Two Milwaukee police officers filed a lawsuit against a gun dealer last week for selling firearms to a man who then used them to shoot and wound the officers three years ago.

The guns were used in the shooting of Officer Jose Lopez III and former police officer Alejandro Arce in November 2007. The two officers are now leading the lawsuit.

The suit alleges the company, Badger Outdoors, knew Jose M. Fernandez was a daily drug user who could not legally buy a gun, but the company sold two weapons to him anyway.

Fernandez also bought two guns six days apart in order to avoid federal gun sale reporting requirements, which the plaintiffs argue should have raised concern on the part of the seller, making Badger Outdoors negligent, according to the suit.

According to the suit, Badger Outdoors has also had more sold weapons linked to crimes than any other dealer in the country, which qualifies the dealer as a public nuisance to the community.

The plaintiffs and the city of Milwaukee are seeking undetermined amounts in damages from Badger Outdoors.

Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the officers’ case is very strong.

“The cases we have won are nothing like this,” Vice said. “(Badger Outdoors) record is so much worse than any of the cases we’ve seen.”

This is not the first time Badger Outdoors has encountered criticism for its gun sales practices.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives suggested revoking Badger Outdoors’ license in 2006, according to federal records. However, the license was not revoked and the former owner Walter Allan’s son, Adam Allan, agreed to take over operation of the store and the name was changed to Badger Outdoors from Badger Guns.

Though many past suits against gun sellers and manufacturers have had a hard time proving the sellers liable, University of Wisconsin law professor Michael Scott said this case may stand a chance.

“The case will turn on whether or not the owners of the gun store are deemed to have taken reasonable precautions to prevent selling guns to people they should have known would use them unlawfully,” Scott said in an e-mail to The Badger Herald. “I think this will be a close call that a judge or jury will have to make.”

However, it may be more difficult to prove Badger Outdoors can be held directly responsible for the actions of criminals, even if they sold them the guns.

Jeff Nass, President of WI-Force, a chapter of the National Rifle Association, said unless there was a direct violation of the current gun laws, gun dealers cannot be held responsible for guns they sold that were used for criminal purposes.

“If they’re following all the laws, it would be like suing Ford or Chevy for the vehicle that drove the criminals to the place where they shot the officers,” Nass said.

WI-Force Representative Buster Bachhuber said unless Badger Outdoors violated the law, they cannot be held responsible for something that is a personal choice by the gun owner.

Only criminals commit violent crimes with the guns they buy, Bachhuber said, while law-abiding gun owners do not.