Straw dogs

[Gob]

A US gun shop has been ordered to pay nearly $6m (£3.9m) in compensation to two police officers severely wounded by a weapon illegally bought there.

A Milwaukee jury found that Badger Guns should have realised that a man buying a firearm in 2009 intended to pass it on to the teenager at his side.

The teenager went on to shoot the two officers in the face when they stopped him riding his bike on the pavement.

Officials said over 500 firearms used in crimes had been traced to the store.

Officers Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch sued Badger Guns for negligence after teenager Julius Burton was able to get hold of the Taurus .40-calibre handgun by giving $40 to another man, a so-called "straw buyer", to buy it at the store in West Milwaukee.

In the confrontation with Burton, a bullet shattered eight of Mr Norberg's teeth, blew through his cheek and lodged into his shoulder. Mr Kunisch was shot several times. He lost an eye and part of the frontal lobe of his brain and was forced to retire.

[rubato]

About time.


yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

Negligence is negligence whether it is guns, cars or high healed shoes. A gun store that sold a gun to someone who clearly did not qualify to buy a gun should be liable. However on the other hand a gun dealer should have an absolute right not to sell a gun. I don’t know how many would take advantage of that right, but it should be absolute. They should be able to deny a sell for any reason or for no reason. Sure some will not sell a person a gun because they are racist, xenophobe or homophobe, but it doesn’t matter an absolute right is an absolute right. That way a gun dealer could never use the defense I half to sell him the gun.

I own some guns, but I have never sold one and never will; to sell a gun carries a high moral responsibility.

[rubato]

Gun makers are absolved of all legal responsibility by an act of the GOP.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmmm. Rube, does that mean if a gun was defective and exploded in the face of the user - or a safety guaranteed to work did not work and there was injury - then the manufacturers are exempt from liability for their errors?

Or is that too obviously the same situation as exists for car manufacturers who are not held responsible for how drivers use their vehicles but are for product defects? Hmmm????

[Sue U]

Hmmm. Rube, does that mean if a gun was defective and exploded in the face of the user - or a safety guaranteed to work did not work and there was injury - then the manufacturers are exempt from liability for their errors?

Or is that too obviously the same situation as exists for car manufacturers who are not held responsible for how drivers use their vehicles but are for product defects? Hmmm????

It is not the same thing at all. For one, auto makers can still be sued in product liability for failing to incorporate available safety devices/technology, or where a reasonable alternative design would eliminate the hazardous element. Gun manufacturers enjoy broad statutory immunity to such claims.

For another, standard product liability law plainly allows for claims against manufacturers whose products cause injuries when they are misused, where that type of misuse is known or reasonably foreseeable. Passage of the immunity statute in 2005 now expressly shields gun manufacturers from claims involving "misuse [of] firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended."

For yet another, one of the primary claims brought against gun manufacturers in the late 90s/early 00s was for negligent sales and marketing practices. There was substantial evidence that gun manufacturers were oversupplying their product in states with lax gun laws knowing that the excess stock would be diverted to a gray market and eventually to unlawful sales in states with greater restrictions. Another was that gun manufacturers were supplying dealers who they knew or reasonably should have known were making illegal sales to straw purchasers. Again, gun manufacturers are now by statute immune to such claims.

Furthermore, it is well worth noting that ownership of an automobile -- although clearly a dangerous instrumentality -- is not not guaranteed as a constitutional right, even though it is just as clearly more essential to the "American way of life" than is a gun.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As usual, thank you.