Gun control advocates’ fight to degrade and destroy Americans’ right to keep and bear arms on many fronts. They cry for “universal background checks” to “close the gun show loophole.” They call out for “gun violence restraining orders” to confiscate guns without due process. They seek a ban on “military style assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines.” Even though they’re coordinated by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety (a.k.a., thetrace.org), the antis [thankfully] suffer from anti-gun ADD. They flit from front to front. Here’s an oldie but a baddie . . .

forcing gun stores to institute policies and procedures to choke off gun sales, under the guise of fighting “gun violence.”

Remember the [now moribund] Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ Responsible Firearms Retail Partnership? The “voluntary code” failed to find favor amongst gun stores, perhaps because it mandated videotaping all transactions and ignoring “default proceeds” (sales made when the FBI fails to finish a background check within the specified three-day period). Amongst other things.

The RFRP morphed into the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s “Dealer Code of Conduct,” which includes all the provisos in the Mayors’ code plus limiting gun buyers to one gun a month. See what they’re doing there? Attempting to convince/bully gun dealers into instituting policies that the antis can’t achieve through legislation.

So, the gun store formerly known as Badger Guns.

That’s the Milwaukee gun store in the headlines last week: Milwaukee gun shop found negligent in police officers’ lawsuitA straw purchaser bought a gun from Badger. The “real” recipient shot two cops. After the verdict, a Washington Post reporter visited the “the nation’s most notorious crime-gun store” – renamed Brew City Shooters Supply – and discovered a model for the gun store of the future – as far as anti-gunners are concerned. But first, writer Dan Simmons p-sses on Badger’s from a great height.

Badger Guns, an unassuming gun shop set amid the strip malls and industrial sites just south of the ballpark where the Milwaukee Brewers play, was once America’s most notorious purveyor of guns used to commit crimes.

The place peddled 3,000 guns a year and didn’t care much about who bought them, police and prosecutors say. In one two-year period, six Milwaukee police officers were shot and wounded with weapons purchased at Badger Guns.

“Everybody knew about . . . Badgers,” testified Julius Burton, who was 18 when he persuaded a 21-year-old friend to buy him the gun he used to shoot two Milwaukee police officers in 2009. Burton is serving 80 years in prison. “This is where a lot of people go, so I was like, ‘I’ll go there.’ ”

Never mind the defence’s argument or context (gun stores are not liable for legally sold firearms), guilty! Now, the “good news” . . .

For gun stores contemplating whether to change their practices to protect themselves legally, there’s a model for them to follow: the new Badger Guns.

[New manager] Mike Allan’s first move was to adopt a members-only model that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee. Would-be buyers must also demonstrate proficiency with a firearm.

Those changes, Nasci said, set the tone for driving off unsavory types . . .

. . . there are also signs laying out strict rules for would-be buyers:

“Must be 21 to enter. Proper ID required.”

“No cell phones allowed.”

And for the droopy-drawered set of possible customers: “Pull your pants up or don’t come in. Try to have some decency and respect. No one wants to see your underwear.”

The rules are serious, Schwarz said: Staff members “will ask you to leave” if you show up with a cellphone. The policy is designed to prevent straw buyers from texting photos of guns to friends outside.

The “model” for a “legally protected” gun store of the future: a retail operation where all customers must be 21 or older to enter, register their name, address and other particulars with the owner (presumably including a fee), undergo a background check before even thinking about buying a gun (which may exceed the mandatory FBI NICS search for purchase).

No doubt: the new policies would reduce the possibility of straw purchases. As for reducing “gun violence” in a city plagued by gang-related, firearms-related crime, niente. A fact that WaPo’s Simmons felt obliged to mention.

Although the reinvented Badger Guns is no longer a problem, Nasci noted that all is hardly well in Milwaukee. Gun shops can’t operate within the city limits, but many, like Badger Guns, have cropped up in bordering towns.

As Badger became Brew City and tightened its standards, other stores, including chain outdoors retailers and smaller suburban gun shops, have seen a troubling increase in the number of guns they sold that wind up being used by criminals, Nasci said. Milwaukee is also struggling with a huge spike in homicides and other violent crimes.

“We have a whole other group that now are the top crime-gun sellers in Wisconsin,” Nasci said.

Brew City is not immune. Nasci said police have recovered some guns sold by Brew City during investigations of recent crimes. Still, he said, the store has mostly stayed true to Allan’s pledge to clean up his father’s business.

Mostly true? This must not stand! Face it: the antis will not be satisfied until no “crime guns” come from any gun store. They will keep on agitating for onerous rules for gun sales until the flow stops. And the only way to do that? Stop gun sales. As if you didn’t know . . .

82 Responses to The Washington Post Celebrates “The Gun Store of the Future”

      • Agree. I ask you, being a lawyer, if anyone has challenged the FOID in Illinois, using the same points as voter ID challenges?

      • Hummmm, I wonder what source they are using for the background check? It’s against the law ( my understanding) to use NICS check for any other purpose other than during the transaction of purchasing a firearm.

    • Free enterprise, man. If a gun shop can prosper catering solely to “guns for me but not for thee” elitist Fudds and such, so be it.

    • Who the hell would pay just to look at guns? Oh, wait a minute, there is a gun show in town this weekend, $8 to enter. Then we have Washington Arms Collectors shows “Annual Membership – $40.00
      Available to persons 21+ years old , subject to background check, these members may handle, buy or sell rifles, pistols and shotguns at WAC events. These members receive the club newsletter and voting privileges” and they add in a $15 BC fee on top of this and then charge you $10 to get in. I personally pass on all of the above. I won’t pay to get in just so I can pay extra for the privilege of buying at a show and yet you would have to stand in line to get in to this places. Never under estimate any ones gullibility.

      • What you are saying is here is a group formed to promote gun safety, gun ownership, and gun rights. That also has gun shows for its members.
        I’m not sure where you get the $10 entry fee. Maybe the non members that cannot buy? Yes, they have to stand in line to get in. (The shows are popular) Admission is free for members. They just walk in.

  1. FUWI
    Your people are broken, you broke them. We will let your broken people hsve their way with you if you succeed in disarmimg your populace.

  2. “surrender their First Amendment right to free speech”

    Is that referring to the prohibition on cell phones? How does a private property owner’s restrictions on what you can do on his property offend the First Amendment?

  3. “… that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee.”

    Interesting idea. What do I get for this fee? What is the benefit to me as the member of this new system?

    What about the information the store gets? How much information is needed form me? How is the information used and who has access? How is the information protected? How long is the information kept on file? Who is responsible for keeping it up to date?

    • What about errors in the information? What happens when information is wrong? My father and I share a name, what happens if you get my information mixed up with his?

    • They provide the list to the West Milwaukee PD. You need to be a member to shop or use the range.

      There are few ranges in the area, and theirs is decent. Not great, but decent.

      It used to be really creepy and felons would hang at the counter trying to get others to sell trade ins to them.

      It was cleaned up last time I was there, about 2 years ago, but I’m not going to join any club to browse a meager selection and shoot with people I’m not comfortable with.

      Maybe it is better now.

  4. If you want to alienate customers, erecting a pay-wall in front your brick-and-mortar store is the best way to do it.

  5. This is not a terrible idea to stop straw man purchases. The idea that gun stores adopting this model will lead to the federal government disarming everyone is ludicrous. There’s more than enough guns out in the wild to make that impossible.

    So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime except for useless boilerplate like ‘enforce the laws’ or ‘everyone should be armed’. If cops were camping outside of gun stores following purchasers, everyone would flip out about defacto registration process. The last thing everyone should want is everyone to be armed because most people are untrained idiots who can barely drive let alone handle a weapon.

    • Maybe not so ludicrous:
      1) The store is doing some of the government’s work for them by severely restricting sales to a few elitists and sheep who don’t mind registering themselves and their guns, which leads to
      2) The store is doing even more of the government’s work for them by maintaining a handy registry of people to confiscate guns from when it comes to that.

      Counter-argument for 2), that I just thought of: Don’t the stores pretty much do that anyway by keeping their copies of the NICS forms in perpetuity?

    • Care to show us where you advocate limiting auto purchasing, owning and operating to only those over 21 who have been “background checked” by the FBI?

      How about all those “strawman purchases” of autos by parents for their under-21 offspring?

      And where’s the “hue and cry” for people injured in negligent auto accidents being able to sue both the auto dealer and the auto manufacturer for the misuse of their automobile product?

      Moreover, how about suing the legal owner of an auto when it’s stolen and misused by the thief?

      IOW: your hypocrisy is showing itself, “dootie”.

    • “So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime”

      That’s because there’s no reasonable way to prevent straw purchases. This store’s policies won’t “stop straw man purchases”; at best, they might make a very small dent in them (i.e. the stupid ones, where the real buyer is sitting outside in the car).

      Joe knows he is prohibited from possessing firearms (e.g. felon, mental defective, drug addict). His friend Jack is not prohibited, nor is he plagued by scruples. Joe does a little research online and finds the gun he wants. Joe asks Jack to go buy that gun for him. Jack goes into the gun store, lies on form 4473 (checks the “Yes” box for question 11a), passes the background check, and walks out with the gun. Jack and Joe subsequently exchange cash for gun. The exchange might take place an hour or a week after the purchase.

      How is it possible to “prevent” or “stop” this type of straw purchase? Without periodically checking on every gun purchaser to make sure they still have (or can provide a paper trail for) every firearm they’ve ever purchased?

      • Obviously if there were UBC’s, Jack would have to run another background check on Joe before he transferred the gun to him and the glorious and all-knowing NICS will then flag Joe and prevent the transfer. Because we know that a guy willing to be a straw purchaser is going to follow the law if we “just have one more law”. Jack would never think about “losing” the gun and transferring it to Joe. Because laws!

        /doot derp

      • Maybe mandating a bill of sale and basic information on anyone you sell a gun to? It wouldn’t have to be turned in to anyone, but you should have it in case a gun you sold ends up in a crime scene. Maybe Tack on accessory if there’s reasonable belief that said strawman sold to a prohibited owner. And then add the strawman to the NICS. It would decrease the amount of people eligible to be a strawman.

        • So you are suggesting that someone be found guilty of a crime based on “reasonable suspicion?” Or are you suggesting that they be charged with a crime, despite the fact that there is insufficient evidence to have any chance at getting a conviction? Or are you merely suggesting that someone should be disallowed from gun ownership because they were once suspected (but never convicted) of a crime?

    • No law or process can prevent all straw purchases. Criminals will always find a way around any obstacle.
      So fantasizing about a perfect world where no law is ever broken is pretty pointless.
      There are people that think laws should be written such I go to prison for buying my wife a pistol even though we both have CCH permits and have passed the deep probe background check involved to get the permit.
      Washington state just made it illegal to let a friend fire your pistol at a range unless the pistol is permanently stored at the range. Doing so becomes a felony level illegal firearms transfer because two transfers would have occurred. How does that stupid law protect anyone?

    • Enforce the law is useless boilerplate because the law is not enforced. How many prosecutions for straw purchases have there been ever? Which leads to the next useless boilerplate, only criminals break the law. Which is especially true when there are no consequences for breaking them. Last time you drove through speed trap city did you slow down? To avoid the consequences of breaking the law?

    • “So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime except for useless boilerplate like ‘enforce the laws’ or ‘everyone should be armed’.”

      Camel’s nose, etc., etc.

      Criminals who want guns will get guns by whatever means they can devise. Criminals who get guns will carry guns concealed no matter what unconstitutional laws are passed about needing government permission slips. In fact, no matter what laws are passed, or enforced, criminals will do whatever the hell gets their criminal job done and the occasional trip to the slammer is just a cost of doing business.

      So yes, there are two solutions to resolving this issue: 1) repeal all the unconstitutional Second Amendment violating gun laws, including the law against “straw man” purchases, because there is absolutely no provision in the Second Amendment where the government can designate ANY citizen as not allowed to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (even if YOU find that person “icky”), and 2) Everyone who wants to be armed, should be armed. Criminals want guns because it makes them feel powerful and superior to their intended victims. If the victims are, or even MIGHT BE equally well armed it removes that part of the equation.

      If the occasional run-in with the law and a potential stay in the gray bar hotel is the worst a criminal can envision as his potential cost of business, he will factor that into his profit & loss. If the cost of business more likely may be a shoot-out with an armed victim the entire balance changes.

      The only proper and effective solution to “gun violence”? SHOOT BACK.

    • So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime except for useless boilerplate like ‘enforce the laws’ or ‘everyone should be armed’.

      Prior to the implementation of Brady background checks, 85-90% of criminals acquired their firearms from a source other than FFLs. After implementation of Brady background checks, 85-90% of criminals still acquire their firearms from a source other than FFLs. With respect to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the straw purchase from an FFL is a straw man.

      I have a solution, though: if someone is so dangerous as to be unsafe in free society, armed with a firearm, armed with something else, or unarmed, keep that person out of free society.

    • “So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime…”

      That’s because preventing straw purchases is a useless endeavor in and of itself. Straw purchases happen when a gun is purchased and then transferred to a prohibited person. This is the part where the law makes no sense: if this prohibited person is so dangerous that they are disallowed a firearm, why are they out walking the streets? Why are they able to buy knives or chemicals for bombs?

      Replace “straw purchase” laws with more jail time for convicted violent criminals. There’s the solution.

  6. “Gun shops can’t operate within the city limits (Milwaukee), but many, like Badger Guns, have cropped up in bordering towns.”

    What!?

    • That sounds contrary to at least one decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit (same circuit that Illinois is in).

  7. There was a gun store like that in Illinois where I lived. You had to have a FOID card (permit to purchase or own) to enter, and no phones were allowed. It did keep the riff-raff out.

    Of course, the easiest way for a criminal to get a gun is to go in with a girlfriend, look at a gun together, and get her to buy it. Saw that happen this weekend at a store.

    • Happens all the time. But until they start locking up the women and word gets out, it will never stop. Of course, if they do that, will the cry be they are anti women?

      • I heard a story in the radio this morning about a city council that wants background checks and a thumbprint from Uber/Lyft drivers. Opponents consider this to be racist, because a disproportionate number of the drivers are black or Hispanic.

    • It was (or IS) Mega-Sports in Plainfield,Il. I bought a gun from them 4 years ago. After Newtown they went FULL RETARD stopping people at the door and ordering them out.Sometimes getting physical. And losing a lot of business. Kinda’ like what happened with CTD only worse. Also being racist(and I don’t say that lightly). Toldja’ I had a big mouth…Illinois is a small world.

    • I’ve heard that you need an FOID card to even touch or look at accessories like scopes….. Is that true or was it just a particular stores over zealous policy?

      • martin-That’s why THIS Illinois resident buys all his guns in Indiana. No, I can’t buy a gun without the precious FOID card but I can generally look at guns or scopes without the FOID-naziis. And some Indiana gunshops don’t bother asking for ammo purchases(Cabelas does but that’s because I use the saver card). And Illinois is SO fooked up that lottery players are abandoning the land of Lincoln for Hoosierland. Now they won’t payout over 600 bucks in IL. A truly pathetic place…

  8. Thing that gets me is the no membership no entry clause. You have to demonstrate proficiency to get the membership. What about all these new shooters that are seeing the light now a days? What a great way to keep them out of your store. Imagine this: New shooter barred from entry because they cannot do the homework to buy a new gun to become proficient with. It’s like the anti’s are saying you must take a test to show you know what you’re doing, but there will be nothing to study or gain instruction from beforehand.
    I think they can keep their ol’ boys club, and run that shop straight into the ground.

  9. You mean they didn’t just pack it in and stop buying guns!? Buh buh buh they were supposed to stop when we told them to!

  10. If I were them I’d be afraid of a discrimination lawsuit for having a policy that says you’re underwear can’t be showing. After all isn’t that just code for “no young black men allowed”?

    • It’s a dress code. How is it any different from ‘no shirt no shoes no service’ or ‘jacket and tie required’?

      • You’re using logic there Sian. Nobody ever said you had to use logic to file a lawsuit–or win one, for that matter.

  11. They cry for “universal background checks” to “close the gun show loophole.”

    They cry for “criminalizing the private transfer of firearms” to “close the gun show loophole”.

    I fixed it for you.

  12. I have been known to stop at gun stores that I drive by. Pop in, take a look, maybe I see something I like, something I’ve been looking for.

    Members only? Ok. See ya. Grandkids can’t come in with me? Ok. See ya.
    No sale.

    Meanwhile, children of all ages are running around Cabela’s, Gander Mountain, Bass Pro. People of every shape, size and color in there.

    On the plus side, I do like their dress code.

  13. It’s simple. Don’t go to a store like this. I wouldn’t step foot in a gun store that required my personal information, personal background check, and a fee as condition for entry.

  14. Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression they are less worried about actual crime then they are the criminals (or anyone else) having guns? Much like treating a symptom and not the disease.

  15. They can suck on my membership fee. That’s not how you run a business. It’s how you run a club. Rights are not handed out by clubs nor are legendary profits. You want to see what the club approach does? Ask J.P. Morgan.

  16. It helps to remember that journalists self identify as 90% democrat, and outlets like NYT and WAPO have a well known left-wing and acknowledged editorial and ownership tilt to the left. So, there is going to be both unconscious bias and disconnect from reality (aka cognitive dissonance), and deliberate slant applied to the reporting of the news (aka propaganda).

    What to do about it? For one’s own benefit, don’t take what WAPO says as truth. Read for facts, confirm with alternative sources, and think for yourself. That alone takes you out of the low info voter (LIV) category and probably disqualifies you for registering as “Democrat” in the next election.

  17. What a ridiculous business model. Wouldn’t it be much better to put a up a few signs that state “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Suspected straw purchasers will be reported to Police” or something like that?
    No cell phones & a dress code….maybe, but registering and paying to ENTER a retail establishment is silly. I would think running a gun-store would be hard enough nowdays without precluding a majority of your customers. I will be shocked if this approach succeeds.

  18. Gun control is a Smoke and Mirror Ploy by the Treasonous, Seditious Democratic party Leadership so they can avoid trying to solve really tough problems, Any party that promotes and supports the level of Stupidity in the current white house should be dismembered and Outlawed, those tics that violate the Constitution should be recalled!

  19. I don’t relinquish my cell phone any more than I relinquish my firearm. And unless you’re reducing your prices for “members”, I’m not paying a fee for the privilege of spending my money in your shop.

    • Many shops here in VA have signs – “No loaded firearms allowed”. For me the translation is “We don’t want your kind here”. When I ask about it they claim it’s an insurance thing. Bull I say. If a gun shop wants my business then my gun, my bullets, and myself are or are not welcome. What are your thoughts?

      • In Indiana, such signs do not have the force of law. Also, I assume employees and patrons, both, are armed inside a gun store. Because common sense.

        That said: I’ve seen some of the idiocy that gun shops have to deal with, when people decide they need to un-conceal/unholster their loaded firearm inside the shop. I simply translate “no loaded firearms” as “concealed means concealed”, and everyone is happy.

      • Agreed. They certainly CAN make the request, and I’d be obliged to comply if I were to cross their threshold. They can’t force me to be happy about it, they can’t force me to darken their doorway, and they can’t force me give them so much as a dime of my miney,

  20. We owe it to ourselves to record and publicize the ethnicity of those arrested on weapons charges, as well as that of their victims, if any. Facts are facts. Don’t hide them or fear them. The truth is not “rayciss”. And even if it were it would still be the truth.

  21. Most guns shops by me…. the Chicago area do not allow pictures in the store or the range. I have no problem with that. The dress code? Eh if that’s how they want to alienate prospective customers, so be it.
    I will never step foot in a shop that requires me to pay a fee, pass a backround check, and demonstrate my proficiency with a product before I can even look at their inventory.
    Any bets on how long this shit hole stays in business????

  22. [New manager] Mike Allan’s first move was to adopt a members-only model that requires customers to register with the store and to pay a membership fee. Would-be buyers must also demonstrate proficiency with a firearm.
    Those changes, Nasci said, set the tone for driving off unsavory types . . .

    Like…
    People of color
    People who don’t look like us
    People who don’t think like us
    People we don’t know

    Yeah, this is a real great idea. It’s worked out so well in the past.

  23. “Gun control advocates’ fight to degrade and destroy Americans’ right to keep and bear arms…”

    This line is genius. Well done.

  24. Actually the anti-Constitution types ideal gun store is an out of business boarded up empty shell of a building. A customer hassling preregistering faux shop like this is just an intermediate step.

  25. “crime guns”

    The only crime I can think of a gun committing is allowing itself to be used as a prop by DiFi when she goes on another rant.

    On second thought, even that isn’t the gun’s fault.

  26. “So far gun advocates have zero solutions to prevent straw purchases to be used for crime”

    It’s not the responsibility of the gun advocate. The federal government tracks guns sales (NICS) and prohibits strawman purchases.

    Recover a gun used in a crime, track down the purchaser and find out where the gun went. No doubt you’ll find those that buy numerous guns but have none in their procession. (They can’t all be “stolen.”) There’s your criminal.

  27. So they developed a phone-free zone? I find it alarming the legal system knowingly, (so it is said) to allow alleged illegal sales to continue to take place. Even one is enough, isn’t it? And how does a dealer move so many firearms, bypassing a 4473?
    As is said, necessity is the mother of invention and applaud the “membership” plan. It may not be perfect and having to pull up your pants may stop a few sales, but isn’t this the point?

  28. Just another hoop for us CCW customers to jump through, I don’t need them and there tax. My local gun shop caters to me with out the B.S. All be careful and watch your six.

  29. Yawn.
    Couldn’t care less if he required cavity searches at the front door. It’s his business to do with as he pleases and customers can choose where they shop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *