Police: Calif. men sold guns from hot dog stand

[Iktomiwicasa]

Authorities say a Northern California hot dog vendor offered undercover officers more than just mustard, ketchup and relish on the side
Fifty-eight-year-old Jose Gilberto Ortiz was arraigned in U.S. District Court in San Jose on Thursday on charges of selling firearms to the officers from his hot dog stand.
His partner, 23-year-old Guillermo Gonzalez Castillo, was also arraigned on weapons charges. Castillo is additionally accused of selling the San Jose police officers methamphetamine.
Authorities say the officers purchased a sawed off shotgun, a machine gun and other firearms from the pair. They were arrested at the hot dog stand on Sept. 2.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-calif-men-sold-guns-hot-dog-stand-194809043.html

A question for our GC advocates. How would restricting lawful purchasers of firearms prevent this sort of thing from happening? Sawed off shotgun? Already illegal. Machine gun. Already illegal (without the proper licensing).

[aquart]

1. Hot dogs. Guns. I see the connection. You?

[Iktomiwicasa]

2. Penis envy. Of course....

Why didn't I make the connection?

[gravity556]

4. Seen elsewhere...

"Of course I'm compensating! If I could kill things 300 yards away with my dick, I wouldn't need a damn gun!"

[Kennah]

6. So now hot dog eaters have penis envy?

[Riftaxe]

9. What does that make kielbasa

eaters have?

[Kennah]

13. Fellatio fixation?

[aquart]

26. Envy? I simply noticed a similarity of shape.

I don't envy hot dogs. I eat them.

[slackmaster]

32. I definitely see one between hot dogs and your brain

Both are made out of meat.

[gravity556]

3. A law, stopping a criminal from performing a criminal act? How novel!

Why, we could solve all of our problems by just making it illegal to kill people. Then everything would be puppy dogs shitting rainbows of pure love and free red bull!

Oh, it's already illegal to kill people? Huh.. What if we made it so that it was illegal for people who have had felony convictions for violence to have guns? That's illegal too? Well, don't tell me someone already made it illegal to sell illegal guns from a hot dog stand on the street...all of those things are already illegal? We obviously need another law!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Obviously...

...some things need to be double secret illegal. ;)

[Kennah]

5. I'm always curious do female gun owners have penis envy?

[ileus]

7. a real full auto?

[TheMadMonk]

8. Not prevention. Limitation. And the places in the world where...

...gun control is strong do demonstrate that this works.

No, it does not get or keep every single illegal firearm off the streets, but it does limit their availability to a sufficient degree that they are not found in the hands of every second (hyperbole) kid wearing a hoodie.

And in a culture where guns are not ubiquitous, the very concept of selling guns like fast food from a vendor's cart simply wouldn't occur to most people in the first place. So in that context more stringent laws WOULD prevent/limit this sort of thing happening.

Next strawman please.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Ah, but gun control without crime control is worse than useless. Look at Mexico

Places like Chicago, Washington DC, Jamaica, and Russia have gun control laws that are strongly written but poorly enforced.

[TheMadMonk]

20. And their proper enforcement of course.

Particularly the proper metaphorical application of toe to gonads when attempts are made to use guns as a proxy for testosterone and clanking steely balls. "You will do as I say." is a long way from "Listen to the manly carillion in my saggy baggys." but you wouldn't know it from the idiot box today.

[Kennah]

25. Like in Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., or China

[Euromutt]

30. Bit of a tautology, wouldn't you say?

Yes, gun control works where it can be made to work. It's actually getting it to work that's the tricky part; even the Chinese can't quite manage it.

[gejohnston]

18. what straw man?

Let's just list the current federal gun control laws these guys violated.
Felon in possession-Federal Firearms Act of 1938/Gun Control Act 1968
Undocumented person in possession-Gun Control Act 1968
Selling for profit without FFL-Gun Control Act 1968
the unregistered sawed off shotgun and unregistered sub-machine gun-National Firearms Act 1934,
Oh wait, they can't be charged for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
The only federal gun control law they did not violate was was the Revolver Act of 1927

That is before we move on to the California state laws.

In UK cities, you can pick up a pistol or SMG for as low as £200. Some of them might be at such stands. Sorry, if it did not happen there, Canada, Jamaica, it won't happen here.

[TheMadMonk]

22. The strawman which claims that since you can't stop this, the rest...

...of the population needs be able to arm itself in defence against all possible comers.

For most parts of the "civilised world" only two types of criminal carry guns, those who know EXACTLY what they are doing and scrupulously leave uninvolved parties alone, and complete dickheads who wave thier "pistolas" in any and every direction. BTW odds are, those 200 quid pistols are passed from the former to the latter with the intent of muddying the waters on prior instances in which that weapon was discharged. Cleanskins RENT for that, if returned unfired.

I have no problem with ordinary people possessing firearms. I just don't think it be particularly unreasonable that I (in the form of my proxy the government) know what firearms you (my neigbour) possess in the event you offer violence or threaten to.

I do think a desire for unrestricted access to certain classes of firearm may bespeak unresolved inadequacy issues, whilst still acknowledging that it would be hellafun to make a bowling ball cannon out of an acetelene cylinder.


My brother said it best of Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people and wounded ninteen others, in the Port Arthur Masacre. "He reloaded THREE times."

The "rabbit caught in the headlights" almost invariably freezes. Too many gun advocates are all too ready to dismiss the difference between reaction and acting in response, the difference between "practiced" and "prepared". Ultimately the difference between being quick enough to successfully respond to an imminent threat and being too slow (phyiscally and mentally) to keep from shooting a departing thief in the back.

How many guns kept ready against a home invasion end up stolen and used in a subsequent crime instead? How many times must we argue whether a DEPARTING intruder is or isn't an iminent threat? If you're compliant with proper firearm storage requirements, it would be one hell of a stretch for it not to be a race to actually shoot said X-Box liberating tea leaf in the back, let alone get the drop on him with his fingers still tangled in the AV leads. You're ready to "put the boots into" gun owners who leave their weapons in reach of children who subsequently accidentally kill other children, but risking exactly that scenario is the only realistic way of having a firearm ready to hand for defence at all times.

Knives and even moreso clubbing instruments must be wielded with serious intent to pose a major threat, guns merely need be wielded.

[gejohnston]

23. don't think so

.of the population needs be able to arm itself in defence against all possible comers.

Who said that? We are saying the population has a right to, which is quite different than they must.

For most parts of the "civilised world" only two types of criminal carry guns, those who know EXACTLY what they are doing and scrupulously leave uninvolved parties alone, and complete dickheads who wave thier "pistolas" in any and every direction. BTW odds are, those 200 quid pistols are passed from the former to the latter with the intent of muddying the waters on prior instances in which that weapon was discharged. Cleanskins RENT for that, if returned unfired.

Thanks for the UK criminology lesson. They tend to use machine guns more there than here.

I have no problem with ordinary people possessing firearms. I just don't think it be particularly unreasonable that I (in the form of my proxy the government) know what firearms you (my neigbour) possess in the event you offer violence or threaten to.

It is extremely rare, most of our problem are gangster v gangster. Both murderer and victim often have criminal records. No, it is none of your business as long as I do nothing wrong with them.

I do think a desire for unrestricted access to certain classes of firearm may bespeak unresolved inadequacy issues, whilst still acknowledging that it would be hellafun to make a bowling ball cannon out of an acetelene cylinder.

Absurd rants from amateur shrinks are not legitimate arguments.

My brother said it best of Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people and wounded ninteen others, in the Port Arthur Masacre. "He reloaded THREE times."

And? The police did not do a very good job did they? IIRC, he started in a place called Seascape in the morning and landed up in Port Arthur in the afternoon.

The "rabbit caught in the headlights" almost invariably freezes. Too many gun advocates are all too ready to dismiss the difference between reaction and acting in response, the difference between "practiced" and "prepared". Ultimately the difference between being quick enough to successfully respond to an imminent threat and being too slow (phyiscally and mentally) to keep from shooting a departing thief in the back.

Mostly because amateur sociologists are just that. Departing thieves do not get shot in the back. One thing you don't know about the US, thieves case the house and wait for no one to be home. If they do break in an occupied home, they are either stupid or it is not about stuff. It becomes home invasion, and it is about rape, murder for no reason, and maybe theft as an after thought. I realize that is not true in other countries. That is how it is here.

How many guns kept ready against a home invasion end up stolen and used in a subsequent crime instead? How many times must we argue whether a DEPARTING intruder is or isn't an iminent threat?

See above. Most are in a safe. Departing intruders tend not to get shot, so what is your point?

If you're compliant with proper firearm storage requirements, it would be one hell of a stretch for it not to be a race to actually shoot said X-Box liberating tea leaf in the back, let alone get the drop on him with his fingers still tangled in the AV leads. You're ready to "put the boots into" gun owners who leave their weapons in reach of children who subsequently accidentally kill other children, but risking exactly that scenario is the only realistic way of having a firearm ready to hand for defence at all times.

See above. I do know of a family that were murdered by a drug addict with a pitchfork, which would not have happened if the parents were not complying with California's safe storage law. It works both ways. Like I said, if he breaks in when you are home, he is either too dumb to know what the AV leads are, or you are already dead or bound. There are biometric pistol safes that can be quickly be opened when needed by only the people programmed in it.

[SteveM]

29. I'm so glad you volunteer for this duty.nt

[pneutin]

27. California already has the most stringent laws in the nation. n/t

[SteveM]

28. So, what are your "more stringent" laws? In that context?

[Remmah2]

10. The rest of the story

Interesting that many of the media outlets filtered the article, the rest of the story.



http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_19108321

"The pair is in even more hot water because Ortiz is a felon while Castillo is in the United States illegally, making it illegal for either one to possess firearms, the indictment says.
The Foss Avenue stand -- far away from Coney Island's Nathan's Famous where Chestnut, the champion San Jose hot dog eater made his name -- came under suspicion in April for something more disturbing than its relish.
It was then, authorities say, that a San Jose Police officer went undercover and began purchasing guns from Ortiz, the proprietor. Their first sale: two Smith & Wesson .357 revolvers for $700.
But that was only the appetizer.
Ortiz, who has previous weapon and drug convictions, later sold the undercover agent a shotgun, a rifle and four pistols and another Smith & Wesson, court documents said. And, the documents allege, he
told the officer that he had access to even more weapons."


What do you think?

[spin]

12. I think the management of the ATF should focus more on enforcing existing laws ...

and less on providing firearms to smugglers to deliver to drug cartels in Mexico.

The ATF agents on the street appear to be good guys who just want to do their job. The undercover San Jose Police officer also deserves a lot of credit for being on the ball and catching this smuggler.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Absolutely!

As they say about what rolls downhill, the bad ideas and decisions start at (or near) the top as well. Those on the street get killed and/or blamed. The boss gets promoted and takes early retirement.

[ileus]

31. No...they need to be the lobbying branch of BradyCo.

[gravity556]

16. Fantastic!

Neither one a legal gun owner-one felon, one illegal alien. It's already illegal for either of them to have a firearm, and one of them is also breaking federal immigration laws. I can't believe that criminals break laws and commit crimes. Don't they know it's illegal?!

[oneshooter]

17. Guillermo Gonzalez Castillo, was only here to do work that Americans won't do. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. "...was only here to do work that Americans won't do."

But...



...now that we have American government employees who run guns to Mexico, Guillermo can go home. ;)

[slackmaster]

33. Mr. Castillo qualifies for a state-sponsored scholarship and in-state tuition to a California...

...public university.

[struggle4progress]

19. You know the saying: "Guns don't kill people! Hot dogs kill people!"

[Kennah]

24. Have you seen the list of ingredients?