New York City Investigates Arizona Gun Show

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Times

PHOENIX — Weeks after a shooting left six dead and 13 injured in Tucson, New York City sent undercover investigators to an Arizona gun show and found instances in which private sellers sold semiautomatic pistols even after buyers said they probably could not pass background checks, city officials said.

The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on illegal gun sales nationwide, took place Jan. 23 at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix, officials said.

“The background check system failed in Arizona, it failed in Virginia and it fails in states around the country,” said John Feinblatt, an adviser to Mr. Bloomberg. “If we don’t fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when.”

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run federal background checks, but it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying. In the case of Jared L. Loughner, who is accused of opening fire on the crowd in Tucson on Jan. 8, the gun used in the shootings was bought at a licensed gun dealer, and he passed a background check, the authorities said.

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/31guns.html?hp

[baldguy]

1. Gun show loophole, right there.

It should be illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer.

[Tejas]

5. A certain 3-term Republican mayor would just love you.

"It should be illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer."



Wow, right out of Paul Helmke's playbook.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Why should the quote be examined in the light of Paul Helmke's opinions?

Do you personally believe Paul Helmke's opinion adds or subtracts from the quote?

[Tejas]

43. Because it's lockstep with Helmke's opinions?

[ZombieHorde]

67. Why does that matter? nt

[CreekDog]

84. i didn't realize that was a bad thing --is he Hitler?

:rofl:

[RamboLiberal]

17. You know I'm a gun owner & disagree with many here on

gun restrictions. But I also recognize that guns are used illegally & can cause great tragedy. I for the life of me cannot understand what is the problem with requiring all gun buys public & private go through NICS. It's far from a perfect system but at the least it does prevent some people who shouldn't have a gun from getting one.

This should be the one area we could get a compromise on. Many states like my own of PA still have guns shows but at least in my state a handgun purchase even in a private sale has to go through an FFL and NICS check.

WSJ - not exactly liberal.

According to FBI data, there are 1.1 million people in the database who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm because of their mental-health status. Between November 30, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2010, only 6,103 attempted gun purchases at federally licensed dealers were stopped because of mental-illness prohibitions. That was just 0.74% of all NICS denials.

Over the same period, nearly 600,000 gun purchases were prevented because of criminal records, including misdemeanor crimes and domestic-violence convictions, representing about 73% of the NICS denials. The NICS data don't include sales between private individuals.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704515904576076200491395200.html

I'd like to know if any in the NICS database who couldn't buy a gun through an FFL got one in a private sale.

[pnwmom]

20. I agree. I don't understand why people object to having gun sales

go through NICS.

I know a woman whose ex-husband was able to buy several guns even though he had a domestic violence conviction. Millions of women are at risk in this situation.

[pipoman]

25. There is currently no mechanism

in place to achieve this. If I do decide to require an NICS check on a private sale, I am at the mercy of an FFL who isn't required to perform the check and who can charge what ever he/she wants for the service. I think a requirement upon FFL dealers to provide private NICS checks cheaply, say $20, would greatly increase the number of states which would require NICS for private sales and reduce resistance from gun owners.

[pnwmom]

34. Good idea. n/t

[lepus]

61. If mandated, I would oppose any charges for the nic check.

Mandate that it is provided free by any FFL.

The FFL dealer is making a simple phone call that takes five minutes. There is no reason it should cost 20 dollars except as an additional fee to exercise a right.

[RamboLiberal]

74. The FFL is taking his own 5 minutes to do the check

And making sure the paperwork is correct. It probably takes 15-30 minutes of their time in total. Why shouldn't they earn a fee? We pay a fee for our vehicle transfers. I say make it $25 for now.

Also why are states missing out on sales tax on these transactions? I sure have to pay sales tax on a used car in many states.

[X_Digger]

76. Oh, so not _just_ a background check.. I see.

I assume you'd have the FFL retain a 4473. More de facto registration.

And sales tax, eh? Funny how it's growing into something more than just 'background checks for private sales'.

[CreekDog]

87. Registration is good

are you afraid to register your firearms?

[X_Digger]

90. What's the utility? Can you show a benefit?

Criminals can't be held accountable for not registering firearms (see Haynes v. US), so the only one it burdens are those least likely to commit a crime in the first place.

How many criminal cases have been solved due to firearms registration? (Law and Order or CSI don't count.)

[CreekDog]

111. if all firearms are registered, then someone with an ill-gotten firearm would be committing a crime

one that's traceable.

[X_Digger]

113. So find a case or ten.. I'll wait.

While I wait, here are a few more..

1) How do you propose to reach 'all firearms are registered'? There are 300,000,000 firearms already out there, a large portion of which are unregistered (because the state where they were purchased does not do so-- only 8 or so states register any firearms.)

2) re 'would be committing a crime' -- look up Haynes v. US- it would be self-incrimination under the fifth amendment to force a prohibited person to register a firearm. So you can't charge a felon with failing to register a firearm. The only ones you can prosecute? Someone otherwise law-abiding who would not otherwise have been ineligible to possess a firearm.

[Kolesar]

114. badly written

incomprehensible

[X_Digger]

115. I'll write s.l.o.w.e.r. next time.

If you are a person who cannot legally own a firearm- because of a previous felony conviction, an adjudication of mental incompetence, an indictment/conviction for a charge of domestic violence, a dishonorable discharge from the military, etc -- basically a 'bad' guy?

with me so far?

You cannot be charged with failure to register a firearm.

Why?

Because when you go to register a firearm, you would be admitting to violating federal law.

That forced admission? Is not allowed because of the fifth amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

So who can be charged with failure to register a firearm? Someone who is eligible to own a firearm- a 'good' guy.

There, that wasn't so hard, now was it?

And just in case it was the first portion that you didn't understand..

Only a handful of states have any kind of registration. Some states only register handguns, two register all firearms. In total? About 8, last time I checked. In 42 states, no firearms are registered- the majority of states have no registration requirements, therefore a majority of firearms are unregistered.

[CreekDog]

117. look, you're against any mandatory registration and i'm for it

i've said before and i'll say again, all you intend to do here in this discussion is argue details of implementation as a form of obfuscating your own irrational, unreasonable position TOTALLY against ANY registration that is not voluntary.

you have an irrational, unreasonable position.

you see gun rights as practically sacred --and this explains your irrationality about them.

it is your religion, frankly speaking. and yes, we've dialogued enough in the gun forum to make that abundantly clear.

there is no arguing with zealots. you are a gun fundamentalist and i am not your polar opposite. you accept no restrictions or mandatory requirements, i would accept some, certainly far short of outright bans of most weapons. that's difference between us.

i would simply like more restrictions. i'd also like registration of a object whose only purpose is to kill (especially for handguns, whose purpose is to kill people).

[X_Digger]

121. Straw man.

Where have I stated or endorsed a position equating to 'no restrictions or mandatory requirements'??

If you're going to try to put words in my mouth, at least clean your fingers off first.

I'm happy with the restrictions we have, generally. I'd like to see standardization of some laws (like CHL/CCW licensing and reciprocity), and personally, I'd remove sound suppressors from the scope of the 1934 National Firearms Act, but otherwise? I'm fine with the way things are right now.

You've yet to demonstrate that any restriction you've proposed would have a measurable impact on those you wish to target- as far as I can tell, the only ones it would apply to are those not targeted.

It's not up to me to justify my position- it's up to you to justify additional restrictions, and explain a) what it would accomplish, b) how do we measure that, c) how do you implement it, and d) what do you do if it doesn't do what you expect.

I see all rights as 'sacred'. Any infringement- whether it's the Patriot Act, 'internet kill switch', warrant-less wiretapping, 'free speech zones', 'internet IDs', forced sonograms for those women considering pregnancy termination, DOMA- must meet the level of scrutiny required for infringement. (Most don't.)

[May Hamm]

130. LOL -You said "obfuscating"

The minute I see that word I wonder if you are hiding behind big words. I thought his post was very clear. It gave information while yours was mostly personal attack. Think about it... who is the zealot?

[May Hamm]

128. Interesting!

"it would be self-incrimination under the fifth amendment to force a prohibited person to register a firearm."

I love law. I'm not being sarcastic either. I just enjoy serious discussion that makes me think.

[X_Digger]

134. I know, right? It floored me the first time I read it.

It seems ass-backwards to what they intended.

[PavePusher]

126. That's already what exists in law...

and those firearms are still traceable.

[RSillsbee]

132. Yes I am Registration is generally a precursor to confiscation NT

[CreekDog]

86. you don't support federal anything

all you support is making background checks cheaper and *maybe* *some* states will make it a requirement.

not Arizona. not likely.

:eyes:

[RSillsbee]

131. People object because

This is unenforceable w/ out unilateral registration

[pipoman]

24. Thus a huge problem with the system..

I'd like to know if any in the NICS database who couldn't buy a gun through an FFL got one in a private sale.

I think that there should be some law enforcement officer knocking on the door of about 75% of the declined NICS applicants. As it is there is almost no investigations done. How many indeed..

This private sale issue would have been cured federally years ago if it were constitutional..it isn't at the Federal level.

I believe if there were a change which made it statutorily inexpensive to run a sale through NICS combined with a prohibition against state or federal prosecution or civil liability for any gun transferred through NICS later used in a crime, many states would adopt a requirement for NICS on private sales. State adoption is the only way to gain mandatory NICS checks in intrastate sales.

[Tejas]

41. We'll just have to disagree, private sale is not Fed/State business

And to put it nicely, I'm not keen at all on defacto registration. With unwarranted delays and false negs, NICS is faulty enough as it is. Then you have gems from such folks as AG John Ashcroft.

Other "records that are maintained can be used to detect the illegal purchases," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee

Granted, Ashcroft sounded like a good-ol-boy when he suggested shortening the time limit for disposal of NICS records from 90 days to 24hrs. The GAO on the other hand said that the 90 days was needed or else the FBI would be hampered in that they wouldn't be able to "go back and check their work" to make sure no mistakes occurred.

1) NICS is flawed and will continue to be, not to mention their breakdowns on any given day. 22 Jan, last Saturday at the HGCA show in Houston was a cluster thanks to NICS. What an odd coincidence, I'm selling and get delayed on a purchase (included my Soc# on the 4473, imagine that).

2) Ashcroft: "other records"? WTF?



bonus points: How about destroying 4473's after the same time limit NICS adheres to?

[pipoman]

48. You better hope you never accidentally sell a gun to a prohibited person

who later commits a crime with it or gives it to someone else who does. You may be innocent but you will never get done paying and may end up in criminal court.

[Tejas]

50. So, just to be on the safe side, you and me

and every other gunowner in the country should suspend any and all private sales until.......when?

Until NICS for private sales is in place?

[pipoman]

51. It just sounded like you oppose

NICS in general and advocate against making it available for private transfers, no?

[Tejas]

57. Yes, I oppose NICS for private sales, and also

oppose the current system of keeping the 4473's for 20 years.

Humor me for a moment...where does Gander Mountain or Academy keep 20 years worth of 4473's?

[baldguy]

66. Here.

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Book-Essential-Drive/dp/B000VZCEUI



$70 on Amazon. Storage is cheap.

[pipoman]

68. Could be the only thing I have agreed with baldy on

scanning it and storing it in pdf format would probably allow each location to store 20 years on a single 1 TB hard drive, 2 - 1 TB hard drives @ $159 hooked in series would insure a failure of one unit would be backed up. Each location is required to have it's own ffl, therefore I believe 4473 must be kept on site.

I can't imagine law abiding people really opposing a system which doesn't compile a database, yet allows for tracing of crime weapons. I want the feds to be able to trace the original owner of a recovered crime gun. The 4473 system is protected by the very people maintaining the forms, ffl holders as a whole are among the most 2nd friendly people in the US. If an abuse of the 4473 system came down, the news would hit immediately and the collective legislative power of gun rights activists would come into play.

I like the idea of putting criminals in jail, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has spent more time defending criminal civil liberties than I. I have been in the deepest darkest prisons in the US and seen the face of the people who would take everything dear to any person for the mere joy of it...there are more on the street, the sooner caught, the less pain on innocent people like you and I. Even the Tiahart amendment is in place to further protect the 4473 info. I can't think of a system which would be less intrusive, and still not compile a database of gun owners.

I don't believe there will ever be a Federal requirement for NICS. State's I believe will, sooner or later, have a requirement for some sort of private sale screening. Would you voluntarily submit for a check on a perspective buyer if doing so would protect you from ever being prosecuted criminally or sued civilly for a crime committed with a gun you sold privately? As it is, if you sell a gun privately which is later used to kill someone, you can bet your ass, regardless of your innocence, you will at least be named in a civil suit and be forced to spend time and money defending yourself.

[Occulus]

80. "where does Gander Mountain or Academy keep 20 years worth of 4473's?"

On a hard drive.

[CreekDog]

85. because among some gun enthusiasts, their approach to gun politics is irrational

such that it leads them to fear any measures relating to gun sales involving government restrictions.

[X_Digger]

91. When the 'gun control advocates' have admitted..

.. that their end goal is civilian disarmament, and the means they intend to use to achieve that is a series of incremental measures, can you blame us for taking them at their word?

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . We'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio

"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

So which is it? Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

[baldguy]

63. Bloomberg is an Independant.

And requiring a background check just closes the massive loophole in existing law. Don't the gun's rights advocates always say "enforce the laws we have, don't create new ones"?

[slackmaster]

72. He's an IINO

He's an authoritarian Republican.

[CreekDog]

89. i've only seen you use the word authoritarian with respect to gun issues

and never to any other issue.

oh well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. +1

[slackmaster]

104. I use it on drug and LGBT and reproductive rights issues too

:hi:

[X_Digger]

105. I've seen you use it on 4th amendment posts, patriot act posts, etc etc. n/t

[slackmaster]

106. Indeed I have, many times

I think my positions are pretty consistent across a wide range of subjects.

[CreekDog]

119. Actually you used it once in an LGBT related thread to describe "leftist authoritarians"

:shrug:

and okay, is it safe to say 90% of your posts using the term are in reference to guns?

i think the key thing, relevant to this debate, is that the primary issue when you think of authoritarians is in reference to guns.

and i think it's relevant because most DU'ers and most people, when they think of authoritarian threats or issues around the world do not think of gun ownership issues first.

[slackmaster]

120. People tend to post most often on subjects that they know about

I happen to be a gun collector and an experienced shooter. I have a Federal Firearms License, and am much better acquainted with gun laws than are most people. My collection is worth a significant amount of money, so I have a vested interest in protecting my investment against the effects of well-intentioned but bad laws.

think the key thing, relevant to this debate, is that the primary issue when you think of authoritarians is in reference to guns.

Has there ever been a true authoritarian who supported the right of citizens to keep and bear arms?

...i think it's relevant because most DU'ers and most people, when they think of authoritarian threats or issues around the world do not think of gun ownership issues first.

One of the first things that most rising authoritarian dictators have done throughout history is actively disarming the populace, except when the people have already been disarmed by a previous government. A true authoritarian wants to control as many aspects of peoples' personal lives as possible. Few decisions seem to me as personal as the one to keep arms.

[CreekDog]

88. they only say enforce existing laws when asked about creating new ones

many discussions indicate that they actually oppose existing laws too, but they have learned it's more effective to debate more laws by saying "enforce existing ones".

but you'll find the gun advocates generally don't want existing laws either.

[CreekDog]

83. which doesn't make it a bad idea

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. Many Democrats believe that as well

[Frank Cannon]

139. The only people in favor of the mentally ill being able to buy guns

Are mentally ill people who want to buy guns.

[PavePusher]

125. Edited tape loop-hole, right there.

It should be illegal to distribute any tape of a "sting" operation with pieces missing that might damage your "case".

There, fixed that for you.

[boppers]

2. Time to start arresting gun brokers/dealers with stings like this.

Enforce the existing laws already.

[Tejas]

6. Funny you should mention "existing laws".

How are those laws against rape, robbery, and murder working out for ya?

[sharesunited]

14. I'm unaware that anyone is turning a blind eye toward those.

No sense in turning a blind eye toward this.

[Tejas]

47. Then you probably

adore the state of the court systems nowadays, not that you've been paying any attention.

[DBoon]

15. How's that gun working out?

Has it stopped that guy in Eastern Europe from cleaning out your bank account?

Oh well, too bad you don't think a legal system should be bothered with crime.

Just armed individuals defending themselves against the world

You'll just have to find that guy in Moldavia and shoot him if he doesn't give your money back.

You've already decided laws are useless - what else is left to do?

[PavePusher]

127. Did you set that Strawman(tm) up all by yourself?

Or did you hire out the heavy lifting?

[pnwmom]

23. Are you suggesting that we should dispense with those laws, too? n/t

[Tejas]

45. Sure, and we should also

nuke Iran.

Any other childish questions?

[neverforget]

26. Survival of the fittest and all that eh? Why have any laws?

[Tejas]

49. Are childish snarks all you have?

Am I to assume you're satisfied with the slap on the hands that criminals are recieving nowadays?Care to express your enthusiasm at the great job the courts and penal systems are doing?

[neverforget]

92. just responding to snark with snark

[pipoman]

27. You do realize this has nothing to do with licensed dealers, no?

[boppers]

35. You do realize that a dealer's license is totally irrelevant?

From the OP:
it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying

[pipoman]

39. You said,

" Time to start arresting gun brokers/dealers with stings like this"

They are required to be licensed. This "sting" targeted private sellers, not brokers or dealers.

[boppers]

42. I was using the dictionary definition of broker and dealer.

In AZ, you aren't required to be licensed if you call yourself a private seller.

[pipoman]

44. It isn't a matter of what you call yourself

and it isn't a state requirement to be licensed in most states, it is federal in all states. The BATFE is very, very clear on who is and who isn't a private seller and what a broker/dealer is.

[boppers]

53. Reading up on exactness now.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Page 5 for "dealer" (and licensed dealer), page 6 for "engaged in the business". "private seller" isn't in there (that I've found yet).

[pipoman]

56. A private seller would be anyone not required

to have an ffl. It has been a while, but anyone buying guns with intent to resale them for profit are considered a dealer. Those who sell guns for a 3rd parties are brokers.

[lepus]

62. And don't forget the original buyers in the OP

They were breaking the law also.

[cliffordu]

3. Not to be a defeatist or an NRA tool.....

IT'S TOO FUCKING LATE FOR THESE BAND AIDS ON THE BULLET WOUND THAT IS THE 200 MILLION OR SO GUNS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WITH THE $$ TO BUY ONE.

Another bullshit exercise for another politician to gain some traction somewhere.

They can keep the guns out of the hands of people who want them like they can stop adolescents from masturbating.

Sorry. Now back to American Idol, already in progress.

[high density]

4. Background checks are a joke

Essentially you just have to wait 3 days for a non-response from NICS and then you have your gun anyway.

[aquart]

7. Yeah, but it gives your wife time to leave town with the kids.

As opposed to selling you the gun immediately and letting you go home and kill them all.

Which seems like a good plan to me.

[Tejas]

10. How about LEO's etc that shoot their spouses?

Oh wait, they already have a gun...but that's because they are the only ones professional enough to have guns, amirite?

[Mojorabbit]

13. This is really reaching.

:hug:
I am a armed woman. I would never think of harming a member of my family. But then I am not a criminal who does not have any respect for the law.

[pnwmom]

22. Plenty of people are in prison who never planned to be criminals.

But they had did some meth or drank too much beer, and then something ticked them off. And if a gun was handy, they used it.

The person I know who did this filled his ceiling with bullet holes. Fortunately, there wasn't anyone in the room above him; and his ex-wife wasn't anywhere near. Otherwise, this non-criminal could be in prison today.

[Mojorabbit]

33. someone who does this

will use anything that is at hand. I can't see penalizing a boatload of people on the off chance someone might go off half cocked.

[pnwmom]

38. If he had thrown a knife at a ceiling it would probably have stuck there.

It certainly wouldn't have shot through the ceiling and into the room above.

Why is it penalizing any law abiding person to have a background check before purchasing a gun?

[Mojorabbit]

46. My husband collects knives

No one is calling for a special background check or notifying the govt when he buys one. I am fine with dealers having to do this but am totally against it for private sales. It is not the govt's business if I want to sell one of my private possessions, IMO. It is also a matter of constant govt intrusion into the most minute aspects of existence anymore.

[pnwmom]

93. He can't buy a knife with a 33 round clip, can he?

How many people can he kill in a few seconds with his best knife?

[Mojorabbit]

102. Now you are changing the subject

and putting out an abritary number. I am a fast and accurate shooter. My sister who goes to the range with me could not hit the side of a barn no matter how large a clip you give her. I still maintain to those who are so anxious to give up other people's freedoms that it is just a feel good measure and not worth the inroads toward even more restrictive measures because for some people it will never be enough.

[pnwmom]

109. I'm not changing the subject. I'm just explaining why guns should be treated

differently than knives. And why certain guns should be treated differently than others.

[Mojorabbit]

123. Of course you are

First it was because of a cooling off period. Now it is how many people can be shot in a certain period of time. The end result is as I said, an invasion of my privacy and and unrelenting advance towards more and more restrictions which in the end are only feel good measures. You won't change your mind and I certainly am not changing mine. The bottom line is it is a losing issue for Dems.

[melm00se]

60. Background checks

Why is it penalizing any law abiding person to have a background check before purchasing a gun?

they already do...right in the store (plus any waiting period as required by their state).

As to private sales:

I know of no other private sale that requires a check to see if someone is eligible to utilize whatever it is that they are buying.

a car? do people (hell dealers for that matter) always check to see if the purchaser is legally a allowed to operate a car? should the seller? if so how?

There are plenty of private firearms transactions that take place that meet (or in some cases exceed) the requirements of the law.

Read thru a firearm forums and read thru their "for sale" postings and you'll consistently see things like this:

Like NIB. Has a chip on the wood grip. Only flaw. $260.00 gets you 44rds to go with. CCW or Permit req.

or

Taurus Model 85 Ultra-light snubby in .38. Stainless steel, mint condition with less than a box of ammo run through it. Trade XXXX/sell XXXXX

For trade I am only interested in a double action .22 revolver with a 4/5 inch barrel - like a Taurus model 94 or similar.

I live in XXXXXX but am willing to meet you half way for FTF deal.

All North Carolina laws apply.

WTS Stainless .22mag AMT Automag II
Gun and one mag only. $XXXXX OBO FTF. All NC State laws apply. Need proof of pistol permit or CHL

these folks (and many others) follow the existing laws, so why punish and burden them with more and more for the few who decide not to? Go after the ones who do (there are laws that already cover selling firearms illegally, more of them isn't going to solve the problem) and leave the rest of us law abiding citizens ALONE.

[RamboLiberal]

75. Cars - any purchase public or private in my state

I have to provide proof of insurance to have state register. And from there if I'm caught on the road without a driver's license I'm in some legal doo-doo.

[X_Digger]

78. You're one step removed there.. there's the sale, then there's registration.

I can sell you a car without checking with the state.

You may not be able to register it without insurance, but you still own it.

Quite different.

[pnwmom]

96. In my state we accompany the purchaser to the dmv to make sure

that the sale is properly registered. Otherwise, whether the purchaser causes an injury or collects parking tickets, we'd be liable.

[X_Digger]

100. I would think a bill of sale would be an affirmative defense..

Actually, you don't have to accompany anyone to the DMV- assuming the state in your profile is correct, here's all you have to do-

https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/rosprod/

Note that this does not 'register' the car to the new owner. It merely makes you not liable.

[pnwmom]

107. Thank you. The online option wasn't available when we last

transferred a car to an individual, so that's good to know.

We had to physically go in to make sure the transfer was reported -- a bill of sale wasn't enough. I'm sure it would have helped if we were sued, but why would anyone want to go through that hassle?

As it was, a distant relative we gave a car to lied when we asked (out of concern for her) if she had gotten insurance. She then drove the car to California. We're never going to know exactly what happened after that (she had a strange story to tell) but after she took the car to a mechanic she claims the owners' son managed to get it totaled -- and she wanted us to be responsible. Fortunately, we knew that the transfer had been properly reported and she couldn't pass her problems off to us.

[X_Digger]

108. Any time I've sold a firearm in the last 20 years, I wrote a bill of sale w/ address & signature. nt

[pnwmom]

110. Good idea! n/t

[May Hamm]

136. In my state you mail in the stub off the title

with the date and the name of who bought the vehicle. This ends your liability. You are not required to check ID or verify anything.

[pnwmom]

95. So your reasoning is that some people follow the existing laws,

which don't apply to private sales, so we don't need the laws to be extended to private sales?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[PSPS]

12. Homer Simpson: "Waiting period? But I'm mad now!"

[RamboLiberal]

18. NICS is usually quick

Last couple of handguns I bought was done quickly. Took longer to fill out the paperwork.

[pnwmom]

21. That's not an argument for dispensing with them.

It's an argument for strengthening them.

[glinda]

30. 3 days? Then how does that work at "auctions" where I have seen

hundreds of guns listed (like who would own that many!) and just a small number of people buy them up and walk away from the auction with them. I have noticed in MN. during the last five years, a lot lot more "country auctions" with a shit load of guns... some with what appear to be similar to what the shooter had in AZ.

[pipoman]

40. In my state

if the auction is of guns collected by one person not for the purpose of resale, this is considered a private sale and no NICS check is required. If the sale has more than one consignor, NICS is required on all purchases not made by a FFL dealer.

Occasionally NICS will not immediately issue a pass or deny determination immediately as it does in most cases..the determination is delayed. If this happens and NICS doesn't issue a denial within 3 days the FFL can transfer the gun as if an approval had been issued.

[glinda]

52. So technically, one person can be sold a ton of guns by several people and then auction them off as

coming from one person? When I read the Ads, they always say "one collector's" collection. Personally I have really doubted it as the amounts are massive and there have been more and more of them.

[pipoman]

55. The BATFE would scrutinize

this, but yes, that is how collections are made. The seller may have to demonstrate that the guns were not purchased specifically for resale. Times are tough and guns are still demanding good prices. Some collectors, I am sure, are divesting themselves of their collections. I know people with huge collections accumulated over many years as a hobby but also as an investment.

[Tejas]

58. ATF doesn't just attend gunshows.

Any auction of any significance is attended by ATF agents. It would be foolish for them not to be there, not only to keep an eye out for suspicious activity but some field agents are collectors too, and everybody likes a good deal.

[baldguy]

64. And those inadequacies are there at the behest of the gun lobby.

If there are problems with NICS, it's because they were built in. The answer is to fix the problems not get rid of background checks.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

9. Recommend

[ZombieHorde]

16. “If we don’t fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when.”

So if we do fix it now (of course that time has passed), will we no longer be subjected to massacres? This seems to be what that quote is implying, though of course that would be completely illogical.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. He would have gotten one more beyond that before committing a felony in WA.

Takes FIVE DUI's to log a felony in our state. Sad. What ARE the odds of CATCHING a drunk driver 5 times, before he or she kills someone?

[pnwmom]

37. The laws aren't expected to prevent all crimes.

If someone is convicted of breaking them, the laws determine the consequences.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. It would be nice if we could use NICS, but we are not allowed.

By all means, fix that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. And the champion of gun control engages in a criminal conspiracy! From the article:

(emphasis added)

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.

Looks like the mayor of New York City paid two guys to commit felonies on his behalf, as out-of-state sales are illegal...

[pipoman]

32. I always find it interesting how many

Dems fall in behind the almost entirely Republican gun control advocates. I wonder how many even suspect that the intent of these rupubs is often to stir up Dems into advocating election losing legislation....so many take it hook, line, and stinker...

[Kolesar]

112. yeah, Jim Brady got himself crippled to help Republicans win elections

[RSillsbee]

133. Jim Brady was shot w/ a .22 caliber revolver NT

[burrfoot]

36. We have laws for this.

Those dealers need to be held accountable. I think many, if not most, legal gun owners would agree. Also, opening NICS to private sellers for a nominal fee- i.e. $5.00- and then requiring every gun sale to be run through it makes a LOAD of sense in my mind.

Also, obviously, we need a method- or to give it teeth if there already is one- for states to get criminal and (appropriate) MH information into the right files in a timely manner so that NICS has something to find.

Please, before this gets moved where we all know it's headed- can we get some ideas/comments from the big audience?

I've said a couple of things that sound reasonable to me. What sounds reasonable to you?

Do further restrictions on type of firearm, or accessory (i.e. extended mags), seem like they're going to make a difference?

If every gun sale had to go through NICS, would you support national reciprocity for CCW's?

Any other ideas?


I would truly love see a discussion out here!

Sadly,
IBTM

[baldguy]

65. That's the problem: they're not "dealers", they're "private sellers".

Therefore, background checks are not technically required. Hence the loophole.

These are people that are recognized as dealers by everyone except the ATF - and the ATF isn't doing anything to get the "private sellers" to voluntarily take part in the NICS. Which leads to the NYC investigations exposing the loophole and urging that it be corrected.

[burrfoot]

73. Sorry-

just a poor word choice :) I meant it in the non-specific, "person who sells a firearm" sense, but I do realize that in this context it has a particular and oft-debated meaning.


My bad.

[X_Digger]

79. If you sell your car in the newspaper, are you a 'car dealer'?

If you sell your house, does that make you a realtor?

[RamboLiberal]

101. Bet in most states if you sell a home or vehicle privately

You and the seller still have some government hoops you have to jump through. Vehicle registration, showing all property taxes paid on the property, sales taxes, transfers of deeds, etc.

On these private sales the state taxing authority is also apparently being cheated.

[X_Digger]

103. I've done both in the last five years- no hoops.

I did have to do a title search on the property and show tax status, but not because of a state law, it was to satisfy the buyer's mortgage company.

Same with the same of a vehicle. Once I signed the title, it was hers, not mine. The top of the title is a tear-off bill of sale.

re sales tax.. why the hell should the state get a cut of transfer of a firearm between two individuals? Sales taxes were collected at the retail point.

Unlike a motor vehicle whose use degrades state roads (hence collection of 'use' taxes on registration), there is no presumptive cost to the state for a firearm.

eta: grammar

[May Hamm]

137. Why do people keep saying "technically"?

There is no "technically." There is no "loophole."

Private citizens are not required to act as an agent of the state. Period.

So many folks here just ignore the hell out of that. They seem to want to believe that private citizens are getting away with something. They are not.

[baldguy]

138. If they look like a duck, sound like a duck & walk like a duck - then they're a duck.

Even if they want to call themselves a turtle.

These "private sellers" travel around to gun shows around the country, sell hundreds of weapons, have mailing lists, advertise, etc. etc - in short, they do everything that "dealers" do - except get an FFL, so the ATF turns a blind eye to them.

That's why it's a LOOPHOLE.

And I guess you missed the part of the OP that says "...it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying." and "In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said." These "private seller" dealers flout the law with impunity, and several investigations by local officials - from NYC in particular - have shown that the guns they sell are used in crimes.

It's time to end the loophole.

[May Hamm]

140. You see a "loophole" I see government control of private citizens.

You do not want to eliminate a 'loophole' that dealers use. You want to eliminate ALL private gun sales. The way I see it, you feel everyone who purchases a gun must have a background check in all circumstances.

I don't agree.

[baldguy]

142. Please privide a link where I - personally - advocated to elimination of all private gun sales.

Or perhaps you're wielding a rather broad brush there? (Check out #4: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html)

And secondly, why should the govt not take reasonable steps to ensure that people who everyone agrees shouldn't have guns shouldn't be able to get them? That falls squarely within the govts mandate to "insure domestic Tranquility" and to "promote the general Welfare". Deliberately ignoring that responsibility (which the gun lobby does) leads directly to people like Jared Loughner in Tuscon murdering innocents.

Or do you believe that allowing Jared to buy his gun was perfectly right & proper?

[Book Lover]

54. So people on the NYC payroll are investigating violations of federal law in another state?

Gee, I didn't realize NYC was awash in uncommitted money.

[karynnj]

69. Gee, Did you ever think that guns sold in states with lax laws end up killing people in NYC?

John Lennon's killer flew to Georgia to get a gun - because he could not have gotten one in NYC. We all know the tragic result.

[thelordofhell]

59. I'm shocked.......shocked

....to find that gambling is going on in here!

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Your champion also wants to bring back patronage:

It would appear he's figured out how to split progressives. And some are going right along with him....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x190992



Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system

Hannah Bell (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-13-11 04:55 AM
Original message
Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system
Edited on Thu Jan-13-11 04:57 AM by Hannah Bell
The self-proclaimed Emperor doesn't like the Civil Service System that was established in 1883 which was set up to eliminate favoritism, nepotism, and patronage when hiring, firing, and promoting government employees.

The Mayor4Life selected a hand-picked group of friends and executives to revamp the Civil Service System to bring back the very abuses that was the reason for the Civil Service System in the first place.

This elitist group was called the Workforce Reform Task Force and its mission was to reduce worker protections under the Civil Service system. Mayor Bloomberg did not see fit to include any union leaders in the group and made sure the unions were kept in the dark about the task force and did not know about the report until the New York Times brought attention to it. Predictably, the unions were very upset about not being involved in the process and have formed a united front to stop any of the Bloomberg proposals that require State approval to see the light of day.

One of the major reforms Mayor Bloomberg wants is to eliminate the "last in, first out" requirement for City teachers and changes to the Taylor Law making it easier for the City to use department seniority, rather than total seniority to determine layoffs. This would allow the City to eliminate whole departments rather than have bumping occur. Predictably the union leaders were very negative to the changes led by the Uniformed Firefighters Association President, Steve Cassidy who was disgusted with the secrecy of the task force and said had the union been included in the discussions, maybe common ground could have been found for the union to support some of the 23 recommendations......

[RamboLiberal]

77. Don't confuse the issue - he's not my champion

And patronage is NYC's issue and is not being discussed in this thread. In case you haven't noticed Bloomberg on the gun issue has teamed up with many big city mayors and guns are a national issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Bloomberg founded, co-chairs, and finances Mayors Against Illegal Guns

He may not be your champion, but he's arguably the champion of the cause lately.

Mumbles is only along as a make-weight. He has almost no pull outside Route 128:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/about.shtml


Message from the Co-Chairs


Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
New York, NY

Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Boston, MA

[slackmaster]

71. People working for the mayor of NYC went to another state, lied, and illegally bought guns

From a few scofflaws.

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.

Will the officers be prosecuted for unlawfully buying guns in a state other than the one in which they reside?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

116. Yeah, well, technically it's a federal offense

but Bloomberg is connected. Nobody's going to touch him for this crime. Or his minions.

:hi:

[baldguy]

143. And they did't have to identify themselves as undercover officers, either!

THE NERVE OF THEM! - LYING TO THE CRIMINALS THEY'RE INVESTIGATING!!!

[RegieRocker]

81. For the life of me I don't understand why many people

can't grasp the fact that locked doors only keep honest people honest. If you're unable understand how this applies to guns don't bother with a reply I have better things to do than waste my time on you.

[pnwmom]

97. Good locks on doors increase the chance that a burglar will move on

to an easier house -- particularly a young or inexperienced burglar -- and there are many of them. No, it won't prevent all burglaries but will reduce your odds. Why not reduce your odds in such a low cost way?

And if you're going to be honest anyway, why would you object to having your background checked before you buy a gun? I know someone with a domestic violence conviction in the middle of divorce proceedings who WAS able to legally buy a gun, but I don't think he should have been able to.

[RamboLiberal]

99. +1

[RegieRocker]

118. If a burglar wants what he thinks or knows what is inside

your home no lock is going to keep them out. Dream on. Locking your doors is better than not locking your doors. Whoo hoo!

[pipoman]

135. I'm not seeing your point?

Because locks aren't fool proof one should not keep valuables in their home? Should always use a safe? Should just burn your house down to avoid the risk of break in? What?

[May Hamm]

141. You don't see the point because he doesn't have one

Just another person of arguing for the fun of arguing.

[RamboLiberal]

122. FWIW Bloomberg in Huffington Post

-----

The investigators visited a Phoenix gun show as a follow-up to a 2009 undercover investigation we conducted at gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada. In that investigation, we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns - no questions asked. It called attention to a huge loophole in the law that enables criminals and other dangerous people like drug abusers and the mentally ill to get guns without having to go through a background check.

Since then, four of the seven gun shows we investigated have decided to require background checks for all gun sales. At the time of the investigation, those four gun shows hosted 198 private sellers who were offering 2,600 firearms for sale in just one weekend. Furthermore, ATF has now investigated one of the unlicensed gun dealers we caught on camera making illegal sales in Nevada, and they seized a stockpile of 800 guns he was keeping at his house in Mesa, Arizona.

It's great news that four of the seven gun shows from the initial investigation have decided to change their practices. But the reality is that the practice of selling to prohibited purchasers is widespread, as we saw again at a gun show in Arizona.

-----

In 2009, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale in spite of the law, which says even private sellers are prohibited from selling to anyone they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check. This time, two private sellers in Arizona did the same thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/undercover-at-an-arizona_b_816381.html

[The abyss]

124. One of the more fascinating DU discussions regarding 2nd amendment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4285962

strongly recommend reading.

[Xithras]

129. No new laws needed. Just enforce the existing law.

There are already laws in place to deal with this sort of thing. The DOJ just needs to start conducting stings, toss a bunch of these guys in jail, and the problem will solve itself.