A Gun Store Comes Under Fire
Badger Guns in lawsuit over straw sales.
Badger Guns in lawsuit over straw sales.
The pair entered Badger Guns on May 2, 2009, and Mr. Burton pointed to the gun he wanted, according to the documents.
If the above statements are factual, bad sale by the employee in my opinion.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.
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.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.
Based on the article, I would have to agree in this instance.If the above statements are factual, bad sale by the employee in my opinion.
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.phantoms said: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.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.
RecoveringYankee said: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.phantoms said: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.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.
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.
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.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.
Probably because more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes have been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.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.
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.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/
Let 'em. Frivolous suits for lawful commerce in firearms will result in substantial attorney fee awards against them.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.
This is one of the anti's talking points.Probably because more than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes have been traced back to Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.
They are entirely meaningless without more information.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.