Oct. 20--In June 2009, two Milwaukee police officers were in their squad car when they saw Julius Burton biking on the sidewalk, which is forbidden. They told him to move, but he didn't. They left the car to confront him, and in the ensuing encounter, he raised a pistol and shot them both, inflicting serious wounds. Burton was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison.
End of another grim story of gun violence? Not quite. Burton was not allowed to buy a gun because he was only 18. He had it thanks to Jacob Collins, a 21-year-old who had gone with Burton to Badger Guns, where he bought the gun for his companion. The transaction was an illegal straw purchase -- for which Collins was convicted and given a two-year sentence.
But there was another culprit in this shooting: Badger Guns, which made the sale despite tip-offs that Collins was making the purchase for someone else. Last week, a Milwaukee jury decided that the seller also deserves to be punished for the terrible outcome. Siding with the officers who sued the store, the jurors awarded them almost $6 million, including $730,000 in punitive damages.
This may come as a surprise to anyone who remembers the 2005 law passed by Congress protecting from lawsuits companies that make or sell firearms -- like the one filed by the city of Chicago under Mayor Richard M. Daley targeting manufacturers and dealers for selling so many guns that some were bound to end up in the hands of criminals. The federal legislation pre-empted such suits.
But this was a different type of claim. The law stipulated that companies could be held responsible for injuries caused by a gun if the seller knew, or had reason to know, that the sale was illegal. That was the argument made by lawyers for the Milwaukee cops, and the jury was persuaded.
Collins marked a form indicating that he was buying the gun for someone else but then changed it. The two men left the store during the transaction after Collins realized he didn't have enough cash to cover it. The jurors concluded that the store employee should have picked up on these indications of a straw purchase.
In one sense, the verdict is not particularly significant. The immunity measure had some exceptions, and this case fit one of them. Negligence of the sort found here may be rare.
But the decision is still important, because it's the first time a gun shop has lost a civil suit since the federal law took effect. It tells those wounded by illegal guns that the law may afford them some restitution. It should encourage more lawsuits against irresponsible dealers. It should deter careless sales.
And it could give a boost to those political leaders who want to repeal the 2005 law, making it easier to hold gun-makers and retailers accountable for the carnage produced by armed criminals.
Stopping the traffic in illegal guns is a huge challenge. This verdict makes a welcome contribution.
