Minnesota Gun Shop Sells Same Stolen Gun Twice

[Zappa]

Interesting story here about how stolen guns often end up back in the chain of commerce without being checked to see if they're stolen:

KARE 11 Investigates: Man handcuffed after retailer sold him a stolen gun

A KARE 11 investigation exposes a major flaw in the nation’s ability to track and recover stolen guns.

www.kare11.com

Shouldn't there be a legal mechanism in place to prevent stolen guns from being resold by gun dealers ?
I remember McIlleneys in Waltham had a "quarantine" case where he would put guns taken in trade.
Maybe it was just a local Waltham requirement, but he told me he had to hold them for 30 days before reselling them so the police could check them for stolen.

 

[FisherTech]

Interesting story and I am glad it worked out for the gentleman. That being said, What probable cause did the Deputy Sheriff have to run those serial numbers? I know he asked and they consented. I still have an issue with that "Fishing Expedition".

 

[MaverickNH]

“Did you assume that when you bought a gun from a legitimate store that it was background checked somehow?” Lagoe asked. “You assume so, you think so,” Martinez Rivera said. “I don’t want to buy a stolen gun, nobody does!” A lawsuit filed against Scheels for selling the stolen gun revealed a major flaw in the nation’s ability to track and recover stolen firearms.”

“Background checked” firearms? Why do I think that would turn into a gun registry? Just my paranoia, I sure…

The system worked just the way it’s supposed to - no prohibited person obtained a gun through an FFL. Nor through a private transfer, for that matter. The gun was stolen.

 

[Zappa]

Interesting story and I am glad it worked out for the gentleman. That being said, What probable cause did the Deputy Sheriff have to run those serial numbers? I know he asked and they consented. I still have an issue with that "Fishing Expedition".

Imagine if this happened in Mass!
A group of people shooting from a bridge would have drawn 15 cruisers, 2 SWAT teams with Lenco Bearcats and a helicopter, and they'd all be arrested.

 

[Zappa]

“Background checked” firearms? Why do I think that would turn into a gun registry? Just my paranoia, I sure…

The system worked just the way it’s supposed to - no prohibited person obtained a gun through an FFL. Nor through a private transfer, for that matter. The gun was stolen.

Isn't there a database of guns that have reported stolen ???
Not a registry of all guns and their owners, just the ones that have been reported stolen, and by who, where and when the theft occurred.

 

[Len-2A Training]

“Did you assume that when you bought a gun from a legitimate store that it was background checked somehow?” Lagoe asked. “You assume so, you think so,” Martinez Rivera said. “I don’t want to buy a stolen gun, nobody does!” A lawsuit filed against Scheels for selling the stolen gun revealed a major flaw in the nation’s ability to track and recover stolen firearms.”

“Background checked” firearms? Why do I think that would turn into a gun registry? Just my paranoia, I sure…

The system worked just the way it’s supposed to - no prohibited person obtained a gun through an FFL. Nor through a private transfer, for that matter. The gun was stolen.

Isn't there a database of guns that have reported stolen ???
Not a registry of all guns and their owners, just the ones that have been reported stolen, and by who, where and when the theft occurred.

The database of stolen goods (not just guns) is known as NCIC and only accessible by LEOs. Access is logged and it can only be used for legitimate LE purposes.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) - The Investigative Tool - A Guide to the Use and Benefits of NCIC | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

I'm pretty sure that the FBI would frown on PDs running all guns for gun shops on a regular basis. Misuse of the system can lead to the FBI denying access by that PD.

So when you buy a gun from a dealer anywhere, there is no guarantee that it isn't a stolen gun!

 

[drgrant]

Interesting story here about how stolen guns often end up back in the chain of commerce without being checked to see if they're stolen:

KARE 11 Investigates: Man handcuffed after retailer sold him a stolen gun

A KARE 11 investigation exposes a major flaw in the nation’s ability to track and recover stolen guns.

www.kare11.com

Shouldn't there be a legal mechanism in place to prevent stolen guns from being resold by gun dealers ?
I remember McIlleneys in Waltham had a "quarantine" case where he would put guns taken in trade.
Maybe it was just a local Waltham requirement, but he told me he had to hold them for 30 days before reselling them so the police could check them for stolen.

Never gonna happen for a whole bunch of reasons. It's bad enough that there are shitloads of typos in NCIC. (You would be surprised how an off by one. missing digit etc happens. ) last thing you'd want is some other poor bastard getting his trade in blocked because a database created a false positive. Even if that's only one in 10,000 guns it falses on, it's still horrible.

 

[42!]

Never gonna happen for a whole bunch of reasons. It's bad enough that there are shitloads of typos in NCIC. (You would be surprised how an off by one. missing digit etc happens. ) last thing you'd want is some other poor bastard getting his trade in blocked because a database created a false positive. Even if that's only one in 10,000 guns it falses on, it's still horrible.

They make mistakes on listings of stolen cars too, but we don't see that resulting in big problems. The mistakes get caught and fixed. A gun, just like a car, is just an object, and there are many lists of stolen objects, guns are no different.

So a stolen list isn't a problem for me. What is a problem is that it will be corrupted and used as a path to a registration, which I do have a problem with.

And don't compare car registrations, that isn't for ownership, it's for use on a public way. So I guess if you want to be able to shoot on the road, then maybe you should have to be on a list, otherwise no.

 

[KBCraig]

Interesting story and I am glad it worked out for the gentleman. That being said, What probable cause did the Deputy Sheriff have to run those serial numbers? I know he asked and they consented. I still have an issue with that "Fishing Expedition".

Some states (Texas is one of them) have statutes saying LE can run the SN of any item they come into contact with. I don't like it, but it's just like running the VIN on your vehicle.

The trouble with using NCIC serial number searches, is that the data uploaded is often incomplete, and it stays in the system forever. Serial numbers are only (mostly) unique to a particular brand and model, but many have been entered into the system using only digits, while letters are often included in the actual SN. (Ask any collector of WWI-WWII rifles about this!) Plus, new ATF import regulations requiring the "Claw Of Death" SNs, create separate new SNs that don't match the original SNs at all, and then when you factor in non-Latin alpha characters...

Anyway. Running the SN on a gun might get a hit on a stolen generator. Or a stereo. NCIC "stolen object" records might not adequately describe the object, especially if the SN was uploaded years ago.

 

[42!]

Some states (Texas is one of them) have statutes saying LE can run the SN of any item they come into contact with. I don't like it, but it's just like running the VIN on your vehicle.

The trouble with using NCIC serial number searches, is that the data uploaded is often incomplete, and it stays in the system forever. Serial numbers are only (mostly) unique to a particular brand and model, but many have been entered into the system using only digits, while letters are often included in the actual SN. (Ask any collector of WWI-WWII rifles about this!) Plus, new ATF import regulations requiring the "Claw Of Death" SNs, create separate new SNs that don't match the original SNs at all, and then when you factor in non-Latin alpha characters...

Anyway. Running the SN on a gun might get a hit on a stolen generator. Or a stereo. NCIC "stolen object" records might not adequately describe the object, especially if the SN was uploaded years ago.

Good points, and we should remember that the problems with the NCIC system isn't about guns, it's about incomplete information, general mismanagement and incompetence. Doesn't make the problems any less important but we should maintain some perspective.
The fixes aren't big, change the system so it will not accept incomplete records, penalties for failure to update when property is recovered. Since actually fining a PD would be difficult, failures could be tied to Fed funding.

I understand the instinctive "gun list bad", and I've expressed my concerns about the use of a stolen gun list. But ultimately a list of stolen property, not limited to guns, makes it harder for a thief to sell what they steal. And this reduces the market for stolen goods, and thus lowers the motivation of the thief and the risks to the owner.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've recently been told that a search can be narrowed/filtered just for guns (or another object). Way back in time, I used it to screen IBM Selectric Typewriter S/Ns and it came back with everything under the Sun that had that S/N . . . a disaster to sift thru.

One night I was working with a Sgt. who was bent out of shape because he had run his Father's car to discover it was still listed as stolen. It had been stolen and recovered months earlier but the reporting department was too lazy to remove it from NCIC. He was rightly upset that his Father might encounter a felony stop if a PD ran his plate.

GIGO was the term we used in the computer industry.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Shouldn't there be a legal mechanism in place to prevent stolen guns from being resold by gun dealers ?

F that and the horse you rode in on.

I can see why you knee-jerked it. But how about this. "You know, I wish there was some way that we could prevent stolen computers from being resold by pawn shops."

It's ludicrous, isn't it?

We treat guns as a "special case." F that. It's an item just like any other. The whole serial # and tracking and other BS is a government control system. F that.

 

[42!]

F that and the horse you rode in on.

I can see why you knee-jerked it. But how about this. "You know, I wish there was some way that we could prevent stolen computers from being resold by pawn shops."

It's ludicrous, isn't it?

We treat guns as a "special case." F that. It's an item just like any other. The whole serial # and tracking and other BS is a government control system. F that.

Talk about knee-jerked and making a special case for guns. Have you completely missed that there are already lists for stolen items. All they need is improvement. And frankly I want them to exist if we can keep them under control. So far this has been working to some extent.

 

[dwarven1]

Interesting story and I am glad it worked out for the gentleman. That being said, What probable cause did the Deputy Sheriff have to run those serial numbers? I know he asked and they consented. I still have an issue with that "Fishing Expedition".

Probable cause = SWB. Shooting While Black.

Isn't there a database of guns that have reported stolen ???
Not a registry of all guns and their owners, just the ones that have been reported stolen, and by who, where and when the theft occurred.

Yep; NCIC. Not that we FFLs can access it, though.

F that and the horse you rode in on.

I can see why you knee-jerked it. But how about this. "You know, I wish there was some way that we could prevent stolen computers from being resold by pawn shops."

It's ludicrous, isn't it?

We treat guns as a "special case." F that. It's an item just like any other. The whole serial # and tracking and other BS is a government control system. F that.

Well, as an FFL, I DO wish there was a way I could find out if a gun was stolen before I buy it from someone. But I can't. I will file away in my memory banks, though, why the lawsuit against Scheel's got tossed: because they had no way of knowing it was stolen. I'd hate to get hit with a lawsuit because I unknowingly took a stolen gun in trade or purchased it from someone.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Talk about knee-jerked and making a special case for guns. Have you completely missed that there are already lists for stolen items. All they need is improvement. And frankly I want them to exist if we can keep them under control. So far this has been working to some extent.

A database that people can't access.

Let's run this a different way.

You buy a reciprocating saw. I steal your saw one night. I sell it to Broc at his pawn shop. He subsequently sells it to Reppy who chops up half of NES with the thing, having found a sale on blades at Harbor Freight.

Seems like Broc gets caught in the middle. We don't expect him to be arrested for selling a stolen Sawzall, do we???? My point is the whole serial # and tracking and "stolen gun list" thing is more about government control than ever "stopping someone from a tragedy."

I'm wondering how often these stolen guns are found BEFORE anything happens versus AFTER. Betting it's weighted heavily to the latter.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

So what's the big deal? Will a person unknowingly buying a stolen used gun be more liable to commit a crime with it than a person buying a non-stolen used gun? Jack.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So what's the big deal? Will a person unknowingly buying a stolen used gun be more liable to commit a crime with it than a person buying a non-stolen used gun? Jack.

Ideally, stolen guns should be re-patrioted with the proper owner. Of course in MA, the likelihood that this would happen once a PD finds a stolen gun is probably miniscule. In Free America it is more likely to happen as it should.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Never gonna happen for a whole bunch of reasons. It's bad enough that there are shitloads of typos in NCIC. (You would be surprised how an off by one. missing digit etc happens. ) last thing you'd want is some other poor bastard getting his trade in blocked because a database created a false positive. Even if that's only one in 10,000 guns it falses on, it's still horrible.

The NCIC created the "gun file" back when they were first organized, about fifty years ago. Until a few months ago, this "gun file" was LE-only; Biden signed the new gun law and the FBI needs to figure out how to open the list up FFLs
.

I've recently been told that a search can be narrowed/filtered just for guns (or another object). Way back in time, I used it to screen IBM Selectric Typewriter S/Ns and it came back with everything under the Sun that had that S/N . . . a disaster to sift thru.

Correct -- NCIC says there is a separate "gun file" and that is what FFLs are supposed to be able to access under the newly passed law:

the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations allowing a person licensed as an importer, manufacturer, or dealer of firearms under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to receive access to records of stolen firearms maintained by the National Crime Information Center operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, solely for the purpose of voluntarily verifying whether firearms offered for sale to such licensees have been stolen.

 

[drgrant]

Talk about knee-jerked and making a special case for guns. Have you completely missed that there are already lists for stolen items. All they need is improvement. And frankly I want them to exist if we can keep them under control. So far this has been working to some extent.

There is no upshot to this, ever. It's another compliance burden for dealers, and it's just going to facilitate downstream harassment of people. Imagine being a guy whose gun is indefinitely blocked from dealer sale or transfer because of a typo and the difficulty of removing the stain.

Nope. f***, that, noise. Those tools should be for curated LE use only within the context of a specific investigation. It's like the ATF and mhp forms.... do you have any idea how many people have been profiled and harassed because they decided to buy more than one handgun?

 

[42!]

You just don't get it. It's not about guns, it's about stolen property and the ease and profitability in the stolen market. You go on and on about theoretical things that could go wrong and how terrible it is, while completely ignoring that the system of listing stolen goods has been around for a LONG time and it is working. I'm sure there is a statistically insignificant number of mistakes but to go all end of the world on this is delusional. The simple fact is that if a store taking in a used item to resell can check if it's stolen, this will reduce the ease of selling stolen items, and reduce the demand for stolen items.
I've worked in a shop where a guy came in to see his tool chest stolen, and I also saw the places selling mechanics tools used for pennies' on the dollar. And I'm thinking this guy has had his lifetime investment stolen along with his ability to earn. So ya, something that will disrupt the stolen goods market is a good thing.

You go on about the anti-gun people and that they go overboard because "its a gun", you're doing the same thing. "Its and gun" so so it should be treated like some holly object... F'ing BS

 

[drgrant]

You just don't get it. It's not about guns, it's about stolen property and the ease and profitability in the stolen market. You go on and on about theoretical things that could go wrong and how terrible it is, while completely ignoring that the system of listing stolen goods has been around for a LONG time and it is working. I'm sure there is a statistically insignificant number of mistakes but to go all end of the world on this is delusional. The simple fact is that if a store taking in a used item to resell can check if it's stolen, this will reduce the ease of selling stolen items, and reduce the demand for stolen items.
I've worked in a shop where a guy came in to see his tool chest stolen, and I also saw the places selling mechanics tools used for pennies' on the dollar. And I'm thinking this guy has had his lifetime investment stolen along with his ability to earn. So ya, something that will disrupt the stolen goods market is a good thing.

You go on about the anti-gun people and that they go overboard because "its a gun", you're doing the same thing. "Its and gun" so so it should be treated like some holly object... F'ing BS

Not sure if serious but that’s /exactly/ what you’re doing if you support this. "Gunz r speshul so we have to micromanage transactions!!!! Cuz of .002% chance a moron might pawn a stolen gun at an ffl!!!!!) It’s inserting an extra compliance burden to cover what is at best a corner case. Allowing the ATF to force stolen goods searches (which is what this will turn into) is the proverbial road to hell that’s paved with good intentions. Not to mention there is no way they’re not going to collect that data and map it…. (Registration) You naively think that you will be able to constrain the misuse of that system, that's rich.....

 

[drgrant]

If you have never had the misfortune of having feds basically "nosing into your existence" because of a typo se cop made you just don't really understand how dangerous this is... denying this is dunning-kruger on a big level.... I have experienced a weak version of it but I know others who have had direct experience with it. Including feds showing up at their house because of off by 1 gun trace errors, etc. I dunno about you but I don't want them in my yard at 7 am over meaningless crap. Sure, the system will be "voluntary" right up.until some moonbat just changes the policy to "de facto mandatory".

This idea is the very definition of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. It would be a less offensive idea if it was not run by the ATF (instead, state interfaces) and had protections in the law to act as a liability shield for dealers that decided to not use it. But we all know "they" would never allow that. We also know that it would likely not be easy to remove false positives from the database, either. That's really the most evil part of the thing.

 

[KBCraig]

Just to continue the rant about NCIC/NLETS, when I had to run person checks for access to a secure facility, New York records were great; they invented the system, after all.

Massachusetts? HA! I never, ever, saw a final disposition from Mass. Just an arrest and a charge, and the charge was always open-ended, meaning it could have been a minor misdemeanor or a major felony, and finding out what happened always involved multiple calls to the arresting agency, the court, the CA, and usually all of them more than once.

I would say that Mass folks have nothing to fear about computerized records because they're so screwed up, but the reality is that anyone with even a minor arrest in Mass for charges that were dismissed or acquitted, will be assumed to be a felon until proven otherwise.

 

[eddy1953]

The database of stolen goods (not just guns) is known as NCIC and only accessible by LEOs. Access is logged and it can only be used for legitimate LE purposes.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) - The Investigative Tool - A Guide to the Use and Benefits of NCIC | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

I'm pretty sure that the FBI would frown on PDs running all guns for gun shops on a regular basis. Misuse of the system can lead to the FBI denying access by that PD.

So when you buy a gun from a dealer anywhere, there is no guarantee that it isn't a stolen gun!

Years ago, a hunter detoured through Canada briefly to avoid traffic and construction on the U.S. side. At the time, Canadian customs only required that a rifle or shotgun be "declared" and had no problems entering. When he re-entered the U.S. at a point further west, he declared the rifle at a U.S. Customs checkpoint. They ran the gun through NCIC. Turns out the rifle was reported stolen at least a decade before this guy legally purchased it from an FFL. Customs confiscated the rifle and questioned the guy but no charges were filed. NRA "American Hunter" magazine reported the incident and advised caution at border crossings.

 

[Zappa]

The simple fact is that if a store taking in a used item to resell can check if it's stolen, this will reduce the ease of selling stolen items, and reduce the demand for stolen items.
I've worked in a shop where a guy came in to see his tool chest stolen, and I also saw the places selling mechanics tools used for pennies' on the dollar. And I'm thinking this guy has had his lifetime investment stolen along with his ability to earn. So ya, something that will disrupt the stolen goods market is a good thing.

You go on about the anti-gun people and that they go overboard because "its a gun", you're doing the same thing. "Its and gun" so so it should be treated like some holly object... F'ing BS

This^
But ultimately, by law, a stolen gun is to be returned to the owner, but none of the FFL's in the chain of sale want to take the financial loss, so they'd prefer no changes to the current system.
For the other stolen goods, a list accessible by the public can't be a bad thing.
If you can walk around a flea market or a pawn shop with the instant ability to check the item against a stolen list, the demand for stolen items goes way down.

 

[42!]

This^
But ultimately, by law, a stolen gun is to be returned to the owner, but none of the FFL's in the chain of sale want to take the financial loss, so they'd prefer no changes to the current system.
For the other stolen goods, a list accessible by the public can't be a bad thing.
If you can walk around a flea market or a pawn shop with the instant ability to check the item against a stolen list, the demand for stolen items goes way down.

Only thing I'd add is, all the stolen lists should only identify the item and that it is stolen, it should not include from who or where.

As for the FFL taking the loss, no one wants that, and this is why discussion is a good thing, it allows the details to be worked out.
So perhaps guns go on the list of stolen items, FFLs get access to that list. When an FFL takes in a gun, buying it outright or taking it in on consignment or shipping, they check it BEFORE taking it in. Note that I'm suggesting that FFL to FFL are not checked, and taking in a gun for gunsmithing would not be checked.
Even more details:
Law should require LE to correctly enter information into the list within 1 hour of a reported theft, and correct/remove that information within 1 hour of of them obtaining information showing a correction/removal is necessary. Failing to do this, the PD would be financially responsible for any losses by an FFL who conducts a check after the 1 hour and receive a "not listed" response, even if the gun is later discovered to be stolen but the PD failed to list it.
Further, any PD who is found to have incorrectly entered information, or failed to enter a stolen gun, after an audit of their entries, at a rate of greater that 2% of their entries, shall lose their <insert lucrative Fed funding here> funding.

Not perfect, perfect isn't possible, but very good. Anyone have other ideas on this little thought experiment?

 

[Broc]

Shouldn't there be a legal mechanism in place to prevent stolen guns from being resold by gun dealers ?

You want more rules?

The mechanism is in place so an FFL doesn't sell a gun to a prohibited person (as long as that person is flagged).

Everything else is like me selling you a watch, you hope it isn't stolen, but you don't know.

If the buyers cares so much I guess he/she could maybe contact the gov and run the serial number or some sh*t - but that invites the gov into your life and will create more harm than good.

You really don't want a national registry. Maybe there is something already when the dealer sells the new gun the first time, but that gun can go through multiple owners without anyone knowing.

Even MA that requires an FA10 cam barely keep track of that and plenty of FA10 are filled out wrong. Dealers also make mistakes and screw up serial numbers and gun models in FA10s. It happens.

 

[42!]

You want more rules?

The mechanism is in place so an FFL doesn't sell a gun to a prohibited person (as long as that person is flagged).

Everything else is like me selling you a watch, you hope it isn't stolen, but you don't know.

No, it's like a pawn shop checking if something is stolen. No one is talking FTF. And remember if you buy something, anything, and it turns out to be stolen, it's you that takes the loss, not the store that sold it to you.

If the buyers cares so much I guess he/she could maybe contact the gov and run the serial number or some sh*t - but that invites the gov into your life and will create more harm than good.

Just trying to make this unnecessary. FFL runs it on the way in, nothing new is recorded on the way out.

You really don't want a national registry. Maybe there is something already when the dealer sells the new gun the first time, but that gun can go through multiple owners without anyone knowing.

You must have missed it, there is already a list of stolen goods, including guns. And it doesn't record who buys an item that is not stolen. So the only change in this I'm suggesting is some accountability on the PD for getting the listing right. Why are you against PD accountability?

Even MA that requires an FA10 cam barely keep track of that and plenty of FA10 are filled out wrong. Dealers also make mistakes and screw up serial numbers and gun models in FA10s. It happens.

Not really relevant, But remember that accountability part, and that life isn't perfect. Yup, there will be inaccuracies, but these can be kept very small and with very limited impact, with a good process and direct accountability.

 

[Broc]

.lYou must have missed it, there is already a list of stolen goods, including guns. And it doesn't record who buys an item that is not stolen. So the only change in this I'm suggesting is some accountability on the PD for getting the listing right. Why are you against PD accountability?

You must be new to this country, welcome to America, where the PD is not accountable and any list WILL (not "might" but "will") get expanded.

 

[42!]

You must be new to this country, welcome to America, where the PD is not accountable and any list WILL (not "might" but "will") get expanded.

The stolen property list, which already includes guns, has been around for years, yet....
So a prediction in contradiction to past performance. You can certainly say "might" since as I've said there are no absolutes. But "will" contradicts the actual past so it simply is nothing more that hyperbolic BS.

And my suggestion addresses the accountability angle, I don't think I need to repeat it, you can look back if you need to.