Gun Dealer: 'ATF Approved Sales to Mexican Gun Runners'

[beevul]

Gun Dealer: 'ATF Approved Sales to Mexican Gun Runners'

"Let me tell you something about Carter's Country. They have been co-operating with ATF from the get go," says attorney Dick Deguerin who represents Carter's Country owner, Bill Carter.

Deguerin says the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked Carter's Country to complete transactions, even when sales people strongly suspected the weapons were headed to Mexican drug gangs.

"They were told to go through with what they considered to be questionable sales. They were told to go through with sales of three or more assault rifles at the same time or five or more 9 millimeter guns at the same time or a young Hispanic male paying in cash. It's all profiling, but they went through with it," said Deguerin.

"They reported them promptly, either while the transaction was going on or soon there after. They did this for months and months and months. Went through with the sales because the ATF told them to go through with the sales,"

"If the ATF had used the information that Carter's Country developed for them they could have stopped these guns from going across the border," insists Deguerin.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/101213-gun-dealer-atf-approved-sales-to-mexican-gun-runners

Yeah, I know the source is fox. Dick Deguerin, however, is a Democrat, and a very liberal one at that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4695420&mesg_id=4695486

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_DeGuerin

Very interesting.

[shadowrider]

1. I have no doubt the ATF did this with the intent to follow the purchaser

to try and get "bigger dogs" in the food chain.

How's that working out?

[formercia]

4. ...but ATF lost the perp at the Border.

Woof!

[X_Digger]

2. et voila.. Project Gunrunner gets it's funding for another year..

.. even if they have to tell dealers to help them.

[spin]

3. This story will not make the main stream media ...

but some bullshit story about how the Mexican Cartels are buying all their firepower from mom and pop gun stores will make national headlines.

[beevul]

5. Give it time.

Its all going to be in the public eye soon.

[spin]

6. I sure hope so.

It probably has to be on Drudge first.

[russ1943]

7. and the gun enthusiasts are happy with that.

"If you're a gun dealer and you see a 21- or 22-year-old young lady walk in and plop down $15,000 in cash to buy 20 AK-47s, you might want to ask yourself what she needs them for," said Newell, the ATF special agent in charge in Phoenix. "If she says, 'Christmas presents,' technically the dealer doesn't have to ask for more."
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/12/as-mexico-drug-violence-runs-rampant-us.html

[beevul]

8. And we should believe what he says why?

"If you're a gun dealer and you see a 21- or 22-year-old young lady walk in and plop down $15,000 in cash to buy 20 AK-47s, you might want to ask yourself what she needs them for," said Newell, the ATF special agent in charge in Phoenix. "If she says, 'Christmas presents,' technically the dealer doesn't have to ask for more."

This is someone afterall, who is supposed to be professional. Being a professional in the ATF means knowing the laws that they as ATF are charged with enforcing.

Knowing the laws pertaining to firearms, would BY DEFINITION mean knowing that AK-47 rifles are federally unlawful with out a NFA stamp and without the background check that goes with them. It would also mean knowing that they are in fixxed supply due to a closed NFA registry, and one alone costs close to or over 15 thousand dollars because of it.

Oh, look, heres Andrew Traver nominee for BATF head, on video deliberately confusing automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapons, and media buying it up as the gospel, as you apparently do:

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/11/robert-farago/missing-andrew-traver-tv-interview-surface/

Why should anyone believe that quote of yours again?

I know, I know, the video is fake NRA propaganda, and we should believe your quote over it right? :eyes:

[Katya Mullethov]

10. He's so lifelike

[Atypical Liberal]

20. But who would do that?

"If you're a gun dealer and you see a 21- or 22-year-old young lady walk in and plop down $15,000 in cash to buy 20 AK-47s, you might want to ask yourself what she needs them for,"

But how realistic is this? For $15,000 in cash, the multi-billion-dollar, multi-national illegal narcotics corporations could buy 20, civilian-legal, semi-automatic AK-47 variants.

Or, they could purchase real, fully-automatic, military-grade AK-47s through Central America for half the price, or get twice as many for the same price.

Which seems more likely?

[HankyDubs]

9. interesting indeed

"Deguerin says the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked Carter's Country to complete transactions, even when sales people strongly suspected the weapons were headed to Mexican drug gangs."

"They were told to go through with sales of three or more assault rifles at the same time or five or more 9 millimeter guns at the same time or a young Hispanic male paying in cash. It's all profiling, but they went through with it," said Deguerin."

So now the gungeon wants salespeople to determine whether or not to sell guns to a person based on their ethnicity? If it was a white male paying in cash who was denied his "cawnster-too-shin-ul" rights...the gungeon would howl!

That isn't doing much to support the idea that gungeon posters don't use racial fear to support their agenda.

[beevul]

11. Its neither right nor proper...

Its neither right nor proper, to ascribe to others wants or wishes that there is no evidence for.

"So now the gungeon wants salespeople to determine whether or not to sell guns to a person based on their ethnicity?"

Who has stated this? Who has even impled this?


Try and stick to the topic instead of making things up, Mkay?

The topic was ATF telling dealers to go through with sales they otherwise wouldn't have due to a beilef on the dealers part that the guns were destined to Mexico.


I wonder, when those guns show up in a trace, if they're counted as "guns from American dealers fueling Mexican drug wars"...

What do you think hanky?

"I sense a presence, a presence I've not felt since..."

[HankyDubs]

12. proper? guffaw

"Who has stated this? Who has even impled this?"

Dick Deguerin or whatever his name was. Why did he mention ethnicity?

"The topic was ATF telling dealers to go through with sales they otherwise wouldn't have due to a beilef on the dealers part that the guns were destined to Mexico."

That's an assertion supported by another assertion. "Its neither right nor proper, to ascribe to others wants or wishes that there is no evidence for." Sounds like you should heed your own advice here.

"I wonder, when those guns show up in a trace, if they're counted as "guns from American dealers fueling Mexican drug wars"..."

Wouldn't they be exactly that?

Now before you post anything else...wouldn't you agree with me that the gungeon would be HOWLING with rage if a white man was denied his "right" to purchase these same guns?

[beevul]

13. Yeah. I know that word has no meaning to you.

"Dick Deguerin or whatever his name was. Why did he mention ethnicity?"

Get a FFL and run a gun store near the border, and you'll have your answer. Are you trying to slur a well known very liberal Democrat - Dick Deguerin?

Did you even bother reading the article or watching the video?

The topic OF THIS THREAD was ATF telling dealers to go through with sales they otherwise wouldn't have due to a beilef on the dealers part that the guns were destined to Mexico - which is a straw purchase and unlawful. Thats what the entire OP and the video you apparently didn't bother to watch in the link, are about.

"Wouldn't they be exactly that?"

Yep. With aproval of the ATF no less. I wonder why. Allowing those sales to artificially inflate trace numbers perhaps? Something I'm sure you'd be entirely in favor of.



"Now before you post anything else...wouldn't you agree with me that the gungeon would be HOWLING with rage if a white man was denied his "right" to purchase these same guns?"

First, I don't need your approval to post anything, nor do I need your approval for the order in which I post what I post.

Second, I would think anyone other than those against guns should be upset when someones rights are denied. One does not have the right to engage in straw purchases, however, and straw purchases is the exact reason the dealer in referenced in the OP wanted to decline various sale which the ATF said "go ahead" on.

Here, reread this:

"Deguerin says the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms asked Carter's Country to complete transactions, even when sales people strongly suspected the weapons were headed to Mexican drug gangs."

Do YOU approve of sales which are destined to mexican drug gangs?

[HankyDubs]

15. poutrage

"I don't need your approval to post anything"

I didn't say you did. Do I need your approval to respond to your posts?

"Get a FFL and run a gun store near the border, and you'll have your answer."

No. I don't wish to spread death and mayhem.

"Are you trying to slur a well known very liberal Democrat - Dick Deguerin?"

I'm trying to slur all racists at all times.

"due to a beilef on the dealers part that the guns were destined to Mexico"

Belief and suspicion are not evidence of anything...except possible prejudice.

"I would think anyone other than those against guns should be upset when someones rights are denied. One does not have the right to engage in straw purchases, however, and straw purchases is the exact reason the dealer in referenced in the OP wanted to decline various sale which the ATF said "go ahead" on."

That isn't an answer to my question. The belief that these purchases were straw purchases was based in part...according to Deguerin...on the ethnicity of the buyer. That's prejudice.

"Do YOU approve of sales which are destined to mexican drug gangs?"

No. First of all you don't know these weapons were destined for "mexican drug gangs." You assume that because the buyers "looked mexican." Let's limit the number of guns that can be purchased at any one time so that it becomes more difficult to make straw purchases. That includes white buyers who make straw purchases for mexican drug gangs as well as brown ones who are suspected of doing so because they "look mexican."

OMG!!! HOWLLLLLLL!!! FREEEDUMBBB!!! Lol.

[beevul]

17. How quaint.

"I'm trying to slur all racists at all times."

Are you saying hes a racist?

"Belief and suspicion are not evidence of anything...except possible prejudice."

Belief and suspicion are enough to decline a sale. No evidence is required. You seem to have gun stores confused with a court of law.

"That isn't an answer to my question. The belief that these purchases were straw purchases was based in part...according to Deguerin...on the ethnicity of the buyer. That's prejudice."

Ethnicity, in part, is something the ATF requires FFL holders in border states operating close to the border, to look at. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Its not my decision or Deguerins, its the ATFs.

"You assume that because the buyers "looked mexican."

No, I assume that because I generally trust FFL holders that have the ATF crawling up their ass at regular intervals, to do as the ATF asks of them.

"Let's limit the number of guns that can be purchased at any one time so that it becomes more difficult to make straw purchases."

Now THATS a pantload.


You want to interfere with whats legitimate, to get at what isn't - on top of simply wanting to interfere with whats legitimate because you don't like it.

To limit legitimate sales because criminals take advantage of them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.

Society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.


Poutrage indeed lol. We are winning. You and your gun control lobby are losing. I have no reason to pout. You on the other hand...

[HankyDubs]

18. if the suspicion

is based on ethnicity, that's racial prejudice. I don't know this gun dealer...but his assumptions about these customers are based on prejudice.

This isn't the world I wanted, it's the world you wanted. You can't refuse to make the sale based solely on the color of the buyer, you can't refuse to sell 10 ar-15's to the brown dude and then turn around and sell the same 10 ar-15's to the white dude. This is America, Jack.

"Ethnicity, in part, is something the ATF requires FFL holders in border states operating close to the border, to look at."

I poked around a bit, and didn't find any evidence that the ATF is requiring FFL holders to profile their customers and deny sales based on ethnicity. Be genuinely interested in whether this is actually true, and whether you can show me any evidence of that. All I found was that they are requiring notification for sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles. If the ATF is requiring profiling, that seems like a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment, which is why I'm sceptical of this claim. It would also be pretty dumb, since white boys can smuggle guns just as well as mexicans can.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41206.pdf

"You want to interfere with whats legitimate, to get at what isn't - on top of simply wanting to interfere with whats legitimate because you don't like it."

I don't see that limiting the number of weapons that a person can purchase in a certain time frame is unduly burdensome, compared to what could be gained from such a practice. Didn't you say you wanted to stop straw purchases to drug gangs...or are you just interested in denying sales based on ethnicity?

"We are winning. You and your gun control lobby are losing."

We are losing. You and I. The gun lobby is winning. Don't confuse yourself with firearms manufacturers. Your interests are not the same as theirs.

[beevul]

22. Jesus, you can not be this thick.

"if the suspicion is based on ethnicity, that's racial prejudice"

If its ENTIRELY baed on ethnicity, yes.

I suggest you talk to an FFL holder near the border, and ask them what criteria the ATF asks them to use, and if you still have these objections, you take them up with the ATF.

"This isn't the world I wanted, it's the world you wanted. You can't refuse to make the sale based solely on the color of the buyer, you can't refuse to sell 10 ar-15's to the brown dude and then turn around and sell the same 10 ar-15's to the white dude. This is America, Jack."

I never said anyone could or should refuse a sale based souly on ethnicity. Kindly take your words out of my mouth, Jack. Ignorance and arrogance wrapped up neatly in a single package. How efficient of you.

Unless you can make the case, that the gun dealer in question WAS refusing to make a sale SOLELY based on ethnicity - then you really have no point that applies to this discussion. Of course, you'll have to find that in some other article, since this one does not say anything of the sort, OR (and more likely) you'll have to make it up.

"I poked around a bit, and didn't find any evidence that the ATF is requiring FFL holders to profile their customers and deny sales based on ethnicity. Be genuinely interested in whether this is actually true, and whether you can show me any evidence of that. All I found was that they are requiring notification for sales of multiple semiautomatic rifles. If the ATF is requiring profiling, that seems like a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment, which is why I'm sceptical of this claim. It would also be pretty dumb, since white boys can smuggle guns just as well as mexicans can."


This is why I said to ask a gun dealer on the border. I lived on the border for a number of years, in addition to having a good friend whos spouse is former ATF. I know both from discussing with the proprietor of a gun shop near the border numerous times, and from talking to that spouse, what the ATF asks FFL holders that operate on the borders to look for, where straw purchasers are concerned. Beyond that, you, sir, should be the last person to EVER ask for evidence of anything, since you happen to be the last one to ever cite any. You cite things, but evidence is the point the things you cite is farthest from. I'm beginning to think you either don't or can't read. And that applies equally as much to the things you post as it does to the posts of others.

"I don't see that limiting the number of weapons that a person can purchase in a certain time frame is unduly burdensome, compared to what could be gained from such a practice. Didn't you say you wanted to stop straw purchases to drug gangs...or are you just interested in denying sales based on ethnicity?"

Of course you don't. I suspect you never met a gun regulation other than CCW you didn't like. I'm for leaving it up to those abiding by the law to decide whats burdensome, rather than someone who is against the lawful exercise of a right.

Beyond that, yes, yes I'd like to see straw purchases end. No, I won't support further limitations on the law abiding to accomplish it.

My interest is not in denying firearm sales based on ethnicity. I have never said, implied, or eluded to otherwise. My interest is in whether ATF is allowing sales they would otherwise deny, to inflate numbers to advance an agenda. You yourself admitted that if the allowed sales end up in the hands of south of the border gangs, and end up traced, they'll be counted as "american guns fueling mexican drug wars". Do the math sparky. Its simple addition, and there are people you can ask here and elsewhere if you have trouble.


"We are losing. You and I. The gun lobby is winning. Don't confuse yourself with firearms manufacturers. Your interests are not the same as theirs."

Ahh forced teaming. I love it. Not. I'll decide what my own interests are, thanks. I can't help but notice you seem to like presuming to tell others what their interests and needs are. How profoundly arrogant, unoriginal, and unsurprising.

Firearm manufacturers are not some monolithic entity, and I'm not losing anything. I see the gun rights agenda gaining steam. I see your agenda hanging on by the thinnest of threads. My interest in that regard, is to see things continue along those lines, until the gun culture becomes so large and powerful that people like you have no hope of ever doing anything about it.

And it is well on its way. Enjoy.

I know I am.

[HankyDubs]

29. I'm svelte, thanks

"I never said anyone could or should refuse a sale based souly on ethnicity. Kindly take your words out of my mouth, Jack."

You'll notice I didn't actually put those words in your mouth. That was an argument I made in support of the 14th amendment. If the purchaser isn't suspicious because he's white, but is suspicious because he's brown...then yes...that refused sale is based solely on ethnicity. To quote the dealer: "a young Hispanic male paying in cash." Presumably he does not think that young caucasians paying in cash are "suspicious," otherwise he wouldn't have specified "Hispanics." I'd have to ask him about that to be absolutely sure.

"Beyond that, you, sir, should be the last person to EVER ask for evidence of anything"

You sure used a lot of words here, when you could have just said..."take my word for it." I think its reasonable to ask you for evidence of your claim that the ATF has policies that place them directly in violation of the 14th amendment...that's a VERY serious charge in my opinion. I would have been REALLY interested if this was going on. If it is, then it is clearly a violation of these people's constitutional rights. I've researched this quite a bit now, still finding no such policy. And no, not really going to take the word of your buddies in the gun industry.

"Beyond that, yes, yes I'd like to see straw purchases end. No, I won't support further limitations on the law abiding to accomplish it."

You'd like to see them end, but it seems to me that you're just against doing anything to end them. If you have some ideas beyond racial profiling, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing them. Some of the complaints that gun activists have are obviously quite stupid, but not all of them. I'm not a gun expert (thank christ for that one lol) but the imput of gun experts who truly are interested in solving ANY of these problems would be really helpful.

"I can't help but notice you seem to like presuming to tell others what their interests and needs are."

Wait, I thought you said you were against smuggling guns to drug gangs? Was I putting words in your mouth there?

[beevul]

38. I don't doubt thats true in one aspect or another.

"You'll notice I didn't actually put those words in your mouth. That was an argument I made in support of the 14th amendment. If the purchaser isn't suspicious because he's white, but is suspicious because he's brown...then yes...that refused sale is based solely on ethnicity. To quote the dealer: "a young Hispanic male paying in cash." Presumably he does not think that young caucasians paying in cash are "suspicious," otherwise he wouldn't have specified "Hispanics." I'd have to ask him about that to be absolutely sure."

Yep. You'd have to ask him about it to be sure. Along the lines of what I suggested.

"You sure used a lot of words here, when you could have just said..."take my word for it." I think its reasonable to ask you for evidence of your claim that the ATF has policies that place them directly in violation of the 14th amendment...that's a VERY serious charge in my opinion. I would have been REALLY interested if this was going on. If it is, then it is clearly a violation of these people's constitutional rights. I've researched this quite a bit now, still finding no such policy. And no, not really going to take the word of your buddies in the gun industry."

When the word "reasonable" as you use it, starts to have some semblance of consistency in meaning, and you apply it to yourself as equally as you seem so intent on applying it to others, I might actually start to take you seriously.


"You'd like to see them end, but it seems to me that you're just against doing anything to end them. If you have some ideas beyond racial profiling, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing them."

Again, with the implication that I'm for racial profiling. Are you capable of making a single post without ascribing/implying to others a position they do not hold, words they have not said, or beliefs they have not demonstrated? If so, a demonstration would be great. Use language honestly. I know; it seems to be an almost impossible undertaking, but it can be done.

I'm against doing anything to stop straw purchasers which interferes with the law abiding. If you have any ideas which do not interfere with the law abiding, I would be interested in hearing them. I very much doubt you'll demonstrate any interest in that however. It doesn't fit with your schtick.

"I'm not a gun expert (thank christ for that one lol) but the imput of gun experts who truly are interested in solving ANY of these problems would be really helpful."

This is not the first time I've seen someone hereabouts revel in their own ignorance. I'll defer to the immortal words of a MIA poster here:

"It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value."

Where legislation is concerned on the other hand, frankly I'm glad of it. It makes it a near certainty, that even if your lobby DOES manage to pass some legislation, its likely to be full of holes because of the proud ignorance on the part of those involved.


And, I doubt you'll be getting any "imput" from any gun experts on solving any problems.

Gun experts generally wont want to work with a gun control extremist that presumes to decide what the needs and interests of others are, particularly one that deliberately mis-characterizes the words and positions of others, and can neither accurately comprehend the written word, nor spell it.

Of course, I still think you're a pro-gunner trying to make the antis look bad.

Either way, carry on. You're doing a fine job. :hi:

[Katya Mullethov]

47. There's the endoscope photographs of Paul Copeland's large colon

Just doing what ATF tells us to do is not enough to keep them from arresting us .
And so , you got what we have here today . And you already know what that is .

[PavePusher]

43. So let me guess...

The guns going to Mexico are bought primarly by Minnisotans of Nordic extraction who then take them over the border, right? No need to look at people who might appear to be Mexican nationals, or those with close ties to them (American relatives of Mxican citizens, say?)?

Seriously, what ethnic population do you think may take the most guns to Mexico? Inquireing minds, and possibly LEO's, want to know.

[one-eyed fat man]

48. Who belongs to Mexican drug gangs?

Lithuanians?

[cleanhippie]

16. Making things up is all there is!

Nothing else is working for him, I guess its a new tactic.

[X_Digger]

14. Ooh, damned if you do, damned if you don't..

In one thread, wal-mart is blamed for selling ammo to Loughner, and in another, suspicious sales shouldn't be stopped.

Which is it? Should dealers not sell to someone they 'have reason to believe' shouldn't be allowed to make a purchase? ie, someone on a cell phone or accompanied by another person listening to someone else tell them what to buy (straw purchase); someone furtive, nervous, sweating; someone asking questions about what exactly disqualifies one from making a sale; someone with out of state (or country) plates, but an in-state driver's license; someone making multiple purchases, in cash; someone purchasing the same weapon over and over..? (Yes, these are all things that the BATFE explicitly asks dealers to be on the lookout for.)

They just can't win for trying, eh?

[HankyDubs]

19. dumbed if you do, dumbed if you don't

"In one thread, wal-mart is blamed for selling ammo to Loughner, and in another, suspicious sales shouldn't be stopped."

I didn't make the first argument. Is there any reason to believe that wal-mart employees thought that Loughner was a suspicious customer? I blame wal-mart for selling guns and ammunition, period. I'm not really a big fan of gun dealers, but I'll support the mom and pop gun dealer over the megamart gun dealer. I blame the current system for not prohibiting the sale of outsized magazines.

If the suspicion is based on ethnicity, it seems to me that not only shouldn't they be stopped...it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

"Yes, these are all things that the BATFE explicitly asks dealers to be on the lookout for"

I didn't see the ethnicity of the buyer mentioned there.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. I note you apply a different metric here than you did with the "man with gun at mall" case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x365573#365678

There, it was acceptable for police to arrest him because -even though he had done nothing illegal- they felt he

was "suspicious". (You might want to look up the term "deprivation of rights under color of law")



Here, it was unacceptable for the seller to attempt to deny the sale of guns because the seller felt the
buyer(s) were "suspicious".


How many different ways do you want to have it?

[beevul]

23. Come now...you know the answer to that, F_I.

"How many different ways do you want to have it?"

Come now...you know the answer to that, F_I.

He only wants to have it one way. His way.

[HankyDubs]

24. not really

"There, it was acceptable for police to arrest him because -even though he had done nothing illegal- they felt he was "suspicious".

If it was illegal to arrest him, then that's the way it is. I can't change bad laws just because I want to. Bad laws sometimes lead to this sort of thing.

But it was acceptable (to me) for the mallcop to demand that he lay the weapon down, in my view he was serving and protecting his community by disarming the dumbass who thought it would be a cool stunt to bring his rifle to the mall.

A person buying guns in a gun store isn't actually suspicious...presumably thats what people do in gun stores. People carrying assault weapons openly into a mall are suspicious...the suspicious behavior being that he might be on his way to rob a store or start blowing shoppers away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. "People carrying assault weapons openly into a mall"

I do like how you don't let the minutiae of factual accuracy slow you down:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51091487-76/taylor-guns-martinez-police.html.csp

First published Jan 20 2011 07:35PM
Updated Jan 20, 2011 11:35PM
Orem prosecutors have charged a 51-year-old man with disorderly conduct for walking outside University Mall while carrying an unloaded rifle over his shoulder and a handgun on his waistband.

The defendant maintains he was within his rights.

"Despite what the County Prosecutor has filed, I broke no law," Philip W. Taylor said in an e-mail to The Tribune on Thursday. "The police allowed me to walk home.

"If I had broken the law I would have been arrested on site."

The charge is an infraction. It is punishable by up to $750 in fines and does not carry the possibility of jail or prison.

Police responded about 9:40 a.m. on Jan. 15 to the south side of the mall, near Nordstrom, after several people reported a man carrying guns at 1600 South and 800 East.

An officer found Taylor, 51, with a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, ....

I see no mention of any "assault weapon". Perhaps his rifle had a shoulder thing that goes up?

[beevul]

27. I've come to a conclusion...

I've come to a conclusion about our new friend.

Hes a pro-gun person doing everything he can to make anti-gunners look bad.


I've seen this before.

It was fun, while the ruse lasted, I'm sure.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Possible, but some of the entirely sincere ones do a fine job on their own.

We'll see...

[HankyDubs]

34. this seems to be a common tactic here

having failed to present compelling arguments, the gungeon crowd resorts to deriding their opponents and abandons any pretense at a spirited discussion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. It's certain that verifiable facts have little impact on some, so why not a little levity?

Then again, some don't care to eat the dishes they readily serve up for others...

[beevul]

37. One can not have a spirited discussion...

One can not have a spirited discussion, nor any discussion at all, with an interlocutor who can not or will not differentiate between INSIDE a mall, and OUTSIDE a mall. And thats just one example.


Complaints that others abandon any pretense at a spirited discussion, in the face of that, ring hollow.

[PavePusher]

44. Correct.

You have failed to provide facts, and we do deride you for it.

Easy to fix, of course. Just present the facts. Simple, no?

[HankyDubs]

30. this is hair splitting

and doesn't adress the point I made. I didn't realize at first that he was outside the mall, but unless he was just parading around like a gaddamned imbecile, it seems pretty reasonable to assume he planned to enter the mall. It seems reasonable to me for the mallcop to demand he lay his weapon down for the reasons already mentioned.

Semi-automatic rifles and assault weapons...more hair-splitting here. No reason to have a semi-automatic rifle slung over your shoulder either...unless the idea is to rob a store and/or murder some customers. Now we know he was just a jackass seeing how far he could push it, but the mallcop can't really assume that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. "Mallcop"? It was a for-real officer, not a mall ninja, that confronted the guy

And that's according to both sources in that thread.

Might I advise against Library Science as a major?

[PavePusher]

45. I suggest Remedial Reading Comprehension...

in summer school.

[Katya Mullethov]

49. Oh Hell

Can you guess my weight too ?

[beevul]

26. For the Nth time...

"carrying assault weapons openly into a mall"

Nowhere in the incident you refer to, did anyone cary an "assault weapon" (whatever that means) INTO a mall.

I suggest a book about dick and jane, to help you with this reading comprension problem you seen to be having.

Have an adult read it to you until you can do ok on your own.

[HankyDubs]

32. wait now

are you saying you think he SHOULDN'T be allowed to carry the weapon into the mall?

Because it would be great to see that you're a reasonable person.

[beevul]

39. Ok, read this REALLY slow.

Do it twice if you have to.

I'm saying he DIDNT CARRY A GUN INTO THE MALL.

He was OUTSIDE the mall.

Get it?

[X_Digger]

40. Go talk to an FFL in a border state. Go talk to a BATFE agent in a border state..

The BATFE loves to push the 'know or have reason to believe' angle. Google 'Paul Copeland'.

He was convicted of selling a firearm to an illegal alien (who presented a valid TX driver's license) because ATF agents said he 'should have reason to believe' the man was illegal based on 1) being Hispanic, 2) speaking Spanish, and 3) wearing cowboy clothing.

If you have a problem with profiling (as I do) then take it up with the BATFE, not the dealers who are doing their damnedest to comply with the BATFE.

[one-eyed fat man]

50. Who'da thunk it?

"He was convicted of selling a firearm to an illegal alien (who presented a valid TX driver's license) because ATF agents said he 'should have reason to believe' the man was illegal based on 1) being Hispanic, 2) speaking Spanish, and 3) wearing cowboy clothing."

A caballero in Texas? Who's gonna believe such a thing, Mexican cowboys? in Texas? who speak Spanish? and dress like a cowboy? in Texas?

An illegal alien shouldn't have a valid driver's license, but the FFL goes to jail for relying on the document the ATF requires for identification because someone at the DMV screwed up.

How does it happen? Easy, the ATF's lawyer is on salary, he gets paid win, lose, or draw. The ATF can afford to prosecute persecute until you just run out of money. Bankrupt you in legal fees and jail you anyway.

[Katya Mullethov]

51. It happens

Because few care . Look up through the thread ,
his colonoscopy is none too interesting a topic .

[X_Digger]

52. This guy wasn't even an FFL.. he was a private seller with no access to NICS. n/t

[krispos42]

31. Nice strawman argument there.

Somebody should post in the Wikipedia definition.

[HankyDubs]

33. a rhetorical question

isn't the same thing as a strawman.

[Euromutt]

41. The issue isn't what "the Gungeon" supposedly wants, it's what the ATF supposedly wants

I mean, we've got a variety of possible scenarios here: a person buying three or more "assault weapon"-type rifles at once (regardless of that person's ethnicity), or buying five or more 9mm handguns at once (regardless of that person's ethnicity), or a young Hispanic male paying in cash.

Assuming that the ATF's claims about the "Iron River" of firearms to Mexico is true, these are incidents that should bear investigating. It's not that Hispanics are ipso facto suspect, but it's certainly less likely that a non-Hispanic individual (be he black, white, Asian, Arabic, Indian subcontinent, anything but Mexican) would be a DTO straw purchaser.

Let's get this clear: I think that people who whinge that the TSA should be focusing on Arabic-looking young men at the security checkpoints lack imagination, in that a terrorist outfit might readily force a granny to carry weapons and/or explosives through a checkpoint by holding her grandchildren hostage, which is why racial profiling is a bad idea in aviation security (or rather "aviation security theater").

But if the claims about Mexican DTOs acquiring their firearms from American gun shops is correct (and I'm not accepting that it is, but let's assume this for the sake of the argument), then it does follow that young Hispanic males paying in cash should be scrutinized a little more closely.

In other words, if there's any supposed "racial fear" at work here, it emanates from the ATF. It's not a reflection on our attitudes regarding ethnicity that we question why the ATF doesn't seem to want to follow up on a particular individual who matches a profile of a potential DTO straw purchaser.

[Katya Mullethov]

42. what do you know about selling guns to illegal aliens

Who just happen to have a valid texas drivers liscence ?

After witnessing the very public Dirty Sanchez pulled on a lucky bastard by the name of Copeland , a good many have taken to refusing sales and had to start profiling , since what "they" are required to ask for is demonstrably no longer enough . Profiling is a precedent set in motion by hamfisted enforcement actions . They really do think it's what we're here for .

[DissedByBush]

46. I wouldn't be surprised if ATF did this to nail the gun shop

The ATF is well-known for being completely arbitrary, capricious and vindictive.

Public safety is WAY down on the list of their priorities.

For the deficit they're looking at whacking a bunch of helpful things. Why not the ATF?

They could at least use a massive trimming down.