done it lock em up .

[FISH4BUGS]

I remember when I went there a number of years ago to rent a gun..they rented to two people within a week who committed suicide on their indoor range.

That really is irrelvant. I was a friend's range when the guy two lanes over from me decided to end it all with a rental gun. I saw him come in, I saw him choose a rental gun, I saw him buy the ammo - nothing out of the ordinary. He was tatooed and wore a kilt....OK....so do others.
When the guy offed himself, my friend immediately closed the range, and I stayed after the placed closed to support my friend, and in our conversations he said that the insurance companies say there is a suicide on average at a range for every 35,000 hours of operation.
If these guys knew, or should have known, they were selling to straw buyer they deserve what they got. If they didn't their insurance company will appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS.....and probably win.
There are bad guys in every business. Just sayin'.

[Lance Boyle]

Frankly if they knowing looked the other way while clear signs that the buyer was buying for someone else then I'm good with the liability. For what, a $100?, they short circuited the system we hate having to deal with and got another criminal a gun. That's saying if they knew or saw the signs that a normal person in the business would or should recognize.

Also the civil is separate from the criminal side. Shame on the feds for not doing the criminal if it was there. They often don't do cases for a host of reasons, mostly they let the state handle matters if there are local charges.

[9.3X62AL]

Once attorneys and newswhores get involved in a matter, truth and facts leave the room. It becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. A similar sitch occurred in southern California some years back with that Ring Of Fire matter involving junk gunmaker(s) Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin/Raven. The L.A. Times made hay on an "expose" of the background of one family that owned and operated these companies, and their manifold manuevers to stay in business despite lawsuits and administrative assaults by both BATFE and Cal-DOJ. The genesis of the CA Handgun Safety Act was to target the sale and manufacture of these pot metal wonders, and all of the cheap junk models passed the testing with flying colors. Galling. The maker(s) were off-the-hook scandalous, with no real control over inventory or what went out the side doors of the facilities where the guns were made. I have personally seen 4 or 5 each of Jennings and Lorcin 25 ACP pistols from my agency's evidence locker that had no serial number stamped/engraved anywhere. Cal-DOJ records have numerous instances where the same serial number appears repeatedly on registration attempts within California, showing that the same number was struck 2--3--who knows how many times on frames of firearms in violation of Federal and State law. This kind of thing happens when you employ parolees in your shop. The close proximity of a huge California prison complex in Chino to the corporate base of Jennings/Bryco/Lorcin/Raven had a little something to do with that, I'm sure. Ya gotta wonder how--with insurers on everybody's frame and lawyers lined up from hell to breakfast that such egregious events take place--but take place they surely do.

[jcwit]

So how are they going to pay off $6,000,000?

As far as to why didn't the BATF&E investigate? They never fully investigated the lost guns from the gang sales, did they?

[Prospector Howard]

This whole thing sets a bad precedent. This was a law enforcement issue, not a civil issue. And if Hildabeast gets in there and gets her way; anyone involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition, will be put out of business with all the lawsuits. Talk about a backdoor end to the 2nd amendment. Hildabeast is INSANE. This is from last night, I know it's hard to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH5aBCQe9y0

[pretzelxx]

So what she's saying is now we can sue car dealerships for selling to drunks! Sweet. And now we can sue McDonald's and all other fast food chains for making people fat!

These people are so obnoxious.

I just wish you could see what someone was going to do with a gun before they pass the background check!

[9.3X62AL]

All members and sectors of the firearms hobby community need to strive to be like Caesar's wife--above reproach. The Ring Of Fire bunch--a gunshop engaging in straw man sales repeatedly--and some of the scandalous business practices taking hold during the past 6-7 years of shortages and unobtainiums do nothing to advance the status of gun rights in this country. Hil Da Beast's bleating garbage aside, a few of our number are some of worst enemies.

[Jeff82]

I'm from Milwaukee and have been following the Badger Guns saga for several years. They've been in and out of trouble (regulatory, criminal and civil), since Milwaukee PD identified them as a source of guns to straw buyers. The story continues...

[bedbugbilly]

The other day on the news . . . it was something like 380 guns (give or take) that had been utilized in crimes and most were straw purchases - that was the reporting at that time.

Hey . . before everyone get's all bent out of shape over this .. . . the store had had a number of "DBAs" and no matter how you cut it . . . they've been warned before. Unfortunately, "straw purchases" go on every day. I'm not trying to rile anybody up. But put yourselves in the position of the two LE officers who got shot. Both could have been killed . . and by a 18 year old who got his gun illegally . . . and I'm sure at some point, we'll all hear how the 18 y.o. was "such a good boy". Just as we all want our 2nd Amendment rights . . . those LE officers have their "rights" as well . . and one of them is to file a civil suit against the store. Obviously, the store is not "innocent" in all of this hoopla. Worried about how they are going to pay for it? Well, hopefully they have liability insurance . . but good luck with that. But maybe they NEED to have a wake up call . . . they certainly aren't contributing to the legal rights of anybody if they have been caught at it before.

Want another wake up call? Then you should have listened to the debates last night. The blond babe stated that "gun manufacturers" should be able to be sued as well. And I've never heard more "socialism" put out there than what was spewed out last night. Regardless of what party you support . . . if this is the best that we have to offer to fill the Presidency of this country . . . we are in big trouble. We have no "leaders" . . . but we do have self-centered, self-serving politicians who are out there to fill their coffers but preach they are there for the "common folk". We don't need more laws that take away the liberties of law abiding citizens . . we need the people who we "elect" and those who work for the government - who are our employees, not our "watch dogs" - to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

If you don't exercise your right to vote and keep yourself informed on what is going one . . then you have no right to complain. Your vote "does count" and believe me, after hearing the debates last night . . . I have no doubt they are going to beat the bushes to get people out who will vote their way . . .

[flyingmonkey35]

I have a hard time beliveing that 500 of their sold guns have turned up in crime scenes, without some serious intervention from the Batf, unless there was some other motive behind their continued sales.
No they found about 500 guns in the shooters apt. That were linked to the gun store.

[starmac]

No they found about 500 guns in the shooters apt. That were linked to the gun store.

500 guns at the kids house, I find that one hard to belive too, how many straw men did the kid have?

[shooterg]

Unless and until the sellers have been found GUILTY in court of KNOWINGLY allowing the straw purchase there should be no judgement.

As to the number of supposed crime guns, not many years back a gun shop in Richmond VA area was encouraged by BATF to continue selling to some folks the Feds were watching move the guns furthur north for street sales. And yup later they were labeled a "major source of crime guns". Far as I'm concerned , nobody is guilty but the doers.

[starmac]

What percentage of straw bought guns would turn up. Just looking at a numbers standpoint, I doubt it would be 10%, so to have 500 turned up, would they have sold 5000, 10,000, or even 50,000.

I want to think that if even a hundred had wound up owned by criminals that the feds would have been all over them, UNLESS they had an ulterior motive to let them continue putting guns in the wrong hands, which sounds familiar.

[dragon813gt]

the feds would have been all over them, UNLESS they had an ulterior motive to let them continue putting guns in the wrong hands, which sounds familiar.

The government is our friend. They are here to protect us. They would never do something like that.

[M-Tecs]

No they found about 500 guns in the shooters apt. That were linked to the gun store.

Please site your source.

[starmac]

Source, lol I doubt even the editor of the article can do that. lol

[flyingmonkey35]

Re-re-read the article. I'm wrong your right. :-). 500 guns linked to crimes were sold at that gun shop.

Wow a gun shop sells guns.

They did wrong. And I'm not justifying it.

But what I want to know is how many guns did they sell. And what % of them were used in all of the gun related crimes in that area. Other wise you are just throwing numbers that make them look like dirtbags.

Civil lawsuit the burden of proof is own the gun shop. that they did not do it on purpose. They lost that.

Sounds like the ATF did not have enough to prove it.

[KenH]

NPR (yea I know) had an article on that this morning. From NPR's report, ON STORE VIDEO it was seen the straw buyer checked the box on form saying he was buying for someone else. The store salesman says you can not check that box - so the customer changed the box saying he was not buying for anyone else. "IF" that is true, then the salesman should be doing time along with the straw buyer. This does not sound like a gun control issue, but an issue of enforcing the existing laws

Ken H>

[Geezer in NH]

BATF competent? They cannot/will not arrest their own violators that killed a federal agent.

[Petrol & Powder]

The 500 crime gun stat doesn't surprise me. There is no start date for that count so we don't know if that's 1 year's worth of stats, 20 years or something else. Whenever you see a quote for a raw number you must know the parameters of what is being counted.

Along that same line, we don't know what constitutes a "crime gun". It could be a gun used in a crime like a robbery or murder. It could be a gun seized in relation to a crime, such as gun seized during the arrest of a drug dealer. It could be a stolen gun recovered with no associated crime. It also doesn't take into account a gun legitimately purchased years ago that has been lawfully sold one or more times that became associated with crimes but was originally sold by a particular store. I don't know what kind of sales volume Badger guns has or how many other gun stores are nearby. The last FFL that handled the gun could hardly be responsible for a firearm that was resold 4 times, traded for crack cocaine 3 times and stolen twice after it went out their door in 1992. The point is that statistic has very little value on its face.


Now let's address the more troubling issue.
What happened to those officers is horrible and no amount of money will ever fix that harm or make them whole. However it is unlikely that they will ever see much of that 6 million dollars. The store is not going to be able to pay it, I doubt the store's insurance company is liable and the lawyers will take their cut off the top of what is paid out. But that's not the troubling issue:
The troubling issue is:
Anytime a civil jury gets emotional and then attempts to correct a perceived wrong by awarding money - you're in VERY dangerous territory.
The jury clearly felt sorry for the officers and wanted to help those severely injured officers. I get that; I don't agree with what happened next but I understand it.
The jury also felt that the gun store was somehow responsible for the harm that was inflicted upon those officers and the jury wanted to punish the store owners. I understand their emotional response but I strongly disagree with their solution.

I'm sure the criminal defendant that shot the officers doesn't have 6 million dollars and I seriously doubt he ever will have 6 million dollars. However, transferring the responsibility of the criminal's actions to a third party (the gun store), is not the correct solution to that problem.

I doubt that verdict is going to withstand an appeal. If that matter is sent back for another trial there will be a quiet settlement (for way less than 6 million) that never makes the news. There will not be a new trial.
Now, the gun store will probably not survive the time it takes for an appeal and a new trial so they'll be out of business anyway. If that store was reckless in their sales of guns and the goal was to shut them down, the current verdict will have accomplished the goal of shutting down that business.

[pretzelxx]

The original badger guns in question had been closed for quite some time.. They've had the news stations reporting this for years already, it finally just made a trial... I just wish people would think instead of judge with their emotions. The settlement solves nothing... Nobody wins here besides the lawyers

[TXGunNut]

We don't know what evidence the plaintiffs presented and there's no way an article short enough for publication will be able to cite it all. 500 guns from one shop labelled as "crime guns" sounds pretty splashy until you realize how many guns a successful shop must sell and how many times a gun can change hands before it shows up on the LE radar.
OTOH if an employee was indeed coaching buyers to avoid the straw buyer roadblock and it's proven to be part of an ongoing pattern of behavior then I agree with the verdict to a point. I have a bit of a problem with the amount of the award. On the job injuries are part of the territory with many professions and trades. Many of us have suffered permanent injuries, some worse than the plaintiffs, and I doubt any of us saw or sought damages along these lines.
Before you flame me; yes, I did the LE thing for 25 yrs. Yes, I knew when I signed up that cops get hurt or even killed sometimes. Yes, I got hurt a few times and as I age I'm reminded that some injuries never 100% heal. And yes, I'd do it all over again to serve my fellow man. I've also been injured a few times working in "safer" professions; those injuries are just as nagging these days but it's part of the risk of doing a job I enjoy.
Going after gun shops that violate the straw purchase laws is the BATFE's (and possibly the state's) job. If they had no case or chose not to prosecute that is a criminal matter. I'm guessing we'll never have all the answers on this issue. As far as civally blaming the gun shop for the actions of a criminal this looks like an emotional or political issue and either way it scares me and should scare every gun owner and FFL.

[Petrol & Powder]

The original badger guns in question had been closed for quite some time.. They've had the news stations reporting this for years already, it finally just made a trial... I just wish people would think instead of judge with their emotions. The settlement solves nothing... Nobody wins here besides the lawyers

All valid.

I'm not even sure the lawyers will win; the money in that judgment has to come from somewhere. If the store in question is out of business and was set up as a LLC, you can't even get the money out of the former owners. That may be a very hollow and totally academic victory for the plaintiffs.


And I could not possibly agree more that emotions are dangerous in those types of civil cases.

I feel for those officers but I can't see the logic in transferring the punishment from the guilty party (the shooter) to a third party (the store) to make that bad situation better. If the store was willingly violating the law to make the almighty dollar and is now out of business, we may be as close to justice as we are going to get on this one. I'd like to do more for the injured officers but transferring responsibility is a slippery slope.

[BAGTIC]

O.J. Simpson was successfully sued after he had been acquitted. It is another example of our psychotic legal system. No double jeopardy. in the same courtroom, but protracted persecution that destroys a person.

[BAGTIC]

If a LEO unjustifiably shoots and innocent person can they sue not only the shooter and his department/city but also the dealer who provided the guns to the police department.

[BAGTIC]

"I'm sure the criminal defendant that shot the officers doesn't have 6 million dollars and I seriously doubt he ever will have 6 million dollars. However, transferring the responsibility of the criminal's actions to a third party (the gun store), is not the correct solution to that problem. "

It is the principle of 'deep pockets' lawsuits. Ten people may share some liability in a judgment, each of varying proportion. One may be 1% responsible another 80% and the other eight equally share the remainder of responsibility. Ironically if those sharing 99% responsibility don't have any money the poor guy responsible for the least must pay the entire judgment. Who is responsible for this farce? We are as we elect the mental retards and moral degenerates who pass these idiotic laws.

[starmac]

If a LEO unjustifiably shoots and innocent person can they sue not only the shooter and his department/city but also the dealer who provided the guns to the police department.

No, there is a specific law that prevents a gun dealer or manufacturer from being sued because of what someone does with a gun , it supposedly can not be done, or we would no longer have any dealers period. Ammo dealers and manufacturers are also protected from actions of the end user.

[Petrol & Powder]

O.J. Simpson was successfully sued after he had been acquitted. It is another example of our psychotic legal system. No double jeopardy. in the same courtroom, but protracted persecution that destroys a person.

You are confusing criminal law with civil law.
Two totally different issues. A criminal case is the state vs. a person and the standard required is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil case is one entity vs. another and the standard is preponderance of evidence. There is no double jeopardy if one faces both a criminal and civil trial. The state (government) can only place you in jeopardy once for a specific event but there's no limit on individuals suing you.

[Petrol & Powder]

............

It is the principle of 'deep pockets' lawsuits. Ten people may share some liability in a judgment, each of varying proportion. One may be 1% responsible another 80% and the other eight equally share the remainder of responsibility. Ironically if those sharing 99% responsibility don't have any money the poor guy responsible for the least must pay the entire judgment. Who is responsible for this farce? We are as we elect the mental retards and moral degenerates who pass these idiotic laws.

The concept of going after the "Deep Pockets" deals with expanding a lawsuit to include at least one defendant with the ability to pay.

Requiring all defendants to be responsible for the payment of a judgment is a different concept known as "Joint and Several Liability"


An example of the deep pockets strategy would be suing a McDonalds employee for assaulting you at a McDonalds restaurant and including his employer (the McDonalds corporation) in the lawsuit because the employee doesn't have any money but McDonalds does. That expansion of the lawsuit to include the "Deep Pockets" of the McDonalds corporation is done so that if a judgment is ultimately awarded, there is someone liable that has money to pay that judgment.

McDonalds would then ask to be dismissed from that lawsuit by saying: we didn't instruct the employee to assault you, we have a specific policy against employees assaulting customers and we had no idea he was about to assault a customer. (in most cases they would be dismissed from the lawsuit)

Now, for instructional purposes, lets say McDonalds wasn't dismissed from that lawsuit and the court awards you a 1 million dollar judgment for the assault by the McDonalds employee.

McDonalds says, here is $100. Go get the rest of the judgment from Billy Bob the ex-Burger flipper.
Billy Bob was making minimum wage, lived in public housing, has tremendous debt, is behind on child support, and is frequently in jail; he doesn't have the remaining $999,900.00 that is owed to you.
Under the Concept of "Joint & Several Liability" both defendants (Billy Bob and the McDonalds Corporation) are liable for the total payment of that 1 million dollar judgment.

You tell McDonalds to pay up and McDonalds and Billy Bob can work out their problems amongst themselves. That is "Joint & Several Liability"