NYC undercover stings expose 'gun show loophole'

[TomH]

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

Why not? Do the background checks have some magical powers to keep people from obtaining guns through some other means? If they can't be trusted with a firearm, why do we trust them with cars, knives, or even their fists? The truth is we can't. But sure, go after the evil instruments of baby-killing, firearms! Sheep.

 

[TomH]

+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.

I can't comprehend that mentality. So we can limit rights of others if they break certain rules? How about free speech, should criminals be silenced forever? Cut out their tongues, cut off their fingers perhaps before their release date? Yes we limit rights when someone is imprisoned. That is considered their debt to society. But a "debt to society" that continues after imprisonment is just a joke, since it can't be enforced.

 

[Kev62nesl]

Sorry but people with violent crimes convictions debts arent paid just by doing thier time. They shouldn't have the right to bear arms until seven years after committing the crime. Show some rehabilitation. I just picked seven years.

A background check is reasonable. Is the system we have now flawed? yeah. Does it stop a criminal from getting a gun, no does it incoveince them us? yes. Is it worth? damn right it is. Making it harder for criminal to get a weapon is good in my book.

Oh and everyone that is walking around free doesn't deserve the same right as everyone else.
We don't have enough rooms in jail to keep all the violent offender and not every crime should be punishable by firing squad. So we have to let some people out. So yeah we have people walking around free that shouldnt have guns. Lets at least tag the ones we know about until they show that they have been reformed or that it was a one time thing.

Lets be reasonable a back ground check for a felony conviction is reasonable.

In my opinion to say every free person should have the rights to guns is as niave as the moonbats on the left saying that guns are evil.

 

[TomH]

Lets be reasonable a back ground check for a felony conviction is reasonable.

In my opinion to say every free person should have the rights to guns is as niave as the moonbats on the left saying that guns are evil.

Two uses of "reasonable" in one sentence describing a restriction and/or hoop to jump through to exercise a Constitutional right. Sounds like you're the one who's a naive moonbat to me.

Please tell me how this "7 year" restriction will be enforced. I'm sure recently released gangbangers (previously convicted of felonies) who are packing would love to know.

 

[CrossFrire]

I believe Bloomberg is funding these "strings" with his own money just for the publicity.
Remember, this ass-hat is a Massachusetts product.
From what I've read about the election the $65 million he's spent so far does not includ ewhat he spent on NY Pols getting the Term Limits removed so he can be crowned.
He wants to be NYC's "Mumbles Menino".

 

[pdm]

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.

Then the states need to go after these "investigators" and whoever funded them. It's obvious that the feds won't.

 

[Jose]

Then the states need to go after these "investigators" and whoever funded them. It's obvious that the feds won't.

If I were the Ohio AG, I would be on them like stink on poop. But she's one of them.

 

[Kev62nesl]

Two uses of "reasonable" in one sentence describing a restriction and/or hoop to jump through to exercise a Constitutional right. Sounds like you're the one who's a naive moonbat to me.

Please tell me how this "7 year" restriction will be enforced. I'm sure recently released gangbangers (previously convicted of felonies) who are packing would love to know.

Jump through hopes seriously. A background check is a legitmate restriction.

As for the seven year rule. It would be simple. Don't get arrested for seven years and you shall have the prohabition lifted.

A background check and a shall issue law. I don't see the problem but then again I have to deal with criminals everyday and perfer to make it harder for them to get weapons.

 

[TomH]

Jump through hopes seriously. A background check is a legitmate restriction.

As for the seven year rule. It would be simple. Don't get arrested for seven years and you shall have the prohabition lifted.

A background check and a shall issue law. I don't see the problem but then again I have to deal with criminals everyday and perfer to make it harder for them to get weapons.

Again: tell me how the 7 year rule will be enforced. I'm all ears. Last I checked there are stories about people already prohibited shooting people all the time. So, if a law does nothing to combat guns in the hands of felons, and inconveniences non-criminals, how is it legitimate or reasonable? I don't recall the part in the 2nd Amendment listing the "reasonable" restrictions that could be applied.

 

[MaverickNH]

What if one of the undercover sting investigators said, "I committed armed robbery but was never accused or caught"?

Such a person could complete a 4473 without lying and pass a NICS check. Is an FLL or individual seller legally obligated to withold a firearms transfer to to this person?

Not all violent criminals are caught, arrested, convicted or imprisoned. You are not a fugitive from justice unless someone is after you.

Some such criminals are not legally barred from owning firearms.

Would you sell them one if not legally barred? Indeed - that's a different question altogether...

 

[drgrant]

What if one of the undercover sting investigators said, "I committed armed robbery but was never accused or caught"?

Such a person could complete a 4473 without lying and pass a NICS check. Is an FLL or individual seller legally obligated to withold a firearms transfer to to this person?

Obligated? I don't know. The FFL would still be within their rights to block the transfer though, if they saw fit, regardless. Most smart dealers probably would block it, thinking that the buyer was trying to do something stupid, or the buyer was a mole from the ATF trying to manipulate them into doing something illegal.

-Mike

 

[CrossFrire]

Here is an interesting take on the issue and the report,

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199122.php

The Bloomberg sting, from my view, was targeting private sellers who are neither required nor able toperform NICs checks and pretending that they violated some law or standard by not doing so.
The only intent of these actions that I can foresee is the eventual ban of any and all private transactions involving firearms.

 

[TomH]

The only intent of these actions that I can foresee is the eventual ban of any and all private transactions involving firearms.

That is their goal. Private transfers is what they call the gunshow "loophole". I think they target the gunshows because lots of private transfers occur at them. They have no way of looking at other private sales. What they are calling a loophole is simply a citizen's right to sell a possession to someone else. I believe the law says you have to have no knowledge of a felony committed by someone. Honestly that is pretty vague and it's a he said/she said kind of situation. You can basically sell to whoever you want as long as you don't have any specific knowledge on their criminal background.

 

[Pete85]

It'd be great if the feds would persue charges against all involved in Bloomberg's sting operation. Prove that these types of things are already illegal and take some a**h***s off the streets and out of power a tthe same time. If these investigaters were indeed from NY and made private transactions in other states, or made any kind of straw purchase, they have committed a federal crime.

Since the feds aren't going to do their job, maybe the people (dealers) implicated in Bloomberg's sting operation should file countersuit against them both in their states and in federal court. Bring some light onto the fact that New York City politicians are spending taxpayer money to commit federal felonies.

 

[jmhorrible]

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/oct/08/wamp-smack-talks-bloombergs-gun-sting/

NASHVILLE - Republican gubernatorial candidate Zach Wamp spoke out today against an investigation by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into questionable sales at gun shows in Tennessee and two other states.

Bloomberg said private investigators were sold guns despite saying they probably could not pass a background check. Despite a loophole in some states for "occasional sellers" at gun shows, federal law bars selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail background checks.

Wamp, a congressman from Chattanooga, said in a Twitter posting today that: "Bloomberg and his anti-gun cronies should stay the heck out of Tn."

Wamp said Tennessee will defend its Second Amendment rights and that armed citizens "keep streets safe."

A copy of Bloomberg's report is being sent to every member of Congress and the findings will be shared the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Wamp has made gun rights a staple of his campaign speeches, including a statement that if Democratic President Barack Obama were to issue an order to confiscate guns, "We will meet him at the state line." Obama has never proposed such a move.

In the Republican gubernatorial primary, Wamp has been joined by state Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey of Blountville in criticizing Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, the money leader in the nomination fight, for what they consider his soft stance on guns.

Haslam has been publicly refining his position on guns since joining the statewide race in January. He soon withdrew from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group co-founded by Bloomberg, for what he called a departure from its original mission of fighting gun crimes in urban areas.

A Haslam campaign spokesman did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the sting.

Ramsey told WTVF-TV in Nashville there shouldn't be laws to restrict people from selling their guns.

"It's a farce to be honest," Ramsey said. "Obviously the gun sales between individuals shouldn't be regulated by the federal government or any other government entity."

Ramsey and Wamp campaigns didn't immediately respond to questions about whether the gun show loophole is allowing criminals to buy guns in Tennessee.

Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen can't run again in 2010 because of term limits.

More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel.

© 2009, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

 

[drgrant]

It'd be great if the feds would persue charges against all involved in Bloomberg's sting operation. Prove that these types of things are already illegal and take some a**h***s off the streets and out of power a tthe same time. If these investigaters were indeed from NY and made private transactions in other states, or made any kind of straw purchase, they have committed a federal crime.

Since the feds aren't going to do their job, maybe the people (dealers) implicated in Bloomberg's sting operation should file countersuit against them both in their states and in federal court. Bring some light onto the fact that New York City politicians are spending taxpayer money to commit federal felonies.

As I stated this will never happen for the same reason Bailey and friends never got bagged, despite basically admitting in a newspaper article that they committed a felony. BATFE/feds are clearly not interested in enforcing the law in any way other than whatever suits their agenda at the time. They'll punish individuals and the industry.... but prosecuting prominent antis or their agents for a felony? Never happen. (I hope I am proven wrong someday... ) I'm sure if we asked the US attorney's office or the BATFE branch office in the area where the offenses occurred that the silence would be deafening.

WRT civil actions go, I think in at least one case a dealer has sued them or Bloomberg, not sure where the suit has gone yet, though. May not have even reached court yet, given the backlog in a lot of courts.

-Mike