NYC undercover stings expose 'gun show loophole'

Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,728
Likes
348
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYC_GUN_STING?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer




NEW YORK (AP) -- Investigators hired by New York City conducted stings at gun shows in states that have not closed the "gun show loophole" and found some vendors openly selling weapons to buyers who admitted they couldn't pass background checks.

The stings, described in a city report released Wednesday, were conducted at seven gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as "occasional sellers," to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.

Gun-control advocates say the loophole makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns and prevents law enforcement from being able to trace those weapons if they are used in crimes.

Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close the loophole, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.

Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail a background check.

This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.

In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the city's report.

Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.

The 11 dealers who refused sales showed they knew the law.

"Once you say that, I'm kind of obligated not to," said one seller, according to the report. "I think that's what the rules are."

"Fact is, you done told me too much," said another who refused. "I wouldn't sell one to you at all."

The city has no legal authority over the dealers and is using its findings to make a point. A copy of the report is being sent to every member of Congress and the findings will be shared the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem, and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is," the mayor said in a statement.

The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers. The city hired a team of 40 private investigators from an outside firm to make the purchases.

The sting comes three years after Bloomberg's administration conducted a similar operation focusing on illegal straw purchases at gun shops in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia that authorities believe were responsible for selling guns used in crimes in New York City. (A straw purchase is when one person fills out the paperwork and buys the gun for somebody else.)

Bloomberg's administration brought a civil case against 27 gun dealers targeted in its 2006 investigation.

As a result of the suit, 20 dealers are being monitored by a court-appointed special master. One is out of business, two more are expected to be put under monitoring agreements and three were dropped from the suit. A final dealer settled with the city but the terms did not include a monitor.

Investigators in this year's sting also attempted straw purchases at gun shows, and were successful 16 out of 17 times.

The city said it was not planning civil action this time around.
 
Didnt NY get smacked around heavily for this stunt last time? I love the NY mindset that all states in the union must bow to their needs and wants in regard to that states own citizens.
 
Now I know why NYC has an 8.25% sales tax rate, they need it to fund Bloomberg's Boy Scout expeditions

Actually shouldn't say that, it's an insult to the scouts
 
Investigators in this year's sting also attempted straw purchases at gun shows, and were successful 16 out of 17 times.

I'm still waiting for BATFE to arrest these "investigators" and Bloomberg (on conpsiracy) charges for committing federal felonies. The "seller" is not the only one committing a felony, and in some cases the seller may not even be culpable. (For example, if someone lies on a 4473 form and says nothing to the dealer about their intent to straw the gun, then the dealer isn't really culpable for anything.... ).

Just because someone has a political agenda, doesn't mean they should get a free pass on breaking laws- especially laws where BATFE would gleefully send one of us to prison if they ever thought any of us were doing the same thing!

-Mike
 
The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers.

Sucks for them. Guess we can put this in the category of play stupid games win stupid prizes?
 
Not sure if I misread but why is NYC conducting investigations out of state?

Because the USAs/AUSAs in the districts they're doing it in are big pussies and they won't arrest a prominent politician or the people he hires to commit federal felonies on his behalf.

He's doing it because he can get away with it, and he can use the results for poltiical grandstanding effect with MAIG and the like.


-Mike
 
Interesting that they won't identify which states they did this in. Or which dealers, for that matter. The AG in Virginia has already warned Bloomberg about this. Also, if they audio recorded in a "two party consent" state, they broke the law and are subject to prosecution.

Shoddy investigating and shoddier reporting.
 
Wwhy aren't the guys who made the straw purchases in these other states being charged? Just because they are working for the NY da's office doesn't make a straw purchase in Ohio not a felony.
 
I don't believe in "loopholes", "straw purchases", etc. Every citizen free enough to walk among the population should be able to buy guns whenever/wherever he/she chooses.
 
To Summarize,

What we have here is Citizen's money being wasted, so officials can make illegal investigations thereby making them criminals in an effort to prevent criminals from what should be the right of every citizen.

Got it. What a circlejerk. Does the dog wag the tail or the other way around?

Somebody should remind Bloomberg that guns are the only thing keeping the Jews in Israel.
 
Last edited:
Wwhy aren't the guys who made the straw purchases in these other states being charged? Just because they are working for the NY da's office doesn't make a straw purchase in Ohio not a felony.

For the same reason that Bailey and Rosenthal (and their accomplice) skated- BATFE gets "miffed" but it seems like the lack of prosecution is politically motivated- eg, "don't arrest antis because they help us empire build" or some such crap.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
4 words: Misappropriation of Public Funds

He's using NY tax dollars to fund his hobby horse. The article confirms these 'investigations' have NO public standing nor any relation to the business of running the City of NY.

So where's the investigation?
 
4 words: Misappropriation of Public Funds

He's using NY tax dollars to fund his hobby horse. The article confirms these 'investigations' have NO public standing nor any relation to the business of running the City of NY.

So where's the investigation?

Its a publicity stunt. He has already spent $65,000,000 of his personal fortune towards his third term re-election, estimates put him at likely spending close to $110,000,000. This stunt allows him to hit a larger audience for a scant $1,500,000 since it is a campaign he champions and shows [strike]sheep[/strike] voters that he is bringing mayors of different cities and parties together in a partisan [strike]further build his empire[/strike] efforts to help fight crime.

This 'investigation' should come as no surprise as the man clearly works above the laws both state and federal. He doesnt even bear witness to the established term limits in New York regarding his third term. The story and outcry gets snuffed..... I wonder how and why. [thinking]
 
Its a publicity stunt. He has already spent $65,000,000 of his personal fortune towards his third term re-election, estimates put him at likely spending close to $110,000,000.

Did they repeal the two term limit?

Nevermind. I see they did. And the vote included removing term limits for themselves.
 
So...I suspect that all of the "purchased" firearms have been melted down? I was under the understanding that a resident from one state couldn't purchase a handgun IN another state...that is federal law I believe. I doubt that those "purchasers" transferred the handguns back to NY through a dealer.
 
Did the "investigators" break any laws in the states they made those straw purchases in?

As far as Ohio goes, yes, they most certainly did. Anyone under disability is committing a state felony by trying to purchase a firearm

Regardless of whether or not they can pass a background check, trying to buy a handgun here in a face to face transaction is also a federal crime.
 
Interesting that they won't identify which states they did this in. Or which dealers, for that matter. The AG in Virginia has already warned Bloomberg about this. Also, if they audio recorded in a "two party consent" state, they broke the law and are subject to prosecution.

Shoddy investigating and shoddier reporting.

I read the article on another web site and they listed Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Nevada as the states involved. I think there was another state too but I'm don't remember for sure.

I'm sure the NRA and SAF will be looking for charges against all involved. I'd like to see a civil action brought against them by the sellers for entrapping them.
 
The wouldn't to worry about this "loophole" in the gun laws (i.e., people allegedly committing felonies) if they'd spend more time closing the similar loopholes in the murder, assault and armed robbery laws. [rolleyes] [rolleyes] [rolleyes]

Ken
 
I don't believe in "loopholes", "straw purchases", etc. Every citizen free enough to walk among the population should be able to buy guns whenever/wherever he/she chooses.


Sorry, people with violent criminal pasts don't get the nod from me to carry a gun.
 
Sorry, people with violent criminal pasts don't get the nod from me to carry a gun.

+1 I have no problem with background checks. If someone doesn't follow the rule of law, why should the rest of us surround him in the protection of the laws the honest abide by? I agree that the Second Amendment is a right, but it is a right that should only be applied to those who follow the rest of the Constitution.
 
Sorry, people with violent criminal pasts don't get the nod from me to carry a gun.

The reality is, if they're really bad people who harbor criminal intent, they likely could care less whether you "nod at them" or not, and they'll carry a gun anyways. When's the last time you heard a convicted violent criminal say they were ever "deterred" from carrying a gun by one of these silly laws?

So the point of malum prohibitum gun laws are....? I'm all ears.

<crickets>

If we're concerned about people with "violent criminal pasts" then maybe we should have, as a society, left them locked up in jail, instead of burdening everyone else with a bunch of BS caused by the crime they committed. If people are free that aren't supposed to be, them being free is far more dangerous than flagging them in some silly background check system that they'll never be exposed to.

The bottom line is I shouldn't have to face a background check to exercise a constitutional (and ultimately, creator endowed) right.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
+1 I have no problem with background checks. If someone doesn't follow the rule of law, why should the rest of us surround him in the protection of the laws the honest abide by?

...Because I should NOT have bear the burden of someone else's crimes. Why should I have to submit to a check and fill out a federal form under threat of perjury because someone else misused a firearm?

The way the system is now millions of americans bear this burden- a burden for crimes they didn't commit, and likely never will commit.

Think about that when you see a person who gets a false delay or denial on a NICS check. Think about that when you see a poor bastard that had to jump through flaming hoops get an *expletive* UPIN just so he could buy a firearm without getting hassled every time. My blood boils every time I see some (probably law abiding) citizen get screwed by the system.

The govenrment treatment here is "you are a criminal, until we (think) otherwise."

Food for thought-

What do you think the founders would think if you told them that we have to ask the government for permission to buy a firearm? Frankly I think they'd probably stroke out on the spot.... or their blood would boil and they would start another revolution.

agree that the Second Amendment is a right, but it is a right that should only be applied to those who follow the rest of the Constitution.

This depends on whether or not you believe in natural rights or not. The constitution is merely a reiteration of natural rights. (eg, endowed by our creator.... whoever that might be. ) The founders believed in it heavily. That's where they got the justification to start a war to free us from British tyranny. Not to mention the constitution is more about limitations of government, not limitations of the people.

One can make a compelling argument that "non free" men do not have rights- eg, people who are incarcerated and are functionally "owned" or being punished by the state- but this post-prison lifetime probation stuff is garbage. If we don't believe in restoring someone's rights, we'd be better off just saving everyone the trouble and popping them behind the ear instead of releasing them. A person is either a threat to the public or they're not. And if they are still a threat, then why are we releasing them?


-Mike
 
Last edited:
drgrant, i couldnt agree more.

if someone is 'too dangerous' to own a firearm, then they're too damn dangerous to be on the street!
 
Back
Top Bottom