Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, suits related to negligence are still allowed to proceed. The Brady case is crafted as to attempt fall into that category of permitted lawsuits. You can find the complaint here. Reading it over, I’d be very surprised if Badgers Attorney doesn’t try to use PLCAA to dismiss this suit. In the case in question, a drug addict bought a firearm that he later gave to a person who shot two police officers. The suit seems to hinge on the fact that he was a prohibited person because he was a drug addict, and that somehow Badger should have known this. You see language in the complaint about Badger being a “public nuisance,” which is precisely the kind of lawsuit PLCAA was meant to quash.
I’m not going to comment on Badgers business practices in general, because I’m not familiar with the store. Maybe some local people could comment. There are certainly stores out there that have a bad reputation even among shooters. But I’m struck by how much the Brady suit reads like a social policy paper rather than a civil complaint. It is my opinion that this lawsuit should be squashed under PLCAA. Under the PCLAA standard:
(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment’ means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
The Bradys are essentially arguing in the complaint that the types of firearms that Badger sold to the drug addict (evil assault weapon) plus the number of guns he bought over the course of a week (two), and the fact that he was an admitted drug addict, should have indicated he was intending to use them for criminal purposes. Because of these facts, the sale was negligent.
In short, this is an attempt by the Brady Center to blow a hole a mile wide in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with this case. Regardless of whether or not Badger is a responsible operation or not, it’s important for the gun rights community as a whole that PLCAA squashes this suit. If it doesn’t, PLCAA will be rendered almost entirely ineffective, and you can bet this won’t be the last shop sued. Failing to get legislation rationing firearms, and banning assault weapons legislatively, once again we see the Brady Center trying to accomplish with lawyers what it couldn’t accomplish with lobbyists.
1. Is there a Form 4473 for these transactions?
2. Was it approved under by NICS aka Brady Law?
3. How is Badger Guns supposed to know someone is an addict if they lie about it? Addicts can hide it really well.
4. Was the purchaser indicted by the Feds for lying on the Form 4473 and if not, why not?
I completely agree with John Richardson, If this person lied on a 4473, he needs to be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. If he hasn’t been prosecuted for falsifying information on the form, a hard look needs to be taken into why he wasn’t prosecuted.
If anyone should be sued, it should be the purchaser (if he lied on the form) and the person who committed the crime. I really wonder why groups like Brady do not go after the people who break the law instead of law abiding citizens.
I’m from Milwaukee. Basically, Badger Guns has been the target by the local liberals for awhile because it is apparently the only gun shop in Milwaukee / the immediate Milwaukee area. The local paper, the Sentinel Journal (heh) has been on their case forever. It’s all about being the closest gun shop to Milwaukee (they are in West Milwaukee, I believe) and not about anything the people who legally purchased guns did after they made their purchases. Sick stuff.
“and the fact that he was an admitted drug addict”
Wait. Admitted to whom? If he said “you know, I’m a drug addict – what gun do you recommend?” then I’d support the suit. If he didn’t admit that he’s a drug addict to the shop, then I don’t get it. Is this suit really about punishing the gun shop for not having psychic drug addict detection abilities?
Oh, and in other news, don’t worry – this isn’t a blueprint of what the Brady Bunch would do if they got the Tiahrt Amendment repealed. They want to stop criminals, not sue people who follow the law. That’s why so much of their focus is on criminals, and not on inanimate objects or the law-abiding people who buy and sell them. Oh, wait..
It is a bit curious that the Bradys are not trumpeting this lawsuit on their webpage, nor on the webpage of their “common sense” blog. Perhaps their confidence in this stunt is lacking.
So just becuase I bought a orginal MAC 10 in 45 ACP w .phony supressor and 6 32 round mags I’m some how a criminal becuase of the type of gun I buy?
Oh and the 10 AR-15 recievers I picked up, no one needs that many, so I must be a criminal……
give me a break.