• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Murders, shootings soar in Chicago

They are indeed responsible. The majority of shops don't have problems with their sales ending up used in crimes because the employees are well trained in spotting straw buyers. Remember this? US gun store ordered to pay $6m for 'straw buyer' gun sale - BBC News It's a small percentage of shops, but either way if they're knowingly selling guns to straw buyers or doing it due to lack of proper training they're responsible. They are not acting as a responsible business. A majority of guns used in crimes originating from a single shop or two is a problem. More than 500 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced back to this shop. They're not responsible eh?
A civil action does not prove guilt, rather ability to elicit sympathy. "Should have realized" is easy to say after the fact. Notice that there is no mention of criminal charges and, in fact, the defendants are still in business. So, they are not guilty until proven otherwise.
 
A civil action does not prove guilt, rather ability to elicit sympathy. "Should have realized" is easy to say after the fact. Notice that there is no mention of criminal charges and, in fact, the defendants are still in business. So, they are not guilty until proven otherwise.

In the very least, a majority of weapons recovered in crimes traced to a single shop points to incompetence and poorly trained employees. Which is a problem. Especially when the other 99 % of gun shops aren't having their sales end up in the hands of criminals, used in crimes. I also find it interesting and perplexing that you're waving away the 500 weapons traced to this shop.
 
Last edited:
In the very least, a majority of weapons recovered in crimes traced to a single shop points to incompetence and poorly trained employees. Which is a problem. Especially when the other 99 % of gun shops aren't having their sales end up in the hands of criminals, used in crimes. I also find it interesting and perplexing that you're waving away the 500 weapons traced to this shop.

One of my duties when i was DOJ attorney was dealing with Administrative revocations by the ATF of FFL licenses. there are plenty of rules and regulations that allow the federal government to ban someone from dealing in firearms. I defended two lawsuits where the administratively banned dealer took it to court. In both cases, the Court granted my motion to dismiss meaning the court found that the former dealer didn't have a claim.

and I have NO PROBLEM with such dealers getting revoked. One dealer would sell weapons he received in the due course of trade as "privately" owned firearms at flea markets. another case I know about was a guy who was a major gun show dealer. a good one I had bought from (he was in KY but had an Ohio license and a Ky License). His son was an addict and was taking guns from the business for drugs. and the father didn't make much-if any-effort to stop that. and the guy was permanently banned from ever having another FFL. Not my case but its well known in the business


FindACase™ | KY Imports, Inc. v. United States
 
In the very least, a majority of weapons recovered in crimes traced to a single shop points to incompetence and poorly trained employees. Which is a problem. Especially when the other 99 % of gun shops aren't having their sales end up in the hands of criminals, used in crimes. I also find it interesting and perplexing that you're waving away the 500 weapons traced to this shop.
WHY do you believe that points to incompetent and poorly trained employees. Have you presented ANY evidence or indication that the employees or shop owners should have KNOWN they were going to be illegal sales?
 
WHY do you believe that points to incompetent and poorly trained employees. Have you presented ANY evidence or indication that the employees or shop owners should have KNOWN they were going to be illegal sales?

The evidence is that the majority of weapons used in crimes originated from a single shop. That's not a sign of a problem to you? No accountability there at all? no red flags?
 
The evidence is that the majority of weapons used in crimes originated from a single shop. That's not a sign of a problem to you? No accountability there at all? no red flags?
I ask again...what evidence did the workers have that the sales were not legit? In order to deny the sale, the employees should have some form of actual cause or reason beyond total volume of sales, wouldnt you think? Did they fail their NICS? Did they have legal documentation? Did they have legal ID?
 
I ask again...what evidence did the workers have that the sales were not legit? In order to deny the sale, the employees should have some form of actual cause or reason beyond total volume of sales, wouldnt you think? Did they fail their NICS? Did they have legal documentation? Did they have legal ID?

Are they properly trained to spot straw buyers? That many guns traced back to them is strong evidence that they aren't. It's either that or they're dirty.
 
Are they properly trained to spot straw buyers? That many guns traced back to them is strong evidence that they aren't. It's either that or they're dirty.
What evidence would they be looking for in a straw purchase? The buyer is required to fill out the appropriate forms and present appropriate ID. What extra step would you like them to take? And when they deny buyers because they suspect without evidence that the purchase is illegal, who defends them from their civil rights lawsuits?
 
What evidence would they be looking for in a straw purchase? The buyer is required to fill out the appropriate forms and present appropriate ID. What extra step would you like them to take? And when they deny buyers because they suspect without evidence that the purchase is illegal, who defends them from their civil rights lawsuits?
Gun dealers are the first line of defense to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. Responsible gun sellers know that their families, friends and communities are safer when they keep guns out of the wrong hands. When they follow responsible business practices they can reduce criminals’ access to guns. The implications of a gun store employees action have a significant impact on lives, and it's important to ensure that they're trained, educated, and willing to follow the law. We expect bouncers to be trained to spot fake IDs. Is it unreasonable to expect gun store employees to be trained to spot straw purchases? Are you aware Surveillance video shows that teen shooter with a friend at the Badger Gun store a month before the shooting. He paid the friend $40 to buy the gun for him because he was underage. The store clerk helped the friend fill out the paperwork, The gun clerk testified that "he was unaware of an illegal sale known as a "straw purchase." Does that sound like an employee who's properly trained to you?
 
What evidence would they be looking for in a straw purchase? The buyer is required to fill out the appropriate forms and present appropriate ID. What extra step would you like them to take? And when they deny buyers because they suspect without evidence that the purchase is illegal, who defends them from their civil rights lawsuits?

To answer your question more specifically, there's recommended procedure and questions that should be posed. I'm assuming that gun store employees are trained with these?
Questions to Gauge Understanding of Straw Purchases

§ What, to the extent of your knowledge, is a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is one in which a customer buys a gun for another who is incapable or unwilling to buy it; I’m not sure; When you sell to a person who isn’t going to use the gun. This is the simplest of the questions attempting to gauge understanding of straw purchases. Without even a definition of a straw purchase, employees will not be able to stop straw purchases.

§ Describe a typical straw purchaser.

Normally female, sometimes accompanied by a man who is also looking at or inspecting the firearms; They normally don’t know very much about weapons, maybe they go in and out of the store a few times to talk to someone; Perhaps gun store employees understand straw purchases, but are unaware of what they should be looking for.

§ What signs do you look for when watching for straw purchases?

Generally really nervous, they don’t know much about guns; A customer that is followed around by another person, who handles the guns but then doesn’t purchase them. This question attacks the same problem as the one above. If employees have a solid understanding of the definition of straw purchases and know how to pick out a straw purchase, perhaps they are better at stopping them.

§ What is the consequence (or punishment) for allowing a straw purchase to occur?

Most of the time nothing, but in theory maybe the owner gets his license revoked; This gun store is very strict about straw purchases, so I would be fired if I was known to have been involved in a straw purchase. This question tests the employee’s knowledge of the law surrounding the punishment for straw purchases and the workings of the regulatory system currently in place, and also the strictness of the specific gun store.

§ What means could be implemented to test if a buyer is a straw purchaser? Have you ever implemented any of these techniques?

You could ask the buyer more questions. If they got confused or had to consult another person, you might have a better indication. I’ve questioned a few people, and sometimes they leave after the interaction.

§ If a customer came to you and asked to buy a gun for his or her girlfriend or boyfriend because s/he “needed” it, what would be your response?

I would not sell the gun; As long as it wasn’t for a criminal, I would sell it. This puts their knowledge to the test. Maybe there is some disconnect between the understanding of the law and their ability to put it into practice.



Experience with Straw Purchases

§ Did you receive any training on straw purchases when you were first employed? Did you receive any instructions from management on how to deal with straw purchases?

Yes or No; The manager simply told us not to ask questions. Possibly, dealers of gun stores with more crime gun traces instruct their employees not to interfere with straw purchases. Does this training correlate with an employees understanding of straw purchases and their ability to stop them.

§ Have you ever suspected a customer of being a straw purchaser and gone through with the sale anyway? What was your reasoning?

Yes, there have been a few times when I thought a buyer might be doing a straw purchase, but I had no definitive proof, and I didn’t want to lose the sale. This measures an employee’s experience and history with straw purchases.

§ How likely are you to call out a straw purchase? What affects that decision?

As long as they haven’t given me definitive proof that they’re doing something illegal, I’ll make the sale. It’s not my job to judge people for their purchase. Are those who are trained for straw purchases more likely to try to stop straw purchases?

§ Given a scenario in which you’re uncertain, would you continue with the purchase? Why or why not?

It depends if the person looks trustworthy. If I thought they were going to use it for crime, I wouldn’t continue with the purchase.
 
Gun dealers are the first line of defense to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. Responsible gun sellers know that their families, friends and communities are safer when they keep guns out of the wrong hands. When they follow responsible business practices they can reduce criminals’ access to guns. The implications of a gun store employees action have a significant impact on lives, and it's important to ensure that they're trained, educated, and willing to follow the law. We expect bouncers to be trained to spot fake IDs. Is it unreasonable to expect gun store employees to be trained to spot straw purchases? Are you aware Surveillance video shows that teen shooter with a friend at the Badger Gun store a month before the shooting. He paid the friend $40 to buy the gun for him because he was underage. The store clerk helped the friend fill out the paperwork, The gun clerk testified that "he was unaware of an illegal sale known as a "straw purchase." Does that sound like an employee who's properly trained to you?

I'm not aware of the surveillance video. Tell me more. Did the gang member pay the friend 40$ in the store clerks presence? Did the gang member fill it out for him or was he even there? If so...to me that's no different than a store clerk selling alcohol to someone for a minor knowing they were selling it to someone for a minor and both cases should be liable for at least a fine if not accessory charges. OR...did the friend buy the gun and not in any way shape or form indicate his or her intent was a straw purchase?

You seem intent on clouding every response with a paragraph full of irrelevant emotional appeals. I'm interested in the facts. If the store clerk knew the gun was being purchased for the friend and that the friend was not legally allowed to purchase or poses a firearm then yes...I would agree that the store clerk is culpable. If not...you are still trying to string together an argument based on shoulds and emotion.
 
I'm not aware of the surveillance video. Tell me more. Did the gang member pay the friend 40$ in the store clerks presence? Did the gang member fill it out for him or was he even there? If so...to me that's no different than a store clerk selling alcohol to someone for a minor knowing they were selling it to someone for a minor and both cases should be liable for at least a fine if not accessory charges. OR...did the friend buy the gun and not in any way shape or form indicate his or her intent was a straw purchase?

You seem intent on clouding every response with a paragraph full of irrelevant emotional appeals. I'm interested in the facts. If the store clerk knew the gun was being purchased for the friend and that the friend was not legally allowed to purchase or poses a firearm then yes...I would agree that the store clerk is culpable. If not...you are still trying to string together an argument based on shoulds and emotion.

How could a clerk selling fire-arms "not know what a straw purchase is"? He testified that he didn't. You're doing whatever you can to deflect blame from a shop where 500 of their sales ended up used in crimes. I can't fathom how you can wave that away and not see any problems with those numbers. And I wouldn't call a gun clerk asking some questions "emotional appeal"
 
Last edited:
How could a clerk selling fire-arms "not know what a straw purchase is"? He testified that he didn't. You're doing whatever you can to deflect blame from a shop where 500 of their sales ended up used in crimes. I can't fathom how you can wave that away and not see any problems with those numbers. And I wouldn't call a gun clerk asking some questions "emotional appeal"

Dood...ever notice when I ask straightforward and direct questions about your examples you freak out and go off on your emotionally driven rants? YOU mentioned this video. I asked a direct question...what was present in this video that should have indicated to the clerk that the purchase was illegal. I've asked several times based on YOUR examples...what were the purchasers doing that would have indicated to a clerk that the purchase was illegal?
 
Gun dealers are the first line of defense to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. Responsible gun sellers know that their families, friends and communities are safer when they keep guns out of the wrong hands. When they follow responsible business practices they can reduce criminals’ access to guns. The implications of a gun store employees action have a significant impact on lives, and it's important to ensure that they're trained, educated, and willing to follow the law. We expect bouncers to be trained to spot fake IDs. Is it unreasonable to expect gun store employees to be trained to spot straw purchases? Are you aware Surveillance video shows that teen shooter with a friend at the Badger Gun store a month before the shooting. He paid the friend $40 to buy the gun for him because he was underage. The store clerk helped the friend fill out the paperwork, The gun clerk testified that "he was unaware of an illegal sale known as a "straw purchase." Does that sound like an employee who's properly trained to you?
Soooo... the teen was there a month before and that's an indication it's a straw purchase? The teen paid $40 to the straw purchaser in front of the seller and said "here's for buying the gun for me"? I see no indication any of that happened, it appears the seller did not know it was a straw purchase, and that's why there are no criminal charges.

These "unwritten shouldas" are completely bogus. If the buyer passes his NICS, and doesn't admit or give reasonable indication (passing money right in front of seller, maybe, etc), that's where the sellers responsibility ends unless and until there's specific procedures mandated by law. Is a car dealer suppose to know or infer the drinking/drug habits of potential buyers? No, and they generally have a great deal more resources than even a "large" gun shop.
 
Soooo... the teen was there a month before and that's an indication it's a straw purchase? The teen paid $40 to the straw purchaser in front of the seller and said "here's for buying the gun for me"? I see no indication any of that happened, it appears the seller did not know it was a straw purchase, and that's why there are no criminal charges.

These "unwritten shouldas" are completely bogus. If the buyer passes his NICS, and doesn't admit or give reasonable indication (passing money right in front of seller, maybe, etc), that's where the sellers responsibility ends unless and until there's specific procedures mandated by law. Is a car dealer suppose to know or infer the drinking/drug habits of potential buyers? No, and they generally have a great deal more resources than even a "large" gun shop.

The Seller testified that he "didn't know what a straw purchase was" that's like a liquor store clerk saying he doesn't know what "under age means" 500 guns apparently straw purchases from this particular shop ended up in the hands of people who didn't originally buy and were used to commit crimes. The only shop in Milwaukee with this problem. Most of the crime scene weapons recovered in a short period of time were from this particular shop. The jury convicted the seller and he was sentenced to two years for good reason. And the whole "that's were responsibility ends" is bull**** because most gun shops go a little further than just a background check and having the paperwork filled out. they ask a few friendly questions, dig in a little bit to see if they may be dealing with a straw buyer. It's called ethics.
 
Last edited:
The Seller testified that he "didn't know what a straw purchase was" that's like a liquor store clerk saying he doesn't know what "under age means" 500 guns apparently straw purchases from this particular shop ended up in the hands of people who didn't originally buy and were used to commit crimes. The only shop in Milwaukee with this problem. Most of the crime scene weapons recovered in a short period of time were from this particular shop. The jury convicted the seller and he was sentenced to two years for good reason. And the whole "that's were responsibility ends" is bull**** because most gun shops go a little further than just a background check and having the paperwork filled out. they ask a few friendly questions, dig in a little bit to see if they may be dealing with a straw buyer. It's called ethics.
By your own link above:

Burton is serving an 80-year sentence for the attack, while the man who bought the gun for him was jailed for two years.

The straw buyer was convicted; he lied on his NICS form. The seller was not convicted of anything that I can determine, he lost a civil suit.
 
By your own link above:



The straw buyer was convicted; he lied on his NICS form. The seller was not convicted of anything that I can determine, he lost a civil suit.
Correct, that's what I meant, typo.Still lost the civil suit however.
 
Correct, that's what I meant, typo.Still lost the civil suit however.

Which means that the gun shop has to date done nothing criminal. Winning the civil suit means lawyers were able to tap into the whole "unspoken responsibility" thing, no doubt partially if not wholly due to a combination of very sympathetic plaintiffs as well as anti-gun sentiments. Fortunately, criminality has a higher bar of proof.
 
Which means that the gun shop has to date done nothing criminal. Winning the civil suit means lawyers were able to tap into the whole "unspoken responsibility" thing, no doubt partially if not wholly due to a combination of very sympathetic plaintiffs as well as anti-gun sentiments. Fortunately, criminality has a higher bar of proof.
The fact remains that 500 weapons "a majority"'of weapons used in crimes in Milwaukee were traced back to THAT shop, which points to the fact that they were dirty, lazy or ill-equipped to do their jobs properly, as their sales clerk testified he "didn't know what a straw purchase was" in the very least it's irresponsible. And they're not in business anymore anyway.
 
Last edited:
The fact remains that 500 weapons "a majority"'of weapons used in crimes in Milwaukee were traced back to THAT shop, which points to the fact that they were dirty, lazy or ill-equipped to do their jobs properly, as their sales clerk testified he "didn't know what a straw purchase was" in the very least it's irresponsible. And they're not in business anymore anyway.

Not under that name which, probably, was necessitated by needing to file bankruptcy due to the civil trial.

As for making hay over the sales clerk not knowing the slang phrase "straw purchase", he doesn't need to. All he needs to know is that the purchaser isn't outright lying on the NICS form, in this case the question regarding buying the gun for someone else who isn't eligible. Unless the purchaser came out and said that was his intention, that's where the legal obligation ends. Hence no criminal charges.
 
Back
Top Bottom