Man sent to prison for illegal gun sales (at gun shows)

[jpak]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/10/man-sent-to-prison-for-illegal-gun-sales.html?sid=101

A Far East Side man has been sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for illegally dealing in firearms, including some that later turned up in crimes in Columbus, Chicago and beyond.

<snip>

According to court documents, Paramore bought guns from licensed dealers and sold them at gun shows.

Fred Alverson, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Columbus, said Paramore was allowed to buy firearms and to sell them as a private owner. But Paramore went further than federal law allowed, Alverson said.

<snip>

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that Paramore had bought and sold 210 firearms since 1995. Several of those turned up as crime guns in Columbus, Chicago, Indianapolis and Washington, D.C. One was purchased by an undercover ATF agent in New York City.

<more>

so-called law abiders are the ultimate source of guns used by criminals

yup

[Vincardog]

1. "He engaged in buying them explicitly for the purpose of reselling them," he said.

"He was making a business out of it. That was the dividing line here."
Where exactly is the crime here? If it is a crime to sell a gun that is used later in a crime,
isn't every one who ever sold that gun equally guilty?

[X_Digger]

2. The crime is 'engaging in the business of..' without a license.

The charge wasn't about selling to criminals, you'll notice.

We wouldn't hold car dealers responsible for DUI, why should anyone else expect that result from a gun dealer?

It's a crime to sell to someone ineligible to possess guns, if you 'know or have reason to believe' that the person is ineligible. Whole other kettle of fish than this story.

[Euromutt]

25. In this instance, there appear to have been additional intermediaries

One was purchased by an undercover ATF agent in New York City.

Since presumably, Mr. Paramore was not the person who sold the gun to the ATF agent, there were one or more links in the supply chain. Given what we know about guns being "diverted" from gun shows, it's highly likely that Mr. Paramore sold the gun to a straw purchaser, who in turn was acting for a trafficker, who brought the gun to NYC and sold it there, probably to some local gang, one of whose members then peddled the firearm to the ATF agent.

So the analogy is not so much holding a car dealer responsible for his customer's subsequent DUIs, but holding the original purchaser of the vehicle responsible for the actions of a guy who bought the car off another guy who bought the car off a third guy who purchased it from the original purchaser. Insert additional intervening owners as necessary.

[sharesunited]

5. The answer to that is a resounding YES. And don't forget manufacturers.

But let's go light on the incarceration. It's enough to seize and destroy your inventory and blacklist you from future purchase or possession.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[sharesunited]

9. The permitting process is inside the executive branch.

And I urge them to use it in a manner which produces fewer guns, less ammo, and more restricted access.

Need to slow this madness down and turn it around.

Make 'em scarce.

[Straw Man]

10. Say what?

You want to restrict the manufacture and sale of firearms by executive order? To undermine the foundation of our system of government to suit your own prohibitionist fantasy? Fascism in a nutshell, my friend.

[sharesunited]

12. Do gun and ammo manufacturers require a license or do they not?

Like cab medallions, there do not need to be an unlimited number of such licenses.

Start reducing that number.

[Straw Man]

13. Granted by the ATF, contingent on meeting certain criteria...

...and not subject to arbitrary denial by the executive branch. Sorry.

There is no constitutional right to a taxi medallion. In any event, taxi medallions are not under federal control.

[sharesunited]

15. I don't think any imaginary constitutional right to produce unlimited quantities

of guns and ammo has yet been adjudicated.

I welcome the day when SCOTUS hears such a case, as long as Scalia and Thomas are gone and have been replaced by justices who recognize the danger to society of runaway arms production and distribution.

Same with the imaginary right of commerce in these goods.

Action by the executive branch to clamp down in general is just the kind of precipitating factor to get such cases before the Court.

Savor a single gun for defense of your home. That must be where the line gets drawn for the sake of the country.

[Straw Man]

18. Well, "shall not be infringed" doesn't exactly invite limitation.

I know that you think the entire Second Amendment to be invalid, but yours is a fringe belief.

[sharesunited]

20. How is that any more persuasive than

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

??

I am still seeking answers to the questions which American jurisprudence has left us on the Supreme Court Level.

You clear the deck of some jokers and you might have a whole different scene.

[Straw Man]

23. It's not: it's part and parcel.

Even the dissenters on the SC recognized the individual right. Your view is a fringe one.

[PavePusher]

31. More proof of your Authoritarianism....

"I welcome the day when SCOTUS hears such a case, as long as Scalia and Thomas are gone and have been replaced by justices who recognize the danger to society of runaway arms production and distribution."

Or, in other words, as long as they agree with you and reach a predetermined conclusion. How very democratic and progressive of you.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. There are no limts or quotas on FFLs.

Getting and maintaining one is a real PITA. Then state and locals kick in making it even harder. California makes it silly hard these days.

The Wal-Mart near my place has a good day when I hold classes or a pot luck.. Some students never read the instructions about how much ammo to bring and at lunch a group often makes an ammo run.

[rl6214]

3. "so called law abiders"

Says who, you?

He was engaging in a criminal act, he is not a "so-called law abider" he is a criminal engaging in a criminal act.

Try again.

[sharesunited]

6. It's just another of innumerable examples in which you are law abiding right up until you aren't.

Which is why any such distinction in the case of guns and ammo is utterly futile.

[Straw Man]

8. A textbook example of a meaningless truism.

"People are not lawbreakers until they have broken the law." Your solution? Pre-emptive restriction. It boggles my mind that you consider this to be progressive.

[sharesunited]

11. Is it progressive to sell morphine over the counter?

Or is it more progressive, rather, to keep it behind the glass and require a prescription to obtain it subject to considerable restrictions so that people don't get addicted from its recreational use?

Is it progressive to incarcerate people for years and years for mere possession of child pornography?
Or is it more progressive, rather, to acknowledge the potential harm to society of allowing anyone whomsoever to possess it and forumulate a zero tolerance public policy toward it?

You might be confusing progressive for libertine when it comes to guns and ammo. Bordering on anarchic.

[Straw Man]

14. Would you "make morphine scarce"? What about its legitimate uses?

Firearms are already subject to significant restrictions. That's not enough for you: you want to get rid them altogether. This analogy fails.

As for your child porn analogy, it has been debunked here time and time again. Let's do it once more, shall we?

Firearms have legitimate and socially acceptable uses in certain situations. If they did not, then police and the military would not have them. The same cannot be said of child pornography. Your analogy fails, as it has failed repeatedly on this forum. Yet you persist in trying to use it.

You are confusing progressivism with fascism. It boggles the mind.

[sharesunited]

17. The merits or "legitimacy" of speech is not what extends 1A protection to it.

Indeed, it is often said that offensive speech is in particular need of 1A protection.

And the argument that CP depicts a crime in progress can't be the reason why an absolute prohibition against its possession is public policy. Otherwise, why wouldn't images of any crime in progress be banned?

No, we as a society formulated a 1A exception based on potential harm resulting from the existence of the image. No one needs to ask whether someone possessing the image is responsible for having produced the image or intends any nefarious purpose with regard to its use.

Merely possessing it is enough. They don't even need to have viewed it.

So the debunking you say has been done to the analogy is far from settled. You can say that you approve of guns and disapprove of CP. But that doesn't flow from any logical or consistent approach to disposing of what is a perfectly valid analogy.

My repeated use of the analogy is to highlight the disparate treatment given guns and CP without any sound reason for treating them differently.

[Straw Man]

19. I just gave you a sound reason.

You chose to ignore it. Shall we go again?

If firearms are an unqualified evil, why make an exception for police and the military? No such exception exists for the possession of child porn. There is such a thing as justifiable and socially acceptable use of firearms -- you yourself have admitted that police and the military should be armed. Where we differ is in exactly who should be allowed possession. You think only the authorized agents of the state, and I think all law-abiding citizens. No one believes that any segment of society needs or should be allowed to possess child porn.

Clearly they are different and should be treated differently. Your analogy fails again. Give it up.

[rrneck]

30. Analogy fail.

How often is child porn used for self defense? When or how does It benefit anyone? Never. That's why you use that stupid analogy to ignore all the people who use guns for self defense.

You don't give a shit who has to die for the sake of your opinion.

[rl6214]

33. Your morphine example is a stupid as saying everyone

is law abiding until they become a criminal.

Stupid.

[Straw Man]

4. But... but... what about the "gun show loophole"?

Shouldn't that exempt him from prosecution? Do you mean to say that people who engage in the sale of firearms as a business are required to be federally licensed and will be prosecuted if they are not? That any schmoe can't just show up at a gun show and sell dozens of guns with no background checks and with full impunity? So what was that "gun show loophole" again?

[RSillsbee]

21. I was thinking the same thing

I'm going to book mark this thread and haul it out every time I see those words

[Euromutt]

26. That was my initial reaction as well

But then, our friend jpak isn't known for fully thinking through the implications of the stuff he posts.

[ileus]

22. Why do criminals keep buying firearms?

[mvccd1000]

24. I guess the hysteria over the "gun show loophole" can stop.

Turns out they're not magical places for terrorists to buy anti-tank weapons without the interference of those pesky laws, after all.

Oh, well... next brady pet theory ready for de-bunking?

[Euromutt]

27. The qualifier "ultimate" rather removes whatever thrust your argument had

Because by using the term "ultimate," you implicitly acknowledge that there may be any number of intermediaries between the so-called "so-called law abider" and the criminal end user of the firearm. One of those intermediaries is a trafficker, another is almost certainly a straw purchaser; it is entirely possible for the so-called "so-called law abider" to make the sale in good faith because an active effort has been made to mislead him.

To draw an analogy, is a pharmacist culpable if the prescription painkillers he sells in good faith are actually sold on by the recipient, or if the prescription is forged?

[ileus]

28. But Paramore went further than federal law allowed...so what is allowed???

If you're going to deal in volume they'll eventually catch you....

[DWC]

29. The Law is the Law

This individual has been given Due Process and has been adjudged to have violated the Law. Following the appeals process, if his conviction is not overturned, he will be subjected to the ascribed penalty for that violation.

Sounds like the system is working pretty well to me.

Semper Fi,

[gravity556]

32. Selling for profit without an FFL is illegal.

If I have a gun I no longer shoot and sell it to my friend (knowing that he has a clean record), that's a simple FTF private sale. If I buy my friend's guns FTF because his house burned down and his cat got flaming leprosy and he needed money for an asbestos cat carrier, and buy them for pennies on the dollar, that is also legal. Dick move, but legal. Now if I take those guns and sell them at a profit, Ta-Da! I am now an unlawful firearms dealer. If I make a business out of it (difficult, considering the worldwide dearth in self immolating kitty cats) by buying guns and then selling them for a profit, the fun police (ATF) are going to kick my ass for doing so.

As for private sales, I know it isn't polite, progressive or politically correct and sensitive, but I profile like a motherfucker. No ID? No sale. Won't sign a receipt? No sale. Set off my "this dude is hinky" alarm, no sale. Speak no English, have a matricula consular card and look like extras from Colors? Goodbye, sorry, nothing personal, but no sale.

[oneshooter]

34. However if I buy a Trapdoor Cadet rifle

at a good price ($150), clean it up( disassemble, clean/oil barrel and action, clean/ linseed oil stock) and then take it to a show. There I find another collector who wants a nice Cadet rifle for his collection, we discuss and agree to trade with him giving me $100 cash and a Enfield Snider Infantry rifle.

Am I now a "dealer" or am I simply adding to my collection? According to the BATFE I am just a collector "adding to, or improving my collection". Both rifles were built in the 1880's and the Enfield is in a caliber no longer readily available.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Waiting for my order of 58cal Enfield brass to get here!

[gravity556]

35. True.

It's a bit different if you're picking up cases of 60 dollar SKSs (remember the good old days?) and selling them at a markup with the intent of profiting from the sale of firearms, you're in the wrong. Even if you did get rid of the blasted cosmoline (or the combloc equivalent)..

[Glassunion]

36. What about all of those Glocks that were just laying around the other day?

We are talking time and materials to collect them, not to mention they all needed to get cleaned up from the grass clippings. I also had to buy a ladder to get one out of a tree and the other off of my roof.

Fair market or just time an materials?

[X_Digger]

37. It's not about making a profit.

You don't have to have a license to make a profit. You can treat your gun collection like a 401k, selling them at a profit as you wish.

It's about the intent- which is why it's harder to prove.

The salient phrase from the law is 'engaging in the business of'.