What Gun Control People Do When They Can't Get Our Guns

[Geezah]

They sue the gun owners (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190233510).

Here's a summary of what's going on.

The City of New York hires a bunch of private investigators to go into gun stores in pairs to buy guns. While in the store one investigator does all the talking - asking questions about the gun, etc. - while the other one fills out the paperwork for the required background check. The gun shop owner then runs the background check and sells a weapon to the man who filled out the paperwork, not the man who was asking all the questions.

Somehow this is supposedly a violation of federal law because "city [of New York] contends that federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling firearms to someone when the dealer has a reasonable belief that the weapon is being sold to someone other than the buyer." Thus the lawsuit.

Which seems abysmally stupid to me.

According to the article New York City is targeting these gun shops because a high number of guns involved in committing crimes came from the shops. Are we really to believe that those crimes wouldn't have happened if the clerks in these stores had refused to sell guns in a few instances where the person who actually purchased the gun didn't do as much talking as the person who did?

Give me a break. If anything this illustrates how absurd gun control is in the first place. Criminals who commit gun crimes generally aren't inclined to purchase their guns from gun stores that perform background checks. And if these criminals are getting friends with clean records to buy these guns how many of them are accompanying their friends and making it really obvious that the gun is for them and not their accomplice?

Crime is crime, whether it involves guns, fists or baseball bats. If you want to lower crime rates you must address the reasons why people are committing the crimes, not take away the implements they use to commit them. Especially when the criminals aren't likely to follow any gun bans anyway, meaning that the only people who are disarmed by them are the people least likely to use their guns for crimes anyway.

Link (http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=38529)

................

[John Crighton]

If one guy asks all the questions then the other guy steps up to the plate to fill out the paperwork the bells should go off in your head that this is a straw purchase.

Not real smart. I worked the shows for many years. You should see something that easy a mile away. If the shops are that stupid they deserve what they get.

[tehllama]

The really sad part is that some judges have been so removed from scenery other than their rectum that they would actually agree with the retards.

[Asheren]

If one guy asks all the questions then the other guy steps up to the plate to fill out the paperwork the bells should go off in your head that this is a straw purchase.

Not real smart. I worked the shows for many years. You should see something that easy a mile away. If the shops are that stupid they deserve what they get.

What about going to shop with some friend that knows something about the stuff. I do that quite offen to make sure i don't get some crap especialy if when i am buying military or electronics related stuff.

[John Crighton]

What about going to shop with some friend that knows something about the stuff. I do that quite offen to make sure i don't get some crap especialy if when i am buying military or electronics related stuff.

You can tell the differance quite easily.

So, how often do you run off to the gun shop and buy weapons that you know nothing about? "Quite often" scares the hell out of me.....

Over the counter electronics are not regulated as firearms are.

[WARPIG]

The really sad part is that some judges have been so removed from scenery other than their rectum that they would actually agree with the retards.

Although I am not a judge, I happen to have a snapshot from my proctologist of my rectum.. which must explain why I agree to the tactic used here.



Although cracking down on the gun shops isn't going to fix the crime rate.. it isn't some conspiracy to keep people from owning guns. Gun control zealots often play dirty pool but this situation isn't an example of that. Keeping illegal guns off the street is hard enough without having gun shops play stupid. If you are going to operate a licensed gun store, you need to be above board with your business practices. If NY decides to crack down on the gunstores and keep them honest.. good for them. Way to twist the issue Geezah.

[Hollis]

Although I am not a judge, I happen to have a snapshot from my proctologist of my rectum.. which must explain why I agree to the tactic used here.



Although cracking down on the gun shops isn't going to fix the crime rate.. it isn't some conspiracy to keep people from owning guns. Gun control zealots often play dirty pool but this situation isn't an example of that. Keeping illegal guns off the street is hard enough without having gun shops play stupid. If you are going to operate a licensed gun store, you need to be above board with your business practices. If NY decides to crack down on the gunstores and keep them honest.. good for them. Way to twist the issue Geezah.

I agree 100%, when people start twisting the law, looking to subvert it, they are in fact the ones that are causing more restrictive laws to be passed. Gun shops who do this are actually giving the ammunition to the anti-gun people to be used to come up with more oppressive anti-gun laws.

[StukaJr]

The first question in the FFL form is if the applicant is buying the gun for himself - answering "NO" on the question would automatically disqualify the buyer. Blatantly lying on the Federal Form and using that as a sole purpose of filing a lawsuit is exactly what's wrong with this country... "I lied on the Federal Form and now I want to sue the retailer because they didn't detect the fact that I was lying"... Suing the legitimate retailer for following Established Federal Guidelines? And wouldn't breaking the law as an excuse to sue someone - defined as a Frivolous Lawsuit? US should take an example of Canada - sue someone, lose and pay the defendant's attorney fees... Bam - number of lawsuits down to just what makes sense... None of this - "gunstore sold a gun to my neighbor, I was afraid to leave my house and lost my job..." kind of lawsuits...

This is idiotic... Why? Because there is a Federal Law which serves down a 10 year sentence for any individual whom buys a gun for an individual whom is prohibited from owning a firearm. Why not enforce the existing laws but instead filing a frivolous lawsuit? This lawsuit entirely rests upon interpretation of the law by the judge or the jury - never mind that the only evidence is gathered in an unprofessional sting!

I come with my friends when they purchase guns all the time - saves my savings account from having to get something myself that time. I ask questions and ask him to check it out - doesn't mean I'm the buyer (even though they do know me by name as I have a healthy relationship with that store). I see women whom come in and inquire about SD firearms - they are often trailed by a male or with kids in tow... Should I assume that the woman is buying a gun for her 12 year old and turn her around? I'm lost here.

This lawsuit would be even stronger, if these plaintiff bought a gun and gave it to his accomplice, whom in turn would go and rob a convenience store around the corner and shoot a nun... Because guns are evil...

[John Crighton]

I agree 100%, when people start twisting the law, looking to subvert it, they are in fact the ones that are causing more restrictive laws to be passed. Gun shops who do this are actually giving the ammunition to the anti-gun people to be used to come up with more oppressive anti-gun laws.

Agree 100% with Hollis.

[Geezah]

If one guy asks all the questions then the other guy steps up to the plate to fill out the paperwork the bells should go off in your head that this is a straw purchase.

Not real smart. I worked the shows for many years. You should see something that easy a mile away. If the shops are that stupid they deserve what they get.

When I went with my little brother top purchase his first firearm, I did all the talking, not because it was a straw purchase but mainly due to the fact I'm better informed than him on things relating to firearms.
But that's in a gun store I go to all the time and know everyone by name and had already told them a week before I would be bringing him in.

Takign someone with you that knows firearms is not a bad thing, we all had to start somewhere, that's why when I got mine I had my in-law and his nephew with me.

Anyway, nearly every gun store I have been in have the ATF posters "Don't Lie For The Other Guy", so it's not as if people do this sort of thing do not realize they are breaking the law.

[Geezah]

Although cracking down on the gun shops isn't going to fix the crime rate.. it isn't some conspiracy to keep people from owning guns. Gun control zealots often play dirty pool but this situation isn't an example of that. Keeping illegal guns off the street is hard enough without having gun shops play stupid. If you are going to operate a licensed gun store, you need to be above board with your business practices. If NY decides to crack down on the gunstores and keep them honest.. good for them. Way to twist the issue Geezah.

I'm not twisting anything here, groups like the Brady Buinch have gone after firearm companies in the past with junk law suits, and I'm not against the bad guys being strung up for breaing the law. But it is not Mayor Bloomberg's place to go after gun stores that are out of his state, that's a job for the ATF.

Anyway, as far as NY being above board well.....

Bloomberg, City Stall on Releasing Evidence Regarding Illegal Guns

More than three months after Mayor Bloomberg's announcement that he had sent private investigators into five states to catch gun dealers making illegal sales, he is refusing to turn over the evidence they've gathered to the federal agency that investigates illegal guns.

Analysts said the impasse may have slowed the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in its investigation of and possible action against gun dealers that broke the law.

The city won't turn over the evidence, which includes videotapes of gun dealers allowing so-called straw purchases of guns, until the ATF signs an evidence-sharing agreement that would prohibit the agency from "publicly disclosing evidence without notice and consent from the city," the mayor's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said.

The inability of the two sides to come to an agreement is due in part to what the ATF perceived as the mayor's infringement on its jurisdiction, analysts and law enforcement sources said.

At a May press conference announcing the sting operations, Mr. Bloomberg criticized the agency, saying it was "asleep at the switch" when it comes to stemming the flow of illegal guns to the city. Soon after, the ATF, which says it was given no prior information about the private investigations, announced it would be looking into not only the dealers the mayor alleged were illegally selling guns, but the mayor's investigators as well.

The city did give the ATF two videotapes immediately after the announcement. Mr. Feinblatt complained that the ATF had yet to get back to the city with its analysis of the tapes.

If a gun dealer realizes a gun is not for the person who is buying it — for example, if a second party starts asking questions about the gun or trying to touch it — it is required to stop the sale immediately. The city is using what Mr. Feinblatt said was "innovative prosecution" to shut down crooked gun dealers with civil lawsuits.

Because the investigators are private citizens, they would have broken the law if they actually made straw purchases or intentionally filled in incorrect information on the gun licensing forms. Also, some states have stringent rules about hidden video equipment. Law enforcement sources said it is unlikely the investigators would be prosecuted, but that the ATF was sending City Hall a message to stay off its turf.

A special agent with the ATF in New York, Joseph Green, said in a statement: "We have been in contact and working with the city and are awaiting all of the information they gathered so that we can evaluate it's content and, where necessary, forward the findings to the appropriate ATF and U.S. Attorney's Offices."

Mr. Green refused to say whether the ATF was investigating any of the gun dealers targeted by the mayor because it doesn't comment on open investigations.

"Why would they have to sign some kind of agreement with the mayor of a locality?" a Second Amendment lawyer in Virginia, Steven Halbrook, said. "The feds don't have to sign an agreement if there's evidence of criminality. ... It demonstrates that Mayor Bloomberg lacks sincerity in this so-called crusade, because if he believes crimes have been committed, he would want them to take federal enforcement action."

Experts said an information sharing agreement is unnecessary because the ATF, like all law enforcement agencies, does not publicly disclose evidence about open investigations.

"Law enforcement rarely discloses anything," a criminal law professor at New York University, James Jacobs, said. "The mayor is showing a kind of unprecedented vigor in promoting the interests of the city ... but the inability to work with a federal agency seems disappointing. ATF has the legal responsibility for regulating this system and for investigating and even taking away the licenses of irresponsible federally licensed firearm dealers."

Spurred in part by the deaths of two police officers late last year and early this year, the mayor launched an ambitious campaign against illegal guns. Aside from the sting operations conducted by the James Mintz Group, he has testified in Washington, D.C., and held a summit of mayors to address the issue.

The impasse between City Hall and the ATF is nothing new in the history of the city's battle against illegal guns, the executive director of the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State University, Saul Cornell, said. DeWitt Clinton, the mayor of New York between 1803 and 1815 and governor between 1817 and 1823, grappled with the same issue, he said.

"Basically, since handguns became a serious part of the commercial market Americans have been trying to deal with consequences," he said. "It's amazing that the mayors of New York are dealing with the same problem. I think it's kind of sad."

"We are hopeful that they will modify their position so that we can provide them with the balance of the evidence," Mr. Feinblatt said.

"My sense is if it was up to the local ATF and the mayor's office, it would have been done," Mr. Cornell said. "I would suspect that there's something happening in Washington to create a political rift between the mayor and the ATF."

Link (http://www.nysun.com/article/38669?page_no=1)

It's the job of the ATF to crack down on these matters and not for Mayor Bloomberg to think he can go it alone.

[WARPIG]

Yeah.. still twisting the issue here. I also don't typically go to the local gunstore alone and do all the talking. Usually when either myself or my brother make a firearms purchase.. both of us are pretty excited about the situation and are both asking a million questions. But, the guy we buy from (who also knows us by name) also stops to make sure he knows who is buying the gun. Not every person is an informed gun buyer and knows what questions to ask.. but like john crighton is saying it isn't hard to tell the straw purchase when you see one.

I also am willing to bet that many of the "stings" that go on in NY completely hold up in court. The civil law suits are simply a more pro-active way at letting the gunshops know that they need to operate above board. Also, Federal Law does kick in here but there is no way to know if the law is broken unless they are caught. Hence the private sting operation.

Also, keep in mind this isn't likely to be some Mickey Mouse sting where you hire two PI's to say that one guy asked questions while the other guy was the secret buyer. If the civil actions or any legal action is expected to stick, then some pretty persuasive and irrefuteable evidence has to be apparent.

[WARPIG]

I'm not twisting anything here, groups like the Brady Buinch have gone after firearm companies in the past with junk law suits, and I'm not against the bad guys being strung up for breaing the law. But it is not Mayor Bloomberg's place to go after gun stores that are out of his state, that's a job for the ATF.

Anyway, as far as NY being above board well.....


Link (http://www.nysun.com/article/38669?page_no=1)

It's the job of the ATF to crack down on these matters and not for Mayor Bloomberg to think he can go it alone.

Looks like the Mayor is botching the job.. but that doesn't mean it is some conspiracy to infringe on gun ownership. You are right that the ATF should be handling this. But, if Bloomberg hadn't gone out and dug up this stuff, the ATF wouldn't have any evidence to haggle over.

By the way.. I wasn't talking about NY being above board.. I was talking about making gun shops operate above board. Again, stop taking stuff out of context.

We can all agree that some boundraries are being threatened here. But, creating a conspiracy out of a red tape mess is simply twisting the facts.

[Hollis]

Geezah there is no question that the Brady crew and hand gun control people will do about anything to ban ownership......... or will do anything to accomplish that task.

One defense is not to give them "real" reasons to be more restrictive.

I had a FFL for a long time, and was very selective to who I sold too. It was more a sideline so I could afford to be very selective.

There are so many sources for firearms in the USA, I think most gun shops are at a disadvantage because of the restrictions and pricing structure of the gun industry.

In Oregon at gun shows, private sellers did not need to register the sales of the firearms. Quick check through the State Police (required) add a $10 sur-charge to the purchase. That was eventually change requiring all sells to go through the checks/transfer paper work.

I also think is not so much paranoia that legal gun owners worry about their Firearms being registered, but more as reasonable assessment of what can happen, such as Australia and the UK.

I believe one of our best protection as legal firearm owners is to Obey the Law, Advocate obeying the law, and legal/safe firearm usage.

[Geezah]

Yeah.. still twisting the issue here.

Then I may be missing it completely as I'm not sure how having a beef against Mayor Bloomberg going it alone and not working closely with the to shut down rogue gundealers is twisting the issue?




I also don't typically go to the local gunstore alone and do all the talking. Usually when either myself or my brother make a firearms purchase.. both of us are pretty excited about the situation and are both asking a million questions.

My brother is a little different from me, me I ask questions when I don't know, my brother would prefer to give the impression he knows when he doesn't. My brothers room mate who is a deputy has asked me to help him build an AR, I told him to let me know when he's ready, he doesn't know what he's looking for and doesn't want to be sent in the wrong direction. The pair of them have asked me as they trust me and are willing to go with the information I give them. In my mind this is completely different to a straw man purchase even though for the most part I might do the majority of the talking when these guys make their purchases.



But, the guy we buy from (who also knows us by name) also stops to make sure he knows who is buying the gun. Not every person is an informed gun buyer and knows what questions to ask.. but like john crighton is saying it isn't hard to tell the straw purchase when you see one.

I agree with you here and I'm not disagreeing with you or John on this, but I see nothing wrong with taking someone that is better informed than you to purchase a firearm.



I also am willing to bet that many of the "stings" that go on in NY completely hold up in court.

We will wait and see.


The civil law suits are simply a more pro-active way at letting the gunshops know that they need to operate above board.

I view it more of a way for these anti-gun organisations to get around the law and are looking for another way to target the firearms industry. If it is a way to make sure they operate above board a civil suit is not the way to do it in my mind.



Also, Federal Law does kick in here but there is no way to know if the law is broken unless they are caught. Hence the private sting operation.

And he/they should cooperate 100% with the ATF on this to make sure they have a water tight case against rogue dealers.



Also, keep in mind this isn't likely to be some Mickey Mouse sting where you hire two PI's to say that one guy asked questions while the other guy was the secret buyer. If the civil actions or any legal action is expected to stick, then some pretty persuasive and irrefuteable evidence has to be apparent.

I'm pretty sure that Mayor Bloomberg's operation was not as above board as you think, otherwise why not work with the ATF and let them know what you have planned, rather than work against them.

[Geezah]

Looks like the Mayor is botching the job.. but that doesn't mean it is some conspiracy to infringe on gun ownership. You are right that the ATF should be handling this. But, if Bloomberg hadn't gone out and dug up this stuff, the ATF wouldn't have any evidence to haggle over.

If I remember correctly the Mayor went it alone and did not let the ATF know what he was doing and almost screwed things up for cases the ATF were working, so I will not give Mayor Bloomberg one ounce of credit for what he has done.



By the way.. I wasn't talking about NY being above board.. I was talking about making gun shops operate above board. Again, stop taking stuff out of context.

I agree gun stores should be above the board and those that choose to break the law should be sentenced and I think we may be debating for the same thing?



We can all agree that some boundraries are being threatened here. But, creating a conspiracy out of a red tape mess is simply twisting the facts.

I do believe that Mayor Bloomberg is going out of his way to target the firearm industry, otherwise why meet with a large number of Mayor's across the States but not allow the NRA to take part(they tried but were denied) when they have played a major part in reducing accidental deaths amoungst children and have worked closely with Federal Governemt to help reduce the number of arms falling into the wrong hands?

[Laworkerbee]

I agree 100%, when people start twisting the law, looking to subvert it, they are in fact the ones that are causing more restrictive laws to be passed.

Oh wait I'm sorry HOLLiS I thought you were talking about lawyers p-)

[WARPIG]

If I remember correctly the Mayor went it alone and did not let the ATF know what he was doing and almost screwed things up for cases the ATF were working, so I will not give Mayor Bloomberg one ounce of credit for what he has done.



I agree gun stores should be above the board and those that choose to break the law should be sentenced and I think we may be debating for the same thing?



I do believe that Mayor Bloomberg is going out of his way to target the firearm industry, otherwise why meet with a large number of Mayor's across the States but not allow the NRA to take part(they tried but were denied) when they have played a major part in reducing accidental deaths amoungst children and have worked closely with Federal Governemt to help reduce the number of arms falling into the wrong hands?

Like I said.. not likely a conspiracy. I am not saying that he isn't biased.. but not wanting the NRA involved in your operations doesn't make you a Gun Control Nazi.

[Geezah]

Geezah there is no question that the Brady crew and hand gun control people will do about anything to ban ownership......... or will do anything to accomplish that task.

One defense is not to give them "real" reasons to be more restrictive.

I had a FFL for a long time, and was very selective to who I sold too. It was more a sideline so I could afford to be very selective.

There are so many sources for firearms in the USA, I think most gun shops are at a disadvantage because of the restrictions and pricing structure of the gun industry.

In Oregon at gun shows, private sellers did not need to register the sales of the firearms. Quick check through the State Police (required) add a $10 sur-charge to the purchase. That was eventually change requiring all sells to go through the checks/transfer paper work.

I also think is not so much paranoia that legal gun owners worry about their Firearms being registered, but more as reasonable assessment of what can happen, such as Australia and the UK.

I believe one of our best protection as legal firearm owners is to Obey the Law, Advocate obeying the law, and legal/safe firearm usage.

I agree.

An FFL I used to go through a Vietnam Vet, nicest guy ever, could talk more than me but smoked like a chimney was extremely selective as to who he sold his firearms to. The first time I went over to his house he sat and talked to me for close to 2hrs before even bringing up the idea of doing a transfer for me. He had a gunstore but due to illness related to Vietnam(Agent Orange) he was on disability and was waiting on going 100% disa with the VA. Anyway he told me about a few guys he had told no deal to and one woment that even admitted to trying to purchase multiple firearms for a group, she was less than polite when he told her to leave.

Now one thing to keep in mind, I purchased a firearm(Mosin Nagant M44) for my father-in-law as a gift, which in a way is similar to a straw man purchase but as I'm supplying the funds and giving it to someone else(who is able to own firearms) is completely cool.

Also, wasn't it Sarah Brady that did a straw man purchase for her son?

[Asheren]

Warpig you say its quite obvious when purchase is staged. On other hand there is no info how this PI operate and i am quite sure that their payment is based on their effectivnes. Considering that fact i am almost certain its not soo obvious for arms store owner. We also need to consider that what might be obvious for court might not be obvious for averange person. Ofcurse that last fact is not any sort of defense for gunstore owners because lack of law knowledge is not a defense in law viewpoint. Using law loop holes is also quite common for various anti-smething organisations. US law is also quite flexible favoring difrent sides on diffrent ocasions.

[Geezah]

Like I said.. not likely a conspiracy. I am not saying that he isn't biased.. but not wanting the NRA involved in your operations doesn't make you a Gun Control Nazi.

I disagree, Mayor Bloomberg is either nieve or purposely going out of his way to get around the law.

The mayor misused gun trace data to launch so-called "sting" operations against firearms dealers without the knowledge of either ATF or his own police department. In the process, his private investigators interfered with as many as 18 ongoing criminal investigations, imperiling the lives of law enforcement personnel — like undercover NYPD cops who played a key role in busting up a Virginia gunrunning ring. This is precisely why law enforcement groups like the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police organization, support legislation that would keep gun trace data out of the hands of the public yet make it available to law enforcement for investigatory purposes.

When the mayor used trace data to target firearms dealers he viewed as "rogue" and labeled "the worst of the worst," he mistakenly assumed that the dealer was corrupt. This is far from true. As the ATF has written: "The appearance of [a licensed dealer] or a first unlicensed purchaser of record in association with a crime gun or in association with multiple crime guns in no way suggests that either the federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) or the first purchaser has committed criminal acts. Rather, such information may provide a starting point for further and more detailed investigation" (Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports, ATF, 1998).

In a news conference, Bloomberg degraded the brave men and women of ATF, calling them "asleep at the switch" and accused them of not doing their job. That statement is baseless. A number of recent gun trafficking busts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia indictment of 11 suspects who bought guns illegally and pedaled them in New York City, have drawn praise from law enforcement, U.S. Attorneys and the firearms industry. They demonstrated that, contrary to the mayor's claims, federal law enforcement is on the job.

Now Mayor Bloomberg, having filed suit against 15 out-of-state firearms dealers he claims participated in "simulated straw-purchases," has chosen to settle with two Georgia dealers. As part of the settlement, New York taxpayers will foot the bill for a "special master" to oversee the dealers in the exact manner that ATF already does. (http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060816/OPINION03/608160363/1076)

Mayor Bloomberg is a liabilty, going out of his way to target the firearm industry while ignoring the proper channels to shut down rogue gun dealers.


The settlement between New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg adn two of the 15 dealers he targeted in a lawsuit is more about publicity than necessity, given existing federal oversight of dealers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and educational programs already in place.

The agreement calls for two Georgia dealers to receive additional training in preventing illegal, or "straw," purchases. But the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, has for years partnered with ATF, the appropriate and legally authorized federal regulatory agency, to provide dealers with training designed to prevent straw purchases through the Don't Lie for the Other Guy program.

The campaign was launched in Atlanta this past January with Gov. Sonny Perdue and ATF Director Carl J. Truscott, who referred to Don't Lie as "vital" and "an important tool for ATF."

Firearms dealers in greater Atlanta have already received in-store materials that help deter would-be straw purchasers, and U.S. Attorney David E. Nahmias has appeared in TV ads warning the public about the penalties associated with illegal purchases.

Unfortunately, Bloomberg has rejected NSSF attempts to share this industry-government program plus information about an ongoing series of seminars that educate dealers about the extensive laws and regulations governing the lawful sale of firearms.

Part of the settlement requires that a "special master," selected by the mayor, monitor the two dealers' business practices. The monitor's oversight will be largely redundant to ATF's but adds disturbing new powers, including videotaping firearm purchasers.

The monitor also will be able to fine the dealers for violations of the settlement agreement. Yet Bloomberg opposes a bill (HR 5092) currently before the U.S. House of Representatives allowing ATF similar authority.

Bloomberg's adversarial relationship with ATF is clear. In announcing his lawsuit in May, he claimed ATF was "asleep at the switch" and not doing its job. This contempt led to his "sting" operation where, unbeknown to either the ATF or the New York Police Department, he allowed private detectives to investigate and engage 45 gun dealers.

This stunt interfered with as many as 18 ongoing federal investigations, possibly jeopardizing the lives of undercover law enforcement officers and witnesses.

Bloomberg should support ATF efforts regarding enforcement of firearms laws and industry's dealer education programs. Regrettably, Bloomberg seems more interested in making headlines than real progress. (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/0807edequal.html)

Mayor Bloomberg is a loose cannon, IMHO.

[Hollis]

I agree.

Now one thing to keep in mind, I purchased a firearm(Mosin Nagant M44) for my father-in-law as a gift, which in a way is similar to a straw man purchase but as I'm supplying the funds and giving it to someone else(who is able to own firearms) is completely cool.

Also, wasn't it Sarah Brady that did a straw man purchase for her son?

Yep it is a funny law, when legal owners are involved.

Senator Fienstein did it, Kerry accepted a Shotgun that was purchased to be given to him. We have some really great examples from anti-gun nuts ignoring the law.

My wife is building a small collection, but she has to BUY her own. I won't do it. Also she is learning the business that way. I am more a collector/shooter/builder now than a buyer/seller.

[Geezah]

Yep it is a funny law, when legal owners are involved.

I know, I even asked the Vet if it was ok, he told me he called the ATF as I was straight up with him from the start, so he knew it was a gift. Got the green light from the ATF and told me ok. Did the background check, got a delayed, told him I'd see him in a few days.



Senator Fienstein did it, Kerry accepted a Shotgun that was purchased to be given to him. We have some really great examples from anti-gun nuts ignoring the law.

Funny really how they think they are well and trully above the little man, they can create the laws but they need not obey them.



My wife is building a small collection, but she has to BUY her own. I won't do it. Also she is learning the business that way. I am more a collector/shooter/builder now than a buyer/seller.

Understand, me personally, I wouldn't mind opening a gun/sports store as I really seem to enjoy being around firearmsp-)

[WARPIG]

Mayor Bloomberg is a loose cannon, IMHO.

Did he purchase that cannon.. or did he have someone purchase that for him?



Still sounds like a biased, stupid move to me. But, opinions vary. I am not speaking from any personal or informed knowledge of him or the situation. Just what we see here in the thread.

[Geezah]

Did he purchase that cannon.. or did he have someone purchase that for him?

;)



Still sounds like a biased, stupid move to me. But, opinions vary. I am not speaking from any personal or informed knowledge of him or the situation. Just what we see here in the thread.

I do not have first hand knowledge, only information I have gathered from numerous news outlets that all seem to point in the same direction.
I think he has overstepped his mark and put investigations at risk that were being carried by agencies that should have been advised of his plans.

[Hollis]

Oh wait I'm sorry HOLLiS I thought you were talking about lawyers p-)

LOL, Is there a difference.............?

[remo williams]

The understanding I have from following this is that most of the gun dealers he's targeted have been out of state. A few in GA, and VA. It's no secret that people looking to purchase firearms for illegal use/sale go to these states because they're processes are streamlined compared to NY. Especially NYC which requires a special permit to own a pistol nevermind a carry permit. They had also traced the origin to weapons (one being an UZI) used in the killings of a few NYPD officers to those states. He's been on a rampage ever since to sanitize the illegal gun presence in NYC ever since. One cannot blame him for that, however the methods used to achieve that could be argued as entrapment. I see the article dosen't mention where these stings took place, but I'd be willing to bet it wasn't in NY. Besides anyone who's gonna get an illegal weapon won't go to the store to check it out first.

[Geezah]

^Something I want to add to the above.
I can go into my neighbouring states and purchase a longgun directly from a dealer no problem with a valid drivers license, but I cannot go into my neighbouring states and purchase a handgun the same way. It would need to be shipped to an FFL in my state and then transfered over to me. So just how exaclty are these firearms(if there are handguns involved) getting into NY?

[Herrmannek]

Wow... only I can say... Isn't lying into federal document a forgery and should be chased by feds from defninition?

[XShipRider]

I can't fault the city of NY for the tactic. Many municipalities send in
underage, or underage in appearance, persons to purchase alcohol
or cigarettes. This is not to trap the owner/operator but rather to
ensure retailers are properly screening would-be purchasers of these
items. Though it's often called a sting it could just as easily be called
a compliance investigation or operation.

I do fault the city of NY for the lawsuit. As someone mentioned, they
could just have easily brought forth fraud charges against perpetrators.
They could also ask the federal government to launch an investigation
against dealers they suspect of illegal activity. The ATF doesn't have
a lot to do when there are no Wacos (not to be confused with whackos)
to execute.

It appears the city of NY decided the only way to stop illegal guns
from hitting the streets is to stop legal sales of same.

Just my $.02.
Please send the change to my PayPal account.

[remo williams]

^Something I want to add to the above.
I can go into my neighbouring states and purchase a longgun directly from a dealer no problem with a valid drivers license, but I cannot go into my neighbouring states and purchase a handgun the same way. It would need to be shipped to an FFL in my state and then transfered over to me. So just how exaclty are these firearms(if there are handguns involved) getting into NY?

In NY you can buy a rifle/shotgun with about an hr's worth of paperwork. Federal background check. For a pistol it's alot more involved. It can (depending on the efficiency or your local gov't) up to a yr, and alot of money, to get a pistol permit, which is only good for hunting/target shooting. For a conceal carry permit it's more involved, and I believe you'll be going before a judge/sheriff to show cause for being issued one. That's at least how it was explained to me when I was interviewing for a job that would've reqired me to have not only a pistol permit, but would enable me to obtian an FFL.

In NYC it's an entirely different, more stringent process. As far as the illegal firearms, I've heard many times, they get bought in bulk down south, and are passed of through private sales to middlemen and such who sell them to so and so and so on, until they end up in NYC being used in a crime. It's been my observation that the law is sketchy when it comes to private sales. I'd say even hamstrung since one could sell them as soon as he buys them.

[John Crighton]

If it is an equal 3 way conversation or if the buyer is standing right there intently listening and adding something to the conversation 95% of the time I would say it was going to be a legal sale if they are not otherwise acting in an odd manor.

To have one person do all the talking and the other just stand there and listen and pull out the money. No It is a bad deal and you are the criminal for not seeing it. Do I agree with the law? Not the point. I could care less. It is the rule we must play by. But it is still the rule

Geezah, face it, there are bad apples out there. Defending them out of blind faith in your cause simply ruins yours.

Bloomburg is trash, but you don't live there so use your energy fighting the fights that you have a standing in. Something that you can be of real use with. This one isn't it.

[Durandal]

Well, first of all, it IS legal to purchase a firearm for someone else, so long as they would be able to legally purchase it themselves.

My fiancée got me a lower receiver last year for Christmas and I got a gift rifle for a buddy of mine that graduated law school.

What I do not understand is how they prove this.

Its either legal or its entrapment.

Oh...well...

Dumb.

[Pandy]

Well, first of all, it IS legal to purchase a firearm for someone else, so long as they would be able to legally purchase it themselves.

My fiancée got me a lower receiver last year for Christmas and I got a gift rifle for a buddy of mine that graduated law school.

What I do not understand is how they prove this.

Its either legal or its entrapment.

Oh...well...

Dumb.

I was about to say that, the gun stops can get them for entrapment due to the fact the PI lied on a federal form.

It doesn't matter, as long as I live, I'm getting my guns.

[Laconian]

First off entrapment is an affirmative defense and can only be argued during trial. To say, "They entrapped the dealer" has to be proven in court. The other side will then show a predisposition to have committed the crime in the first place. It is argued in almost every undercover case in local state and Federal court.

There are two problems with Bloomberg's approach. First, Federal decisions of late have been very specific about what constitutes a straw purchase. For instance, someone can't go into the store posing as a prohibited person as defined in 18 USC 922(g), they actually have to have the prohibition in question. For a straw purchase, the gov't just can't use the "they bought one gun and gave it away" as a basis for the crime. No AUSA would take a 1-gun case, so they would have to prove the FFL knowingly sold to a straw, multiple times. And what if it wasn't the FFL, but the clerk? There's a bunch of variables there and proving criminal intent instead of bad business or administrative practices, isn't that easy.

Second, there's this whole rule of evidence thing, especially where videotape/electronic technology is used. There are Federal standards and many states also have their own. Any violation makes the evidence no good and may in itself constitute a violation of law. Then to submit those to an agency and expect them to use them puts further pressure on the problem, for any number of reasons they may be inadmissable.

I'm all for going after bad gun dealers and straw purchasers. I can't believe a lawyer on Bloomberg's staff reviewed this plan and okayed it. He has opened the Mayor's office up to all types of civil and possible criminal liabilities. These PIs acting as agents of the government should have followed the same rules and practices as LEOs. To think you can skirt criminal prosecution standards just to use the lower proof standards of civil tort law is a bad move.

[loganinkosovo]

The typical beliefs of your typical Anti-Gun Nazi (insert discriptive epithet here).

Part 1

Here at Handgun Control International, we believe . . .

That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn't the person involved.

That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won't harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.

That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.

That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.

Does the First Amendment apply only to quill pins and hand presses?

That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because "Violence never settles anything."

That it's wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.

That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.

That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.

That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 11, someone could have been hurt.

That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.

That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.

That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.

That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

That Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

That "assault weapons" are "very powerful" but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.

That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can't use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.





That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but "gun nuts" are "obsessed with violence."

That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against "types" of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the "obsessiveness" of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.

That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.

That it's terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.

That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.

That people buy guns as "substitute *****es," because they know that only people with small *****es ever get attacked by criminals.

That Hitler and Stalin didn't disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other "undesirables." (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post.)

That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the "legitimate fears" they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I'm beginning to wonder.)

That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren't allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.

That it's wrong to destroy someone's life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is to own a gun.

That a law that allows someone to keep doing "X" that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can't do "Y", is a "loophole."

That it's wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn't need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.

That when someone dies because they couldn't get a drug the government won't approve, it's tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn't defend themselves with a gun the government won't approve, that's just life.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don't.

That the "Reasonable" uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it's acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.

That .50 caliber rifles are both "very rare" and "selling like hotcakes."



That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.

That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen's arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, "Stop! Or I'll yell 'stop' again!" rather than by drawing a weapon.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a *****, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…

That a gun is a symbolic *****…what this has to do with defending one's life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.

That reasonable licensing fees will stop casual ownership of guns, but anyone who would jump through hoops to own a gun is obsessive.

That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.

That we should deal with the problem of criminals using illegal weapons by taking lawful weapons away from honest people.

That we should ban guns-if it saves even one life, it's worth it, just as we should ban assemblies where people might be trampled to death-if it saves just one life, it's worth it, and we should ban speech by groups who offend public order-if it saves just one life, it's worth it, and we should ban unhealthy foods-if it saves just one life, it's worth it, and…

That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, "Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don't I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald's?"

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

That despite all the outrage about Corporate America's cavalier treatment of employees, Domino's Pizza's demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber's family.

That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren't liable for enforcing that rule with others.

That there is no right of self defense, and the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.

That assault rifles are far too powerful to hunt deer and elk, and too dangerous for private citizens to own, but are too impotent for modern warfare, too weak to reliably kill soldiers, and have no place in the concept of a citizen reserve.

That there's no incongruity in claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 caliber pocket pistol, and claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun in the same piece of propaganda.

That any cheap weapon is a "Saturday night special," and any expensive weapon is an "assault weapon."

That "Cops" and other shows are edited to show the boring encounters with traffic stops and the occasional drunken fool with a revolver in his pocket, and never show the millions of cases where the cops are gunned down in droves by machinegun toting drug dealers.

That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a "trained professional" can be a "victim" of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are "dumb grunts."

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a
neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is "just say no," and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.

That it's outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer's last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of Fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."

That the first amendment absolutely allows child ****ography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.

That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.

That Illinois' law that allows almost any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police stateism.

That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machine-gunning children, hiding the video evidence, possibly torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement. And it isn't a sign of police stateism.

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

That with the above, a 90 LB woman attacked by a 300 LB rapist and his 300 LB buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

That there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain guns, but there is something in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain *** acts.

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but *** education in school doesn't encourage kids to have ***.

That a criminal will take a gun away from you and use it against you, so conversely, the best thing to do when threatened is to take the criminal's gun away from him and us it against him.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, but anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, but that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.

[loganinkosovo]

part 2

That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, but the increase in crime requires more gun control.

That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control is legislated are "just statistics."

That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won't thereby become an oppressive government.

That guns are an ineffective means of self-defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay.

That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.

That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the US Army only has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but gunmaker's advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

That a handgun, with up to 4 switches and controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile which only has 20.

That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons.

That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear
that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.



That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."

That there is no absolute right to a weapon, documented historically because the British government used to prohibit Catholics from owning guns. And that wasn't a sign of religious bigotry. (Note: the British Constitution actually RESTORED to Protestants the right to own arms, which Catholic James II denied them)

That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

That you don't need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need.

That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.

That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That the "Right to keep and bear arms" refers to armorial badges and coats of arms, not to weapons.
(Potomac-inc.org)

That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.

That the right of explicit teenage ****ographic websites to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, but the claim that handguns are for self-defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don't want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.

That guns cause the high suicide rate in the US, even though Japan's rate is almost three times higher.

That we should ban gun stores near schools, because of all the 10-year-olds who are buying guns without parents' permission.

That there is a statue called "Armed Freedom" in the Capitol, but that that is irrelevant to the intent of our ancestors.

That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops guns instead of beer.

That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

That it's acceptable to arm a courier at $6 an hour to shoot criminals for stealing bank deposits, but unacceptable for a college-educated business owner to do it himself.

That a registration plan will reduce crime, because criminals will register their guns despite the Supreme Court decision Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85, 1968) that registration violates self-incrimination.

That it's reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.

That teaching abstinence exclusively rather than use of condoms is doomed to fail, but encouraging absolute bans on guns rather than education in safe use is the only acceptable method of reducing crime.

That it is outrageous that civilians have rifles that were designed for the military for their own self defense, but perfectly okay to have polluting, potentially unstable, heavy vehicles that were designed for the military simply as status symbols.

That guns are the gravest threat to society because 83,000,000 gun owners didn't commit a crime yesterday.

That it is essential to incorporate locks and sensors into guns to make them safer and that only a criminal would not support this, but cops and federal agents would be exempt for safety reasons because locks are unreliable and hinder access.

That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

That all gun dealers sell illegal weapons, just like all black people sell drugs.

That crime is higher in urban areas with less guns, and we must continue to disarm the minorities in these areas because of the risk of crime, and that isn't bigotry.

That an underpaid, overworked bodyguard should be glad to throw himself in front of a bullet for you.

That your safety is someone else's responsibility, but they have no right to tell you how to live your life.

That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it.

That if the above is true, we should not be terrified of the concept of that government holding control of our lives and freedom at its whim.

That the piecemeal destruction of the right to keep and bear arms makes the right useless, and therefore justifies destroying it further.

That one should be more afraid of one's spouse blowing a gasket and shooting the children, than of those children being run over by a hormone-driven teenager in a car.

[loganinkosovo]

part 3

"It can't happen here."

That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

That guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.

That one can "study" the "gun issue," but not know the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle.

That the NRA, with over 4 million members, is "out of touch" with America, and HCI, with 50 thousand members, is a "mandate from the people."

That a baseball bat is good protection against a burglar, provided his gun fires baseballs.

That to judge a group by secondhand news and hearsay is bigotry, unless that group is the NRA.

That the National Defense Act of 1916 doesn't exist.

That pricing products out of the reach of poor people through excessive regulation is discriminatory practice, unless that product is a gun.

That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun.

That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them.

That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won't need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search.

That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn't dangerous to owners.

That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.

That private citizens making private sales of private property is a "loophole."

That the existence of weapons not banned by previous laws is a "loophole."

That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally.

That it's safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting.

That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet.

That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.

That guns are an "epidemic" even though we can't treat them with penicillin.

That there's no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at
http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.

That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a "civilized" society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it.

That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will somehow make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students.

That accidents with a product justify banning the product, even though MADD has never called for a ban on alcohol, people actively push to legalize drugs, and no one wants to ban swimming pools, so basically it's only practical items like guns we should ban and not the luxury items that are essential to human survival.

That the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other's drivers licenses, even with age or vision
requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it's a gay marriage, but somehow doesn't apply to licenses to carry weapons.

That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won't build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.

That people with large gun collections are dangerous, especially if they have more than two hands to shoot with.

That autoloaders are "easily converted" to fully automatic fire, yet the person telling you this has no idea how it's accomplished.

That banning rifles with bayonet lugs will cut down on all the drive-by bayonetings.

That shooting at an intruder who smashes your door and enters with knife in hand will somehow "escalate the violence."

That it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

That guns cause crime, which is why there was no rape or murder in the Dark Ages.

That stopping the people who don't commit murder from having guns will lessen the number of those who do commit murder.

That since banning a few guns hasn't helped, we should ban more.

That just like the anti-nuclear weapons movement used to believe, if the potential victims disarm, the oppressors will take pity on them and give up their weapons in remorse.

That oppressing gun owners until they violate the law justifies oppressing them further.

That "crime guns" and old police guns should be destroyed at government expense, because the cost of exorcising the evil spirits from them before selling them to lawful owners is exorbitant.

That raising the legal age to possess firearms from 18 to 21 will REALLY show those 16 year olds.

That inner-city blacks in public housing should be disarmed to prevent crimes, but not rich white suburbanites. And it isn't a sign of racism.

That creating firearms crime by having a Byzantine code of firearm laws proves there's a problem, and justifies more laws to create more crime.

That liberal parents who give guns to problem children to "teach them responsibility" are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but everyone else's guns are.

That gun owners are a threat by existing that must be destroyed by any means possible and their rights are unimportant, but the thugs who attack us on the street whom the gun owners wish to be armed against are simply a problem we have to put up with.

That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.

That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade.

That it's tragic when a child dies in a firearms accident, and we must pass restrictive laws to prevent it, but children poisoned by household chemicals are simply unavoidable accidents.

That you don't need a gun, therefore no one needs one, and you have the right to impose that belief and will on others.

That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

That societies with less guns have less killings by guns, just like societies with less cars have less vehicular homicide.
This is deemed to be relevant.

That criminals who rob to support their drug habit can afford $65 a minute in ammunition for their automatic "Weapon of choice."

That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as NYC, LA and Chicago.

That since a gun isn't 100% effective for self defense, you should get rid of it, along with your first aid kit and fire extinguisher, since they aren't 100% effective, either.

That if Chicago were to legalize firearms, it would have shootouts in the streets, which never happens now.

That it's wrong to use tax dollars to finance private political agendas, unless that agenda is to ban guns.

That a "safe gun" will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like "safe ***" works so well to stop rape.

That a cop with felonies on his record is safe with fully automatic weapons but a churchgoing mother with a parking ticket as her worst crime is unfit to use a pistol to protect her child.

That a suicide who used a gun would still be alive if he or she had used a knife or hanged himself or herself.

That someone else's suicide is a problem for the rest of us that would be prevented if we gave up our guns.

That alcohol is acceptable in private, as long as the user doesn't use it while driving, but mere possession of a gun is a threat to others.

That gun owners are unwilling to compromise, which is why there are only 20,000 gun laws in the US.

That criminals are better shots than civilians because of all the time they spend on the practice range.

[joedirt]

last year I bought two AK-74's off of the internet and had them delivered to a FFL did the 5 minute background check and was on my way I really dont see why you guys make such a ruckus about the government trying to take guns away its just not going to happen and some states have more strict laws but compared to other countries for the most part it seems its easy to get a firearm in the USA.

[loganinkosovo]

part 4

That since criminals are better shots by the logic above, one is safer by not shooting back, but just waiting for them to run out of ammo.

That it's reasonable to assume an accident would have been lethal if the victim wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and reasonable to assume that an armed defender would have been safe even if they didn't have a gun.

That one accidental death is too many, but thousands of people dying because the means of self-defense were not available is unavoidable and not worthy of worry.

That we should ban guns because people have a "right to feel safe," but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid.

That it's outrageous to count 18 and 19 year-old parents as "children" for statistical purposes, but perfectly acceptable to count them as children for purposes of exaggerating gun deaths among "children."

That a zero-tolerance policy is bad regarding drugs, but a zero-tolerance policy is good regarding guns.

That martial arts are a better form of self-defense, and can defeat an armed opponent, but we still need to ban guns because of the danger they present to those few people who don't know karate.

That government officials can be trusted with automatic weapons, but private citizens cannot, because of the number of people private citizens kill while kicking in doors without search warrants.

That an 18 year old can handle a machinegun and die defending another nation's oil reserves, thereby being a hero, but an 18 year old who tries to defend his or her child with a gun belongs in jail.

That the few people who can't use martial arts or other non-lethal means of self-defense--the young, the old, the infirm, the disabled, the weak, the small, and the pregnant--are simply the necessary sacrifice we must make to criminals to avoid the risks of letting people be armed.

That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles.

That getting rid of guns reduces violence, so the military should be armed with bouquets of flowers.

That we should hang out at funeral homes to tell the families of the deceased how lucky they are their loved one was killed by a drunk and not a man with a gun.

That a conservative with a dozen guns is an "extremist," and a liberal with a dozen guns is a "museum."

That a team of cops shooting an unarmed citizen 19 times and not getting charged with murder is "law enforcement" but an old lady shooting a knife-wielding attacker is "vigilantism," and we should leave defense to the professionals.

That we should require trigger locks and safe storage facilities for all guns in order to prevent accidents, just like we require all household chemicals to be kept in a locked cabinet.

That a woman shooting a rapist is a felon.

That NORML is good for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product, but the NRA is bad for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product.

That poor people who live in high crime areas and can't afford alarms shouldn't be allowed to have guns either.

That telling a murderer he'll go to jail for carrying a gun will make him think twice.

That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors.

That killing a triple murderer so you don't become the fourth victim is "escalating the violence."

That we should get rid of "junk guns" so that criminals are forced to use reliable high-quality guns.

That repealing laws that discriminate against gun-owners "endorses" guns, just like repealing laws that discriminate against gays "endorses" homo******ity.

That guns are designed only to kill, just like women are designed only to give birth.

That only people over 21 are allowed to defend themselves.

That we should ban guns because their primary purpose is to kill people, but we shouldn't ban alcohol, which has its primary purpose getting intoxicated and losing control of the higher faculties, thereby increasing violence and accidental death.

That the lack of mention of firearms in Colonial literature proves their scarcity, much like the lack of mention of outhouses proves their scarcity.

That somehow the above is more relevant to the 2nd Amendment than the lack of letters to public officials and newspapers is relevant to the 1st Amendment.

That a person who would commit violence with a gun would never do so with a knife.

That most people are seething cauldrons of potential violence who cannot be trusted with a gun, but most people are so decent that there is no need to carry a weapon for defense.

That a person foolish enough to leave a gun loaded and lying in reach of a child will somehow be responsible enough to attach a trigger lock.

That 83 million gun owners are "extremists," and the 50,000 members of the Million Moron March are "the majority."

That allowing concealed carry does not reduce crime through deterrence since some people do so even though it's illegal, but allowing concealed carry increases crime, because more people carry guns and use them irresponsibly.

That a woman buying a gun to defend herself against a violent ex needs five days to "cool off."

That a woman being raped should refuse help from an armed stranger, and instead wait for the police.

That if an a group of anti-gun protesters feels threatened, they should ask police with guns to protect them while they tell everyone how worthless guns are for protection.

That a trauma surgeon's experience in treating gunshot wounds makes him an expert on gun control legislation, just like an automobile body repair technician's experience repairing cars makes him an expert on traffic laws.

That the typical town only needs one law enforcement officer per 1000 population, because most people are law abiding, but that it's dangerous to let citizens carry weapons because most people are criminal.

That the risk of arrest for carrying a weapon on school grounds will stop a person bent on suicide from starting a shootout.

That felons should be denied the right to ever own a weapon, just like rapists should be castrated before being released from jail.

That the 1939 US vs. Miller case, is "established law" that endorses gun control and the matter is closed, just like Plessy vs. Ferguson endorsed "separate but equal" schools and the matter is closed.

That game wardens have the most dangerous job in the world, because everyone they deal with is armed.

That there's no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40's, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50's, and no students were killed at Kent State.

That when the government promises that they won't confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them, just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington and Concord.

That the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs.

That the high crime rate in cities with oppressive gun control proves the need for gun control in cities without gun control and with low crime.

That Charlton Heston, as president of the NRA, must be a racist, despite his marches with Dr. King in the 1960s. After all, all gun owners are racist, and that theory isn't bigoted.

That we don't need guns because America is safe, and only criminals or people wishing to start trouble would be out late at night in bad neighborhoods.

That there is no left-wing conspiracy to send police and troops to imprison American gun owners, but there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy of gun owners who must be disarmed for attempting to stop it.

That .50 caliber weapons must be banned in case Americans use them to shoot holes in the armored cars that the government doesn't own and isn't going to send against them.

That ships using Australian waters mustn't carry handguns against the mythical threat of piracy or mutiny, because some aspiring captain might sell them for a few bucks.

That gang punks shot by other gang punks are innocent victims, and babies shot by government agents deserve to die because of the unpopular beliefs of their parents.

That allowing the poor and minorities to defend themselves is Fascist.

That small arms can't win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove.

That John Wayne, rejected by the Marines for bad knees, who portrayed firearms as used by soldiers and law enforcement is a draft-dodging agent of evil, but antigun draft dodger Sylvester Stallone, making movies about Vietnam veterans and using weapons gratuitously, is an American hero to be slobbered over.

That violence is bad, but any defensive use of a firearm that doesn't involve the death of the perpetrator is invalid.

That the NRA is bad for running political activities, but the Million Moron March, stealing money from AIDS research, illegally maintaining tax-exempt status as a 501c(3) organization and fraudulently using a hospital rent-free as its headquarters is good for running political activities.

That Charlton Heston is evil for working for the NRA for free, but Sarah Brady charging $10,000 a speech is a paragon of altruism.

That a ranch rifle made after 1994 is somehow a military rifle.

That all firearms retailers are illegal gun dealers, just like all pharmacists are illegal drug dealers.

That hate is not a family value, but all gun owners are tobacco-chawin', beer-swillin', racist, redneck bubbas.

That a gun which sits silently in a drawer and costs pennies per round to shoot is a bad idea for self defense, but a dog that requires walks, veterinary care, and licenses, may not be allowed in certain neighborhoods and may annoy the neighbors at all hours is a good idea for self defense.

That the worst thing one can do if there's an intruder in the house is get a gun and apprehend them, and the best thing on can do is pretend to be asleep and wait for them to go away, especially if they are raping your children.

That gun control will "keep guns out of the wrong hands," meaning law-abiding Americans' hands.

That trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why it makes sense that police officers are exempt from using them on their duty weapons.

That the government attempting to stop the Microsoft "monopoly" is good, and the Federal government pressuring cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson is also good, and not monopolistic.

That "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them.

That "assault weapons" are only designed for killing offensively, and the police need them but you do not.

That citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but desk-bound police administrators who work in a building filled with cops do, as do tax auditors, vegetable inspectors, mail inspectors, and meat inspectors.

That beer-gutted police have special mental, emotional and physical capabilities that enable them to deal with the incredible complexity of a firearm, and private citizens can never hope to achieve such competence.

That the Brady Act and the "Assault Weapons" Ban which both went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates since 1991.

That 25% of the dealers at gun shows are unlicensed, and we must license these purveyors of books, tools, knives, clothing, artwork, candy and historical artifacts.

That because of New York's "tough laws" against guns, there exist black market dealers who spend thousands of dollars in gas and other expenses to drive to Arizona, which has "weak laws" in order to buy Ruger pistols at $500 each retail and drive back to New York and sell them to criminals at an "average" of $50 each, thereby making a profit.

That there's no contradiction in the same liberals who said in the 60s that 18 year olds who could fight should be able to vote, now saying that 18 year olds can vote but shouldn't own guns.

[WARPIG]

OK.. loganinkosovo
I am not sure what the point of the 4 part tirade on why gun control is bad.. but from a mod's perspective.. it is borderline spam. Perhaps a link to the source you got that extraordinary list from would have been more appropriate.
But, as a member, I still am not clear on what the purpose of using almost an entire page of this thread is. If this thread was a debate about gun control vs 2nd amendment rights then I would definately see the point.

[Geezah]

If it is an equal 3 way conversation or if the buyer is standing right there intently listening and adding something to the conversation 95% of the time I would say it was going to be a legal sale if they are not otherwise acting in an odd manor.

To have one person do all the talking and the other just stand there and listen and pull out the money. No It is a bad deal and you are the criminal for not seeing it. Do I agree with the law? Not the point. I could care less. It is the rule we must play by. But it is still the rule

If the person pulling out the money answers all questions put to him by the dealer and the dealer thinks the sale is ok, but the potential buyers buddy has an outgoing personality then you cannot paint that as bad.
I like to talk, I like to talk allot and sometimes I try and dominate a conversation or like to be the center of it, but please do nto take this to mean that I in any way support rogue gun dealers or strawman purchases.
I just don't think it is bad to take someone alone with you to give you advice on your purchase, there is always someone that will know more than you on a certain subject and even though it may seem like a fine line to you I thinkt here is a big difference.



Geezah, face it, there are bad apples out there. Defending them out of blind faith in your cause simply ruins yours.

I'm not defending the bad apples, I think they deserve any time they get.
On my first purchase I took family members with me to give me advice on the firearm I was purchasing, they looked it over for me and I sat down and filled out form 4473 and answered the questions the dealer asked me when he phoned it in. I got a "proceed" and left. Thing is, everyone has a first time, and it's not bad to take someone along for advice, but please do not take this as some type of pass for those that perform strawman purchases.



Bloomburg is trash, but you don't live there so use your energy fighting the fights that you have a standing in. Something that you can be of real use with. This one isn't it.

Yes Bloomberg is trash, and the dealers that he is sueing in civil court do not live for the most part in NY, and if we ignore his ignorance then he may think this is a free pass to continue what he is doing and interfering with Federal investigations.

[XShipRider]

OK.. loganinkosovo
I am not sure what the point of the 4 part tirade on why gun control is bad.. but from a mod's perspective.. it is borderline spam. Perhaps a link to the source you got that extraordinary list from would have been more appropriate.


Thank you! I thought I was the only one viewing this as, shall we say,
"lengthy." Links save time.

Plug: Use Firefox or Opera and open a tab.

[John Crighton]

My brain hurts after trying to read through this page.....

Geezah, you are blind. You argue just to argue. You know the differance between a straw purchase and what is not. Argueing semantics is pointless.

You are making yourself look foolish and loosing credability by twisting the issue, quit while you are ahead.

[Geezah]

Geezah, you are blind. You argue just to argue. You know the differance between a straw purchase and what is not. Argueing semantics is pointless.

I guess I must be because I'm certainly missing something here.
If the stings were above board and warrented then I would have no problem with them.
And yes I do know the difference between a straw purchase and what is not but my point of debate here concerns your comment to Asheren.



You are making yourself look foolish and loosing credability by twisting the issue, quit while you are ahead.

Was I ever ahead.........no matter, just to set the record straight.
I do not condone strawman purchases, I also do not condone what Mayor Bloomberg in all his wisdom did in trying to belittle the ATF and get around the law by pushing civil lawsuits that will no doubt go no where in court.
I'm all for going after rogue dealers and they deserve everyting they get caught red handed.