AG says illegal gun show sales commonplace

[We_Have_A_Problem]

Lax regulations at gun shows allow individuals to avoid background checks when purchasing firearms, according to the results of an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

"This is a serious matter of public safety," Schneiderman said at a press conference last Wednesday surrounded by guns purchased illegally by undercover investigators.

"The worst-kept secret in America is guns are really available to all at gun shows. I frankly was surprised and disappointed at how easy it was, no matter how aggressively our investigators asserted the fact that they did not pass background checks, how easy it was for them to obtain firearms."

Members of the attorney general's investigative team posed as prospective buyers at gun shows in Erie, Genesee, Saratoga, Schoharie, Suffolk and Washington counties. Though the team members explicitly told dealers they would not pass a background check, at times indicating the specific reasons why they wouldn't pass, the salesmen still sold these people firearms, said Schneiderman, who feels his investigators could have purchased "hundreds more."

That's the first few paragraphs. Now, what is very interesting to me, is THIS paragraph:


Describing what he was told, King said that the gun "salesmen" actually didn't have dealer's licenses and went to sell their own guns at gun shows to make some extra money. They were approached by the attorney general's investigators who, posing as prospective buyers, would offer the men "sometimes more money" for the guns than they were actually worth and buy them off of the individuals, as one person selling his firearm to another.

In short, the "investigators" specifically sought out NON-dealers, i.e. private party sellers who are explicitly forbidden from accessing NICS, and then charged them with not accessing NICS.

Seems the "commonplace" claim NY is trying to make really comes down to "as many as we could manufacture charges against"


Link to the original story: http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Top-Stories-c-2011-12-05-81105.113122-AG-says-illegal-gun-show-sales-commonplace.html

[burf]

1. You mean to tell me

ny1.com and democratandchronicle.com (links to preivious posts on subject) didn't supply us with all the facts on the stories? Surprise the hell outta me.

[Hoyt]

2. "Entrapment, Entrapment" -- they made me sell guns to people who said they can't pass BG check.

That folks is the mentality of a typical capitalistic person unloading their guns -- who gives a shit if buyer can't pass background check as long as they have fistful of money.

All the unlicensed sellers had to do was befriend and FFL and offer a small fee to handle the transfer. But, then people who can't pass wouldn't buy.

Good to see Attorneys General doing their jobs.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. You missed the facts again Hoyt...

NICS checks are not required for private sales. In fact, it is ILLEGAL for an individual to access NICS.

Further, an individual selling his private property cannot obtain an FFL. Nope - can't do it. You wont get one. You have to be in the business of selling firearms.

FFL's do not run checks for private sales - that is ALSO illegal.

You're suggesting someone bribe an FFL (an illegal act) to illegally access NICS in order to illegally facilitate a firearms sale, in order to...what exactly? Generate at least 2 more criminals?

Further, if someone knows he cannot legally possess a firearm, it is illegal for him to obtain one. It is NOT illegal for someone to sell him one.

The AG didn't do his job. The investigators violated the law, and you're suggesting that even more laws should have been violated.


Yes - the typical person tries to sell something for as much as possible. Nothing illegal or immoral about that. I fail to see why you would even imply this was a questionable behavior.

[Hoyt]

11. When someone is at a gun show -- IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. There's the loophole you guys deny.

Gun shows attract people trolling for new deadly weapons to add to their caches. To allow folks to sell at gun shows -- by claiming they are not a dealer since it's only part-time (or some other such BS), but who are acting just like a dealer by displaying their deadly weapons for the trolls to drool over -- should be a crime and the promoter should be held accountable as well.

No, I'm not suggesting someone "bribe an FFL." When my dad died and left me a number of nice target weapons, I sold them on a gun auction site. Then, I called up gun shops locally and found one that would charge me $35 to handle the transfer and shipment legally and with a friggin background check.

You are the one misinformed and biased.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. What you believe it should be...

...and what it in actuality IS are two different things.

People selling personal firearms at a gun show are not dealers, no matter what you may want to believe. Someone who sells a gun or two and is not actively involved in the business of firearms sales is not going to get an FFL. Period. You don't like it? Take it up with the BATFE.

Its no different than selling your used car at a car show - doesn't make you a dealer.

What you're discussing is an interstate transfer of firearms through an FFL. A gun show is an INTRAstate private party sale. Two radically different things.

There is no loophole. I am denying nothing. It is you who is woefully misinformed and biased - and nearly every post you make merely confirms that.

[gejohnston]

18. only 35 bucks?

it cost me $45 to receive.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. Then there's the whole thing...

...about the difference between interstate and intrastate private transfers...the former requiring an FFL and the latter legally excluded from the whole FFL process...

[Hoyt]

50. That's one of the things people call a "loophole" . . . . . . because the law needs to be changed.

[Hoyt]

39. So, for less than $100, you are opposed to requiring involvement of FFLs? Besides,

increase the use of these transfers and someone will lower price to gain market share. Might even give post office something new to do.

[PavePusher]

64. Poll tax, much? n/t

[Callisto32]

57. My FFL charges $20 for a transfer.

Guess shit really is cheap around here.

[oneshooter]

60. 15$ here. 10$ if you have a Texas CHL. n/t

[Callisto32]

62. That's pretty awesome.

[PavePusher]

23. It's not a fucking "loophole", it's a specific construction of fucking law.

"You are the one misinformed and biased."

Mirror, mirror, on the wall.....

[Hoyt]

40. Pave, however you want to characterize it -call it Hoyt Crap if you like- No BG sales are wrong.

[PavePusher]

63. Then get the law changed so we are ALLOWED and COMPELLED to do them.

Most here would not object to that.

But for now, you are blaming us for something it is illegal and impossible for us to do.

This does not characterize you as an honest debater.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. You could not have sold them

legally across a state line without an FFL in the receiving state doing the transaction.

There is no Federal requirement that an FFL in your state ship to an FFL in the other state. It maybe easier for you to have your local FFL do the transaction for you, or you might live in a state where you are required by State law to do it, but there is no Federal requirement.

You have been told before, the ATF maintains a website at great expense to the taxpayer so you could look stuff up before committing conspicuous stupidity in a public place.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

{18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30}

The receiving FFL does the NICS check on the buyer, not yours.

"You are the one misinformed and biased."

[Hoyt]

41. One-eye, I chose to do better than the law by having FFL involved on both ends.

If you guys weren't always looking for a way to get right up to the envelope, we wouldn't have the issues we have now.

When I sold the gun, the deal was I'd pay whatever fee applies on my end and he would pay whatever fee applied on his end. Easy transaction.

Step away from targets and look at the trees.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. I- w-i-l-l-- t-y-p-e---s-l-o-w-e-r

Unless you have a state law that makes you use a local FFL to ship to an out of state FFL there is no valid reason or legal requirement to do so.

I will send you back again to the ATF.gov website.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

{18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)}
Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?

A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.

{18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30}

You may directly transfer a firearm to an FFL in another state. When the FFL in that state transfers that firearm to a NON-LICENSEE, he must perform a NICS check. No NICS check is required to transfer the gun to an FFL. So your dealer did no NICS check because he did not have to do one.

Nor could your FFL do a NICS check on the ultimate out of state buyer if he wanted to. The out of state FFL has the buyer fill out the ATF Form 4473 at the point of delivery and calls NICS just as if he sold it out his stock.

Having your FFL handle the shipping for you might have made your life simpler but it did not make the sale extra legal.


Put it another way, just because you stop for green lights too does not make you a safer driver!

[Hoyt]

46. Yes, there is a reason, so I don't have to worry about doing something wrong or it not

being handled properly. But thanks for the long post. I'll stick with my method because I think it is cleaner and less likely for guns to get in the wrong hands. But, you keep pushing things right to the envelope and you'll get to see tougher restrictions in your lifetime.

[one-eyed fat man]

48. You really don't pay attention do you?

I specifically said, "Having your FFL handle the shipping for you might have made your life simpler..."

What you refuse to believe is that"...it did not make the sale extra legal."

As for pushing the envelope, that is a horseshit accusation, and you know it!

Restrictions in my lifetime? Yes, I remember guns in Sears and Western Auto. I bought guns by mail. I would buy ammo and dynamite at the local hardware when I was 12.

Been told countless times how every new restriction was crucial to stop crime. Bastards have been lying to me for 60 years. Calls for ever more onerous restrictions continues unabated.

[Hoyt]

49. No, OShooter, you aren't paying attention.

[russ1943]

25. Huh? re ur FACTS

U posted "FFL's do not run checks for private sales - that is ALSO illegal." If FFL's do not run checks for private sales, then who is running those checks in those states that require NICS background checks on sales of firearms at gunshows?

[Euromutt]

26. It's a different legal construct

In places like California, what notionally happens is that the seller transfers the gun to the FFL, who then transfers the gun to the buyer. As a result, the entire two-stage transaction also gets entered into the FFL's "bound book."

This raises an interesting question, though. Theoretically, an FFL can sell a firearm that is his personal property (as opposed to that of his business) as a private seller (there are in practice stringent restrictions on this to prevent FFLs transferring guns from their business to their person and selling them "off-book"). IANAL, but it strikes me that if an FFL were to do this, he would not be legally able to run a NICS check on the buyer, because he's making the sale in his capacity as a private citizen, not as an FFL. This is not particularly relevant to the discussion, but it does illustrate the relationship between FFLs and NICS.

[russ1943]

36. The point is.

Taking shelter under the term “legal construct” seems evasive to the point. OP states in his # 5;
"FFL's do not run checks for private sales - that is ALSO illegal."
I don’t know if there is any legal transfer of the firearm from seller to FFL & then to buyer. My point was there are certainly FFL's doing a (background) checks for private sales – and it is not illegal but mandatory.

[Euromutt]

51. Yes, that IS the point

If you have the two-stage transfer via an FFL, the buyer, legally speaking, receives the firearm from the FFL, and the FFL has to record the sale in his bound book, at which point it is no longer a "private sale."

Look, don't take my word for it, ask the FBI:

* Authorized use of the NICS is limited to the purpose of obtaining information on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate federal or state law.
* FFLs, their officers, employees, agents, and/or other representatives are permitted to request background checks of the NICS only for the authorized purpose.
* Accessing or using the NICS, or permitting access or use of the NICS by another, for any unauthorized purpose is a violation of federal law, sanctions for which may include criminal prosecution; a civil fine not to exceed $10,000, and/or cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges.

Moreover:

An FFL can initiate a background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act and pursuant to 18, U.S.C., § 922(t)(1).

The upshot of this, insofar as I can make out, is that FFLs can only conduct NICS checks on sales they themselves are making, complete with ATF form 4473.

I don't understand how the New York state system does what it does; perhaps it's set up to legally be state law enforcement requesting the NICS checks, or maybe it's just plain illegal.

[Hoyt]

42. Why don't you talk to your Congressman and get what is broken fixed.

[one-eyed fat man]

6. Pole vaulting over mouse turds.

"Over the course of an 8 month investigation, the AG found 10 sales involving a total of 11 firearms."

The investigators offering more money, in cash, than a gun is worth, could only entrap 10 guys in 8 months?

Figuring a minimum of two gun shows a weekend, we have 64 gun shows, even at only 10,000 attendees apiece that's better than half a million folks. And they only found ten willing to commit a misdemeanor? How much overtime did the AG pay the investigators to cop a couple thousand bucks in fines?

You probably have more criminals in your congregation on a Sunday morning who scored dope the night before, even if YOU are an atheist!

[burf]

10. Its an epidemic I tell ya!

//end of sarcasm//

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. Now you accuse us of illegally transferring firearms?

You also seem to have completely missed the fact that NICS checks are not required for intrastate private party sales.

[russ1943]

30. The article you referenced in your OP says otherwise, in New York.

“As per New York state law, someone who is trying to buy firearms at a gun show must submit to a National Instant Criminal Background check.

"New York leads the nation with a tough law that requires background checks for all sales at gun shows," said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Current law requires that gun show operators post signs giving notice of the background check requirement, as well as having a terminal at the show where checks can be conducted.”

.. http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Top-Stories-c-2011-12-05-81105.113122-AG-says-illegal-gun-show-sales-commonplace.html

[Hoyt]

43. You seem to overlook and totally ignore the simple fact that they SHOULD BE.

Is that clear enough for you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. It is not a fact that it should be

it is merely your opinion. The fact is, it is not. Your desire is for that fact to change.

[PavePusher]

24. But-but-but...

"...Schneiderman, who feels his investigators could have purchased "hundreds more.""

Hundreds, I tells ya, HUNDREDS!!

Trouble in River City!!

[one-eyed fat man]

59. Entrapment defense

In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.

Offering to buy something for more than it is worth might reach that bar.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:

1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

As the charges are misdemeanors, unless the defendants are men of means there won't be much of a trial. You only get a public defender in felony cases. The AG may as well be singing, "I've been working on a railroad....."

[Bum_Whisperer]

3. Is this the same AG that said he knew nothing of Fast and Furious?

[Euromutt]

27. No, this is the State AG of New York (n/t)

[ileus]

4. Isn't the goal to always sell stuff for more than it's worth?

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. ...and to anyone with the $$$ in hand?

You betcha.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Pretty much.

Something wrong with that?

[SteveM]

9. So, when gun shows are regulated out of existence, LEO will swoop down on...

thousands of people, selling guns on the back porch? Selling at a yard sale? Selling out of a car trunk?

In addition to potential issues of "entrapment," seems like they would spread their resources pretty damned thin:

A gun show may have 50 non-FFLs selling some guns. Police can check out potential illegal purchases (mug shots, descriptions, tips from others, obvious straw purchasers) all in one place.

OR

They could go to 50 separate points of transactions; houses, car trunks, back of the bar, etc. How many cops do you think this will take? How much money spent? Most importantly, how effective would they be?

[Hoyt]

13. All those supposedly law-abiding gun purchasers ain't looking so clean now.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

16. Don't look any dirtier to me

Did you perhaps not understand the OP? Would you like me to someone to read it to you who can assist with anything you don't understand?

[gejohnston]

17. self delete, answer wrong poster.

[gejohnston]

19. How do you figure?

In order to obey the state law, you would have to federal law.

[oneshooter]

21. And you ain't sounding any smarter either. n/t

[SteveM]

22. How many? -.01%? wow. nt

[rl6214]

34. Are you familiar with the word 'aren't

[Hoyt]

37. Try not to use it when posting to those who must strap a gun on before walking into sunshine.

[rl6214]

54. I don't think you are capable of it

[Abq_Sarah]

69. Do you have any purpose here

Other than insulting and denigrating law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

[Callisto32]

58. Wow.

Just wow.

"All of those black people aren't looking so clean now"

What you said is just as fucking asinine.

Your assishness is overwhelming.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

67. Hoyt, you really can't honestly deal with the questions you yourself raise. nt

[russ1943]

28. They were at gunshows in New York State.

On further review I see from your OP in the news article you’ve referenced, it states;
“As per New York state law, someone who is trying to buy firearms at a gun show must submit to a National Instant Criminal Background check.

"New York leads the nation with a tough law that requires background checks for all sales at gun shows," said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Current law requires that gun show operators post signs giving notice of the background check requirement, as well as having a terminal at the show where checks can be conducted.”

Since as far as I know you are correct that non FFL’s cannot access the NICS then the gun show operator must either have an FFL or make one available to access that terminal.
LCAV states on its website http://www.lcav.org/content/Federallawsummary.asp#backgroundchecks
that NY State Requires all firearm sales at a gun show to be processed through a licensed dealer, who conducts a background check.
Isn't that running a (background)check, that you stated in ur #5 "FFL's do not run for private sales - that is ALSO illegal?
You’re all over one poster about his FACTS being wrong but what about your facts?
Also Re ur comment in ur # 5;
“Further, if someone knows he cannot legally possess a firearm, it is illegal for him to obtain one. It is NOT illegal for someone to sell him one.”
In the article referenced the reporter states;
“ Though the team members explicitly told dealers they would not pass a background check, at times indicating the specific reasons why they wouldn't pass............"
Under Federal law isn’t it illegal for anyone to sell firearms to someone who knows the purchaser is prohibited?
Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:.......................would not pass a background check, IE is prohibited.

[Euromutt]

29. Wait, if the sales are illegal, then how does "lax regulation allow individuals" etc.?

If, as the article says, "per New York state law, someone who is trying to buy firearms at a gun show must submit to a National Instant Criminal Background check," and people can be arrested and prosecuted for failing to do so, then how do "lax regulations at gun shows allow individuals to avoid background checks when purchasing firearms"? Either you can legally buy a firearm from a private seller without a NICS check or you can't. If the former, then how can anyone be arrested for not performing a NICS check; if the latter, then it's not the regulations that are lax, but their enforcement.

[russ1943]

31. The article points out it is an enforcement problem.

Current law requires that gun show operators post signs giving notice of the background check requirement, as well as having a terminal at the show where checks can be conducted. Schneiderman says this "honor system" is not working and must be supplemented with a system that holds gun show operators liable when guns are sold without background checks.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. It's against the law to sell dope at a Greatful Dead concert

If you are selling dope to Dead Heads in the parking lot is that Jerry Garcia's fault? (must have been the shock that killed him)

As pointed out to another, the ATF maintains a website at great cost to the taxpayer to answer the very questions you are asking about Federal law.

Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

{18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)}

You want to know what unlicensed person may do under Federal law, go here:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html

[russ1943]

45. It is illegal under Federal Law

If you think I’ve asked anything about whether an unlicensed person can obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State? Then please provide a post number for reference.

In my #28 I posted “Under Federal law isn’t it illegal for anyone to sell firearms to someone who knows the purchaser is prohibited?
That query was in response to post #5 where he posted;
“Further, if someone knows he cannot legally possess a firearm, it is illegal for him to obtain one. It is NOT illegal for someone to sell him one.”

I thought that second sentence “It is NOT illegal for someone to sell him one.” Worth a comment.
I posted “In the article referenced the reporter states;
“ Though the team members explicitly told dealers they would not pass a background check, at times indicating the specific reasons why they wouldn't pass............"




At the ATF site you referenced there is a Frequently Asked Questions section that provides this example;
Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. ......<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>
Actually I know much of what there is to know about the official ATF website. I’ve advised many to read it for themselves, to no avail.

The point of all this is, my answer was substantially the same as the FAQ from ATF. If the seller does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person (buyer) is prohibited from receiving or possessing they may sell or transfer the firearm.
But..........the newspaper the OP referenced made clear that;

the team members explicitly told dealers they would not pass a background check

no matter how aggressively our investigators asserted the fact that they did not pass background checks, how easy it was for them to obtain firearms

Our investigators found a blatant disregard for the law where sellers made the conscious decision to sell deadly weapons to individuals who admitted they would not pass a background check

A sign behind the attorney general at the press conference detailed some of the exchanges between attorney general investigators and gun sellers.

"After I split and we had the order of protection because of the domestic violence and stuff … so I mean, what do you do?" asked an attorney general investigator to a gun seller.

The sellers knew the buyers were prohibited, but the sellers sold the firearms to the investigators.

CONCLUSION, I think the statement “It is NOT illegal for someone to sell him one” (as well as others) as posted in #5 is in error and said so.

Now, what the hell are you talking about? Has anyone inquired about selling dope in WalMarts parking lot?

[one-eyed fat man]

47. Your post 31

"...holds gun show operators liable when guns are sold without background checks.

If you are going to hold the show promoter for illegal acts done by people without his knowledge or sanction, I don't see it any different than holding Wal-Mart responsible for you catching the clap because you boffed some bimbo in their parking lot

Maybe you'll like that example better than pot peddling.

Now, you do note it took 8 months to catch almost that many illegal sales. There are apparently signs posted, by the gunshow promoters advising of New York law requiring all show sales to go through an FFL. So after spending the better part of year saturating gunshows with investigators they managed to find ten stupid people in New York state.

I am fucking impressed!

Yes, I know the Federal law about selling to anyone I know or have reason to believe is a prohibited person. I know what makes a prohibited person. I gave you the link to the ATF's FAQ. What I do not know is were the sellers idiots or scofflaws.

Unless the promoter were somehow sanction a violation I can not see a reason to hold him responsible for acts by persons not under his control or acting as his agents or employees.

[russ1943]

53. The OP is crap.

If you are going to hold the show promoter for illegal acts done by people without his knowledge or sanction, I don't see it any different than holding Wal-Mart responsible for you catching the clap because you boffed some bimbo in their parking lot.

If WalMart had charged the bimbo a fee to operate in their parking lot and made a profit from each of the bimbos then..................No, I don’t like that example either.

It makes little difference how long you think it took, so what? They may have found their examples in as little as a few days and there isn’t any way I can see how it is known how many investigators, but whether or not you are impressed is again irrelevant.

I don’t care!

See my #52

[one-eyed fat man]

55. The news conference was crap

It was a dog and pony show.

"...at a press conference last Wednesday surrounded by guns purchased illegally by undercover investigators."...all eleven of them??

Like they said, it took them 8 months to catch 10 people. They used the term "dealers" when it is clear that they meant "individuals making privates sales" as opposed to FFL's. But that is an intentional bit of artifice.

Had an FFL done what they accuse those individuals of, that is, not performing a required NICS check, it would be a Federal felony not a State misdemeanor. Why would the state settle for a a small fine and thirty days when under Federal law the very same violation is $250,000 fine and 10 years NO PAROLE?

They certainly did not make clear if the individuals they charged were vendors who had rented table space from the show's promoter or not. It is not uncommon at a show to see an individual attendee carrying a gun. A person may, for example, bring a gun to the show they wish to trade for something they like better. It is not unheard of for another attendee else to see them and ask if the gun is for sale. They may even strike a deal. What happens next, is different in New York, if this chance encounter occurs at a gun show as opposed to a flea market or yard sale.

As long as the promoter has posted the required signage it is for New York state FFL's to comply with state and Federal law.

NY State law § 896 Operation of a gun show.

(c) provide access at the gun show to a firearm dealer licensed under
federal law who is authorized to perform a national instant criminal
background check where the seller or transferor of a firearm, rifle or
shotgun is not authorized to conduct such a check by

(i) requiring firearm exhibitors who are firearm dealers licensed under federal law and who are authorized to conduct a national instant criminal background check to provide such a check at cost or

(ii) designating a specific location at the gun show where a firearm dealer licensed under federal law who is authorized to conduct a national instant criminal background check will be present to perform such a check at cost. Any firearm dealer licensed under federal law who performs a national instant criminal background check pursuant to this paragraph shall provide the seller or transferor of the firearm, rifle or shotgun with a copy of the United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Form ATF Form 4473 and such dealer shall maintain such form and make such form available for inspection by law enforcement agencies for a period of ten years thereafter.

The last sentence is unclear in its intent as to the disposition of the copy of the 4473. They use the word "dealer" but do not make it clear if they mean the licensee who performs the check must maintain a copy of the 4473 for ten years or if they mean the seller on whose behalf the FFL made the check.

Federal law already defines the FFL's requirement, and it conflicts with the state.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html#4473-nics-denied

Q: Do FFLs have to keep a copy of ATF Form 4473 if the transaction is denied or for some other reason is not completed?

FFLs must keep a copy of each ATF Form 4473 for which a NICS check has been initiated, regardless of whether the transfer of the firearm was made. If the transfer is not made, the FFL must keep the Form 4473 for 5 years after the date of the NICS inquiry. If the transfer is made, the FFL must keep the Form 4473 for 20 years after the date of the sale or disposition. Forms 4473 with respect to a transfer that did not take place must be separately maintained.

{27 CFR 478.129(b)}

Federal law requires the FFL to maintain the 4473 for 5 years of the sale was denied and 20 if it the transfer was completed. One could infer from the state statute since the seller is provided a copy of the 4473 by the FFL making the NICS check on his behalf, that the last sentence means for the seller to maintain that copy for 10 years. However that conflicts with the construct in the rest of that statute where dealer is used to refer to an FFL while seller or transferor is the person on whose behalf the FFL is performing the check.

One advantage of a poorly drafted law is the state AG gets to make examples of dumb schmucks who get enmeshed in a publicity scheme. Better to get lower class working stiffs who will have to make do with over burdened public defenders rather than those who can afford high priced attorneys with competent staffs...oh wait, stop, it's just a misdemeanor....no public defender, you have to pay for a lawyer....just sayin'

[burf]

56. As far as the news conference and the AGs

statement, what he should have said is: "The laws are on the books and my department has failed to effectively enforce them. My solution is to have new laws enacted that will make you feel safer, but do nothing to solve the problem if we continue non enforcement."

[Euromutt]

38. That doesn't answer my question.

The article also states that, according to Schneidermann, "lax regulations at gun shows allow individuals to avoid background checks when purchasing firearms." That's something different from stating that the regulations exist, but are not adequately enforced.

I can't say that I see how it is either just or effective to hold gun show operators liable for sellers' behavior. An analogy that occurs to me is holding the owner of a strip mall liable for a tenant business' failure to pay sales tax. On the other hand, if your objective is to put the gun show operator (or strip mall owner) out of business, this seems quite an effective way to go about it.

[russ1943]

52. Enough already.

Without quotation marks it’s difficult to conclude that the statement “Lax regulations at gun shows allow individuals to avoid background checks when purchasing firearms, according to the results of an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman”.like the headline to the article, “AG Says Illegal Gun Show Sales Commonplace”, is an actual quote or just a paraphrase and the reporters take, rather than what Schneiderman actually said.
No matter, I don’t know the best way to accomplish this, but I do agree that requiring background checks on all sales is a good idea.
The NY state AG is saying they are trying to accomplish that, but even after creating the law, it obviously is being ignored.
I don’t claim to know all the legal distinctions regarding gun shows in the states that do require them for sales of firearms (and the gun shows are still flourishing)but maybe holding the gun show operators responsible is one of the ways that this type of law breaking is minimized in the dozen or more states that mandate background checks. I don’t care.
My posts in this thread as I have repeated here too often already, had to do with the OP and subsequent posts that were critical of one posters facts when the OP’s posts were loaded with distortions and errors of fact

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Will the proposed laws be enforced with the same (lack of) vigor as the current ones?

Schneidermann elides that small detail...

[SteveM]

68. "...background checks on all sales.." has been discussed before...

in this forum. Chief concerns are:
(1) Federalism. Does the federal government have the authority to impose the NICS law on the individual states?
(2) Cost. Who will bear this cost, esp. when seen in the light of the unconstitutional "poll tax."
(3) What form will such a national-scale agency have? Government? Private? NGO?
(4) Security. How will the agency be maintained so that unauthorized access is denied?
(5) Defacto gun registration. How to prevent a nation-wide NICS test from becoming a defacto means to register gun? Gun controllers
want precisely that.
(6) Who would keep a record that a NICS test was performed? The individual seller, or a data base?

There is considerable sympathy among strong defenders of 2A for a nationwide NICS-type test. Costs could be borne by general taxation, the form could be a NGO, security could be maintained by not storing data (though this would run-up against how a record could be maintained of such a test given as in (6), even federalism questions might be avoided by "model legislation" which would result in a compact of states. The enduring problem is (and always has been) the inevitable push by gun-controller/prohibitionists to extend a national NICS test agency to de facto registration which the government would be privy to.

Q. You know what you call a gun show with 50 individual (non-FFL) sellers after its been broken up?
A. 50 individual gun shows, spread all over with little or no public announcement.

[rl6214]

32. Do the actions of these "investigators" surprise you?

Dosen't surprise me one bit.