What Would Happen if “Badger Guns” Were a Bar in Milwaukee?
There’s an interesting story in yesterday’s Journal Sentinel about the Milwaukee Police dept hanging out around a local gun store and pulling over some people after they’ve visited because the gun store in question is providing the vast majority of weapons used in gun crimes in Milwaukee. This, predictably, has the right in a tizzy.
Badger Guns, and its predecessor, Badger Outdoors, have accounted for roughly one-third of all crime guns traced by Milwaukee police in the past four years, the data shows. No other store in the state comes close to that figure. The next closest, The Shooters Shop in West Allis, accounted for less than 3% of guns traced by Milwaukee police during the same period.
A total of 1,880 crime guns recovered in Milwaukee were linked to Badger between January 2006 and Sept. 1 – or more than one a day, according to a Journal Sentinel analysis. - jsonline.com
Aside from the specific instance of “Badger Guns”, I wonder how this would be treated if there was a certain bar where people were continually getting drunk at and getting in their cars and driving drunk.
I mean, they’re both legal businesses selling legal products, right? The difference is that in the past, there have been bars which have been shut down because they’re constantly the source of the drunk drivers.
It’s a rhetorical question, but when two businesses are found to be the source of illegal activity, why is one shut down when the other is not only allowed to stay open, but strongly defended by some?
You are omitting a few important points here. First, people driving drunk when leaving a bar are committing a violation, then and there. Police have good legal reason to stop them if they are visibly impaired. People legally buying a gun are not committing a crime and should not be stopped by police. This is still America and we have a right to assume that the police will not interfere with our lives unless we are violating the law, and even then they should only do so within Constitutional guidelines. You folks cry tears over foreign terrorists lacking legal process, but are perfectly willing to take rights away from Americans because you don’t like guns. I smell sulfur here, not hope.
Second, bars are subject to revocation of their alcohol sales permits at city level, and guns shops don’t have the same restriction. If a gun store sells guns illegally, they should be closed. If gun laws allow people to use legal loopholes to violate them, then deal with the laws, don’t complain about the gun shop.
The problem here is, people are NOT legally buying guns. Straw buyers are lying to the federal government when they fill out the forms required for a purchase.
Watch how the attitudes change when the gun crimes push into the northwest suburbs. It will happen.
I am a logical person. I look at almost every situation and put it in a logical context. I am also a huge “fan” of less government intervention, whether that is our elected representatives or our law enforcement. The two things that popped into my head while reading your post was 1) Are those numbers for real and 2) how is the MPD identifying those they pull over and does it fit a legal search and seizure? Bottom line, after doing some more research is, YES, those numbers are for real, and the “tactics” the MPD are utilizing are legit.
When the statistics are that staggering (and those are tremendous statistics – hell they’re beating gun shops in LA for cryin’ out loud!) the MPD doesn’t just have the ability to crack down, they have an obligation. That obligation needs to be met with legality, discipline and professionalism, and in this case, as with most cases in my opinion, they have.
So, if I buy a gun at that shop, the mere act of making that legal purchase is reasonable cause to stop, detain and question me? That qualifies as probable cause now?
If the store is selling guns illegally, then send police to the store undercover, or make a case against the owner. This excuse for harassing honest citizens is ridiculous, and the liberal support of this type of governmental over-reaching is hypocritical. At the the same time we set terrorists free and legalize marijuana, you support illegal searches of law abiding citizens that you just don’t like. Tsk tsk.
From the JSONLINE article: “Milwaukee police began staking out Badger on June 11. A surveillance car looks for suspicious activity, such as a man staying in the car while a female goes in to shop. They also run license plates to see if they come back as registered to felons.
When they find a target, officers stop the vehicle on a traffic violation. The tactic, called a “pre-text” stop, has been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
This particular excerpt is about the most recent run of action – others, years ago, apparently used less rigorous methods. The pretext stop appears to be valid, too, according to Whren v. U.S.
1996 WL 305735 (1996).
I’m not taking a particular stance on this, I just want to make sure folks read the article before assuming that the police are doing something nefarious.
No, you’re getting profiled because you’re patronizing a shop frequented by criminals and their friends who are not honest citizens, they’re more like domestic terrorists.
So profiling is OK sometimes? When it’s related to criminal activity? Let’s say I attend a Mosque where a number of other members have donated to terror groups and are openly hostile to our government. Should I be profiled and watched? I thought the answer to that was “no, never”? Boy, have liberals changed.
TFG, no change, actually. When there’s an opportunity to restrict gun rights or harass “gun nuts”, then pretty much anything is okay.
If you’re looking for people to respect the opinions of those they disagree with, I would not look at the Democrats (or the Republicans).
You’re not replying to Dan Cody. I don’t have a problem with FBI investigations like you’re describing, but that’s not really about police or profiling.
Amen. If I was a criminal looking to get a gun, I certainly would go through legal channels to buy it, and I certainly would pick the store whose customers are being profiled by police.
Just like nearly every gun “control” law, this ends up harassing people who are following the law and does nothing to those who intend to break the law.
What’s wrong with a multi-pronged approach? Is the MPD at the same time not investigating any illegal gun sales? Not likely. And this is getting results.
And, if you were a criminal looking to get a gun, you wouldn’t do it this way. But as has been pointed out here and throughout the news, a lot of criminals aren’t the smartest. Why not take out the stupid ones in the easiest way possible?
If the cops can track 1/3 of the beer confiscated at high school parties to a certain place, and they see a bunch of kids sit in the car while someone else goes in to buy, should they pull them over? How is that different than this?
No, in your scenario the cops should definitely not pull over the car. The alcohol was purchased legally (I assume) by someone who is in the car (again, assuming) and there is no arrestable or detainable offense. All that will be achieved is a waste of everyone’s time.
The cries of “hassling” felons and convicted criminals is laughable, coming from the right. The same group that rails against the government for not checking the immigration status of anyone who looks foreign, are the same ones who cry foul the second their own selfish concerns are put at risk.
What’s terribly ironic though, is that the Constitutionality of these very types of searches, have been made possible by an increasingly conservative judiciary (i.e. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 (US 1987), “allowing suspicionless searches of parolees”; Opinion delivered by Justice Thomas).
You are reaping what you have sewn.
The rhetorical practice of grouping diverse individuals together in order to point out hypocrisy is getting old. I am and have never been in favor of racial profiling.
It still leaves to question that after years of promoting conservative justices, why you are surprised that they would allow searches like this?
More rhetorical fun. This time I can’t even figure out if you are implying I have supported the recent appointments on the “conservative” side or not. And, even if I had, it almost sounds like a “well, you supported their appointment, so you can’t complain about their decision.”
Honestly, I don’t really see the point in any of your arguments. My point is very simple: I don’t agree with this kind of nonsense, nor do I agree with court decisions that manage to find some way to define these as constitutional. Feel free to continue to find hypocrisy in such a simple, clear, and consistent viewpoint that has not changed in my life.
After years of whining about searches like this, why are you suddenly supporting them? Hm, that hypocrisy shoe fits you folks nicely.
It isn’t the mere buying of the gun that is the probable cause. The probable cause is speeding, expired tags, etc and then if there’s reason to detain said person, they do so. The fact that they are taking a closer look at this business is not illegal, against the constitution, or over-reaching. The police department routinely stakes out hot spots of crime, even though the business or patrons of that business are not breaking the law, simply because there’s a major problem. In this case, Badger Guns is engaging in a legal business – selling guns. The problem is they are selling guns that are ending up, WAY TO OFTEN, in the hands of felons. This isn’t about gun control, this is about a business that has chosen to engage in questionable (possibly illegal) activity and sell guns to those they shouldn’t.
I am not in support of setting terrorists free, or illegal searches, but when you have a business that is not being responsible, the police department needs to get involved, legally, to stop this business from doing more damage. Mwarden, you are correct that if you’re a felon you wouldn’t go through legal channels to obtain weapons, but evidently Badger Guns is supplying a vast amount of weapons that end up in felon’s hands. Why is that?!?! Maybe it’s because their business practices are “slightly” lax, or maybe it’s just coincidence? Either way, something needs to be investigated and as long as the police are pulling cars over fore reasonable suspicion(s) I see no problem with it.
Is speeding 1 mile per hour over the limit against the law? What about waiting at a stop sign for 2 seconds instead of 3?
Hanging their hat on technicalities is just another flavor of the “ends justify the means” argument.
Also, I am not sure how the police end up searching the car after a speeding ticket, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
Yes, 1 mile per hour is over the limit, and against the law. Those aren’t technicalities or “ends justifying means”, they’re facts.
Also, many of these people are getting caught by the police running their license plates. Probable cause is not needed in that case, it’s public record. The person that owns that car goes into the gun shop, well that’s a violation. Just because the police decide to stakeout that particular establishment (which is a common, legal, and effective form of police work) just means there is a distinctive threat that needs to be investigated.
This is not a slippery slope argument – trust me, I am hypersensitive to that kind of thing – this is, pure and simple, a business that is irresponsible in it’s business practices; Come on, the statistics bear it out: 2009 – 36% of firearms traceable to crimes in Milwaukee, 2008 – 35%, 2007 – 33%, and 2006 – 32% (getting worse every year). Couple that with the next closest “competitor”: 2009 – 2%, 2008 – 2%, 2007 – 3.6%, 2006 – 2.3%
Looking at those numbers everyone would have to agree THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG AT BADGER GUN!!!!
Right, 1 mile per hour over the speed limit is against the law if you are leaving a gun shop, and it’s not if you’re leaving a school. It is definitely a technicality, because the reality of enforcement does not match the letter of the law (and for good reason).
It’s not an “ends justify the means” situation? Really? So you would be fine with getting a ticket for going 1 mph over the limit leaving your local Hallmark store? Doubt it…
Your argument against Badger Guns is kind of bogus, because they need a license to operate. If they are violating the law, then shut them down. If they are not violating the law but are doing something that everyone agrees is wrong, then change the law.
This stuff isn’t hard.
Harassing its customers is just an end-run around the correct processes.
You’re deeply naive or simply dishonest. Police have the discretion to do what the law allows, which is often looked on as harassment and can be seen that way. If you really have a problem with it, then you have a problem with day-to-day operations in all the local police forces, especially the suburbs. DWB stops are incredibly common, but this is the stuff you are complaining about?
If police don’t poke their nose into people’s business when there is good reason to do so, they aren’t doing their job.
You seem not to notice that this article mentioned police arresting guys on warrants leaving Badger.
Bottom line, the cops can do this, and they should do it. Badger is a menace to the health of the whole area.
You didn’t really explain how I was being naive or dishonest, so I didn’t really get that part.
Every comment here from people who support this follows the same format. First, it acts like it’s not about harassing the customers of this establishment; it’s about enforcing the laws on the books! Then at the end it talks about how Badger is horrible and should be singled out by using unrelated laws.
Nothing in your comment indicated why the law shouldn’t be changed such that a place operating like Badger does should simply be shut down.
The bottom line is that using the technicalities of traffic laws to perform warrantless searches is wrong. You’re right that I didn’t mention individuals who are stopped because they have open legitimate warrants, because I don’t have a problem with that. (Whether they should be able to search the car during the execution of the warrant, though, is a separate matter.)
I don’t want my police force to be operating by public opinion. I want them enforcing the law in a consistent manner. I should be treated equally in the eyes of the law whether you like what I do for a living or not.
OK, I guess you genuinely don’t get it and are not “playing dumb,” which is what I meant by dishonest.
The last thing you want is blind equality from police or anyone else, which would mean ignoring most reasons to be suspicious of anyone. You wouldn’t walk down the street that way through the city as if every area and person approaching you is “equal” in terms of the possible threat they represent, so why should police work that way?
Public opinion is always going to be a factor, but how is it relevant here? Flynn made this issue a big public spectacle because that is how he tends to do things when he goes after problems he targets. Cops getting shot by guns from Badger are probably the biggest motivator.
It’s simply naive to think the police don’t and shouldn’t work the way you are complaining about. They do–constantly. It is how they do their job! It is a good way for them to deter and pre-empt crime.
If certain rental properties or bars become magnets for crime, they get “harassed.” Neighbors and aldermen tend to ask for this to be done. it is not illegal–it is getting in the face of people who evidence shows are *very likely* up to no good. It is not arbitrary targeting–felons are getting guns from Badger, largely because they have friends who lie for them. If others like to hang out and shoot there, it sounds like a great place to sit an watch and look up plates.
Bruce Murphy just posted some more observations about Badger Guns…
I don’t see a big difference between DWB stops and pulling people over for violations that would not stand up in court because they because the cops don’t like a business they patronize. It is police abusing the power given to them.
What do you think would happen if they pulled the same stunt with people leaving Brewers games in order to rack up some DUIs?
Remember when Racine cops decided they didn’t like raves and charged a bunch of people with visiting a house of ill repute? There are lots of outdated laws on the books that can be used to harass people.
If they want to prevent straw buying of guns they should prosecute some people for it (when they catch them via legitimate means) and be sure to publicize this to discourage people from doing this.
[It just occurred to me to point out that if you didn't notice from the link, the "Dan" in (all/most of) the comments today is not Mr. Cody. Different Dan. Sorry for any confusion.]
While badger guns sells 30% of the guns used in crimes in just Milwaukee, i wonder what the percentage is for the number of guns they sell vs the number traced back to a crime. I would think that if they can account for 30% of the crime that their sales percentage sold which were used for crimes is probably even higher.
Bingo. The number being quoted is nonsense unless it is compared to the company’s market share. If their market share is 30%, then their guns being used in 30% of gun crimes is exactly what would be expected. Furthermore, harassing its customers will not reduce crime; it will only alter the market share. Though, I would not be surprised if market share and crime% dropped to 15% and everyone celebrated the accomplishment.