Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
The pair entered Badger Guns on May 2, 2009, and Mr. Burton pointed to the gun he wanted, according to the documents.
Mr. Collins then told a Badger employee he wanted to purchase the gun for himself and began filling out paperwork. In one spot, the form asked if he was the actual buyer of the gun and he answered no, which would make the sale illegal under federal law.

The Badger Guns employee pointed out the answer and asked him if he wanted to change it. Mr. Collins changed his answer to say he was buying it for himself. The lawsuit says the transaction had all the markings of a "straw sale"â€"the purchase of a gun for someone who can't legally own oneâ€"and that the Badger Guns employee shouldn't have allowed it.
If the above statements are factual, bad sale by the employee in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
Tough call. The anti-gunners are going after this store hard.

But I have read a little about it, and I am not sure we want them as the poster child for our side. They seem just a little shady, and this excerpt highlights that.

Been a while, so I do not remember specifics of what I read before, but I do remember feeling uncomfortable about them.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
mb90535im said:
The pair entered Badger Guns on May 2, 2009, and Mr. Burton pointed to the gun he wanted, according to the documents.

Mr. Collins then told a Badger employee he wanted to purchase the gun for himself and began filling out paperwork. In one spot, the form asked if he was the actual buyer of the gun and he answered no, which would make the sale illegal under federal law.
Not so, you can buy a firearm as a gift. I took my daughter last year to the store with me to get here a gun. I filled the paper work, paid for it and handed it to her. The clerk knew it was for her and a gift. The law always this. The person the gift is for doesn't have to be present.

If the above statements are factual, bad sale by the employee in my opinion.
Based on the article, I would have to agree in this instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,771 Posts
phantoms said:
mb90535im said:
The pair entered Badger Guns on May 2, 2009, and Mr. Burton pointed to the gun he wanted, according to the documents.

Mr. Collins then told a Badger employee he wanted to purchase the gun for himself and began filling out paperwork. In one spot, the form asked if he was the actual buyer of the gun and he answered no, which would make the sale illegal under federal law.
Not so, you can buy a firearm as a gift. I took my daughter last year to the store with me to get here a gun. I filled the paper work, paid for it and handed it to her. The clerk knew it was for her and a gift. The law always this. The person the gift is for doesn't have to be present.
If you are buying it as a gift, you are the actual buyer. Just not the end user. The law is to prevent someone ineligible to purchase a weapon from giving you the money to make the purchase for him. You are not the actual purchaser then.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,485 Posts
RecoveringYankee said:
phantoms said:
mb90535im said:
The pair entered Badger Guns on May 2, 2009, and Mr. Burton pointed to the gun he wanted, according to the documents.

Mr. Collins then told a Badger employee he wanted to purchase the gun for himself and began filling out paperwork. In one spot, the form asked if he was the actual buyer of the gun and he answered no, which would make the sale illegal under federal law.
Not so, you can buy a firearm as a gift. I took my daughter last year to the store with me to get here a gun. I filled the paper work, paid for it and handed it to her. The clerk knew it was for her and a gift. The law always this. The person the gift is for doesn't have to be present.
If you are buying it as a gift, you are the actual buyer. Just not the end user. The law is to prevent someone ineligible to purchase a weapon from giving you the money to make the purchase for him. You are not the actual purchaser then.
ATF Form 4473 said:
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
The potential for abuse of this precedent is scary. Even if this shop was wrong, I fear it's going to open the flood gates against gun shops throughout the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,939 Posts
I thought danger and risk of injury without special accommodation was just part of the job....or was that servicemen....I can't remember which hero it is.
 

·
codegeek reincarnate
Joined
·
901 Posts
Just seems that their are special people amongst us, that can get inside the mind of another person, and divine the intent of their actions. I, unfortunately, don't possess this DNA.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
The potential for abuse of this precedent is scary. Even if this shop was wrong, I fear it's going to open the flood gates against gun shops throughout the country.
I am not so sure that is the case. I have read in several sources that it was a pretty obvious straw purchase. There is even a video floating around out there of the actual purchase, wherein it looked pretty clear the buyer was buying it for the person who shot the police officers.

E.g, here:
http://bearingarms.com/buwahahahah-gun-control-supporters-lost-badger-guns-case-think-won/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
An appeal is coming, according to the gun store's attorney, and in a sense, the case has only entered a new phase.

"The fight has just begun," Patrick Dunphy, the attorney for the officers, said Wednesday. "It's going to be a battle."

. . .

But the officers will not be seeing money anytime soon.

The case will go to a state Appeals Court and possibly straight to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Depending on the rulings and other cases around the country, the officers' case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, experts said.​

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/wa...ll-faces-long-road-b99596802z1-332966071.html
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
Same link:

The straw buyer, Jacob Collins, and the shooter, Julius Burton, came to the store together, video showed. Burton stayed in the store the whole time and pointed out the gun he wanted. Collins initially marked on a form that he was not the buyer but was allowed to change that. Collins and Burton also left the store to get more cash to pay for the gun.​
 

·
Cross-drawer
Joined
·
7,140 Posts
Tough call. The anti-gunners are going after this store hard.

But I have read a little about it, and I am not sure we want them as the poster child for our side. They seem just a little shady, and this excerpt highlights that.

Been a while, so I do not remember specifics of what I read before, but I do remember feeling uncomfortable about them.
Probably because more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes have been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
I am not so sure that is the case. I have read in several sources that it was a pretty obvious straw purchase. There is even a video floating around out there of the actual purchase, wherein it looked pretty clear the buyer was buying it for the person who shot the police officers.

E.g, here:
http://bearingarms.com/buwahahahah-gun-control-supporters-lost-badger-guns-case-think-won/
Interesting to read. However we all know the anti-gunners will grasp at any straw they can to hold anyone involved with firearms responsible for things out of their realm of control.

This may be a clear cut case of illegal straw purchases and shady deals, but it's already being paraded around as some huge landmark victory and will likely have the facts misrepresented so as to give the uninformed drones cause to think they'll be able to sue gun stores any time a criminal commits an act with a gun.

One could simply hop over to any of the popular anti-gun social media pages, blindly scroll through comments associated with this lawsuit, and likely find one of the anti-gun supporters writing something to the effect of "Finally we can hold gun stores accountable!" or "Why not sue all gun stores for this?"

Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
One could simply hop over to any of the popular anti-gun social media pages, blindly scroll through comments associated with this lawsuit, and likely find one of the anti-gun supporters writing something to the effect of "Finally we can hold gun stores accountable!" or "Why not sue all gun stores for this?"

Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Let 'em. Frivolous suits for lawful commerce in firearms will result in substantial attorney fee awards against them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Probably because more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes have been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.
This is one of the anti's talking points.

When someone makes a statement like you just did, the questions that should follow and which is never answered are: How many guns have they sold? How long have they been in business?

You can't know if 500 is a high number without knowing how many they have sold.

If store A sold 5,000 in 5 years, then 10% found in a crime is a very high number.

If however store B were higher volume or been in business a while, or both, then the same 500 traced paints a different picture. Selling 40,000 in 20 years is only around 1%.

The totals make a big difference, but the rates are not that different. Store A sold 1,000 a year, store B sold 2,000 a year.

This is why you never hear these totals.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
In 2011 the shop ceased to sell guns, but continued to sell ammunition and gun accessories.[12][13] The shop continued to operate a shooting range.[14]

In 2012 Mike Allan, a former employee of Badger Guns and the brother of original owner Adam Allan, obtained federal firearms licenses and changed the business name to Brew City Shooter Supply. The store now only sell to "members" who have taken a class, have a concealed carry permit, and/or demonstrate firearms competency along with paying an annual fee. The current owner announced that the intention of these requirements will prevent straw purchases that caused problems previously.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brew_City_Shooter_Supply
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/133122878.html 2011 news story, with history back to 2005-06. This story indicates that the 537 guns figure is just from one year, 2005, although in fairness it is on its third owner and second name change since then.

Anyway, 537 in one year made this gun store the top seller of "crime guns" in the nation in 2005. I do not know the percentage, but I sincerely doubt that Badger Guns was the top seller of guns in the nation, so the numbers are not entirely meaningless.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top