New York conducts undercover sting at Arizona gun show

[xj0hnx]

Let me get this straight. You are saying the right to bear arms doesn't apply if you cross state lines within this great nation?

Is being armed a right, or is it not a right? I don't get how a right can be considered void based on state lines.

What next, no free speech if you're talking to someone in another state?

No ownership of property in another state?

The government can ban you from going to church in another state?

That's something you would need to take up with the anti-gun politicians that made what they did illegal.

In the United States, straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor. One of the questions on form 4473 is “I am the buyer of this firearm” and the purchaser must answer honestly yes or no, by checking the appropriate box in ink. However, purchase of a firearm as a bona fide gift for someone who can legally own such a firearm is permitted.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase#cite_note-1

 

[quikah]

The site is here:

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

Has several videos and a PDF report. They admit right off that it is not illegal for not having a background check from a private seller. AFAICT they seem to be advocating requiring background checks for private sellers as well as accusing some of the private sellers of effectively being dealers due to volume.

 

[xj0hnx]

The site is here:

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

Has several videos and a PDF report. They admit right off that it is not illegal for not having a background check from a private seller. AFAICT they seem to be advocating requiring background checks for private sellers as well as accusing some of the private sellers of effectively being dealers due to volume.

It awesome watching people breaking the law to try pretending that someone else is breaking the law. I really like how that's site's source is their own "report". I'd really like to see the law that says if a person tells a private party that he might not be able to pass a background check that it would be an illegal sale.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's something you would need to take up with the anti-gun politicians that made what they did illegal.

In the United States, straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor. One of the questions on form 4473 is “I am the buyer of this firearm” and the purchaser must answer honestly yes or no, by checking the appropriate box in ink. However, purchase of a firearm as a bona fide gift for someone who can legally own such a firearm is permitted.

Not only that but depending on how the people presented themselves the perps (oddly satisfying to say) may have also violated 18 USC 922

Shame on Bloomberg for violating gun laws!

:awe:

 

[quikah]

It awesome watching people breaking the law to try pretending that someone else is breaking the law. I really like how that's site's source is their own "report". I'd really like to see the law that says if a person tells a private party that he might not be able to pass a background check that it would be an illegal sale.

Hah. I originally just dismissed those numbers without looking at the "source". But after you pointed it out... wow, that is just hilarious.

 

[HAL9000]

Maybe it would be better if you guys had a gun licence after you had been checked that you could carry about then you could buy and sell guns fine. (obviously people could fake it if not done properly but it would take the blame of the seller)

 

[spidey07]

Maybe it would be better if you guys had a gun licence after you had been checked that you could carry about then you could buy and sell guns fine. (obviously people could fake it if not done properly but it would take the blame of the seller)

Yeah! Call it a Federal Firearm License! Brilliant!

 

[HAL9000]

Yeah! Call it a Federal Firearm License! Brilliant!

Shrug... Yeah....

 

[Jhhnn]

The most remarkable thing about this thread, other than the usual raving about gun ownership defining freedom, is the duh-version away from what anybody frequenting gun shows knows to be true, that many "private sellers" are just unlicensed gun dealers, based on the volume of guns that pass through their hands.

Apparently, it's too much to ask that those dealers need to subject buyers to the same checks as the other dealers at the show, and that the show sponsors are rightfully the party who needs to make those checks. It's a service that should be part of the fee for selling at the show.

I'm a bit surprised that licensed dealers aren't on the side of that. After all, they incur expense doing so, but their competition doesn't...

Obviously, honest private transactions shouldn't fall under that, like if I was selling one of my guns to a friend.

 

[Scotteq]

Maybe it would be better if you guys had a gun licence after you had been checked that you could carry about then you could buy and sell guns fine. (obviously people could fake it if not done properly but it would take the blame of the seller)

Yeah! Call it a Federal Firearm License! Brilliant!

As spidey implied: We do have those.

It's also an interesting quirk of US Law that individual States can add requirements on top of the Federal License. So, just because you have a Federal Firearms License, you can still be thrown in Prison for not following (New Jersey's) state rules.

 

[HAL9000]

As spidey implied: We do have those.

It's also an interesting quirk of US Law that individual States can add requirements on top of the Federal License. So, just because you have a Federal Firearms License, you can still be thrown in Prison for not following (New Jersey's) state rules.

OH! Fair enough then forget I said anything, maybe chuck in a proviso that certain licences have privileges to sell... It's a start, you guys have the right to own guns not necessarily the right to sell them...

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let me get this straight. You are saying the right to bear arms doesn't apply if you cross state lines within this great nation?

Is being armed a right, or is it not a right? I don't get how a right can be considered void based on state lines.

What next, no free speech if you're talking to someone in another state?

No ownership of property in another state?

The government can ban you from going to church in another state?

No dummy, you can only buy a fire arm from a dealer in your own state or have your dealer buy one from another state, have it shiped to him and register it in your name. A dealer cannot legally sell a gun to an out of state resident. A dealer at a Gun Show has to follow all the rules, only private citizen sellers do not.

 

[Scotteq]

OH! Fair enough then forget I said anything, maybe chuck in a proviso that certain licences have privileges to sell... It's a start, you guys have the right to own guns not necessarily the right to sell them...

Yah - The rule for actual dealers is they have to earn/maintain a Federal license, and also whatever additional licensing/fees/certifications may be required by the state(s) in which they do business.

As I am sure you can imagine, this is a non~trivial excercise.

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

 

[HAL9000]

Yah - The rule for actual dealers is they have to earn/maintain a Federal license, and also whatever additional licensing/fees/certifications may be required by the state(s) in which they do business.

As I am sure you can imagine, this is a non~trivial excercise.

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

Then forget I said anything, you guys seem to have it worked out. The NYC guys were doing the right thing!

 

[xj0hnx]

The most remarkable thing about this thread, other than the usual raving about gun ownership defining freedom, is the duh-version away from what anybody frequenting gun shows knows to be true, that many "private sellers" are just unlicensed gun dealers, based on the volume of guns that pass through their hands.

Bullshit. No one here has said that owning a firearm defines freedom. Banning law-abiding citizens from owning them most certainly IS a removal of freedom. And you are clueless if you call private sellers unlicensed dealers. There is more to having a FFL than just selling guns at a gun show, the volume is irrelevant. If I thought you were doing anything more than spouting your uneducated idiocy I'd guide you towards getting a clue, but since you aren't I won't waste my time.

I'm a bit surprised that licensed dealers aren't on the side of that. After all, they incur expense doing so, but their competition doesn't...

Private sellers are not a gun shop's competition.

 

[xj0hnx]

OH! Fair enough then forget I said anything, maybe chuck in a proviso that certain licences have privileges to sell... It's a start, you guys have the right to own guns not necessarily the right to sell them...

So you want to enslave citizens because of others actions, and now people can't sell their own private property, there's a word for you ...tyrant? dictator? yea something like that.

 

[Scotteq]

Then forget I said anything, you guys seem to have it worked out. The NYC guys were doing the right thing!

yea on the first part

nay on the second: The point of contention here is there are no rules regarding an individual's rights to sell personal firearms to another individual (though local laws regarding possession may/would still appy - i.e. doing so could still violate State law).

What happened here is a politician from the State of New York sent people to the State of Arizona (where New York Law does not apply, and where these people have no jurisdiction or authority), and filmed individuals selling personal arms at a gun show. The activity filmed is legal under Federal and Arizona Law, but is being highlighted/prosecuted and presented by undercover New Yorkers... who have no jurisdiction or authority to do so.


A loose approximation might be a Politician from England (Mayor of London, say) sending undercover agents to Scotland to film activities which are legal in Scotland, and which the (Mayor of London) has no authority to pursue.. And yet these otherwise legal activities are being touted as indicative of wrongdoing. I imagine the Scots would be quite happy to tell the Mayor of London which finger he can use to go F8ck himself with.

 

[HAL9000]

yea on the first part

nay on the second: The point of contention here is there are no rules regarding an individual's rights to sell personal firearms to another individual (though local laws regarding possession may/would still appy - i.e. doing so could still violate State law).

What happened here is a politician from the State of New York sent people to the State of Arizona (where New York Law does not apply, and where these people have no jurisdiction or authority), and filmed individuals selling personal arms at a gun show. The activity filmed is legal under Federal and Arizona Law, but is being highlighted/prosecuted and presented by undercover New Yorkers... who have no jurisdiction or authority to do so.


A loose approximation might be a Politician from England (Mayor of London, say) sending undercover agents to Scotland to film activities which are legal in Scotland, and which the (Mayor of London) has no authority to pursue.. And yet these otherwise legal activities are being touted as indicative of wrongdoing. I imagine the Scots would be quite happy to tell the Mayor of London which finger he can use to go F8ck himself with.

Oh. OK. They have a "No rules apply" law for conventions :\

 

[Texashiker]

Maybe it would be better if you guys had a gun licence after you had been checked that you could carry about then you could buy and sell guns fine.

Here in the USA, we have this thing called the "Bill of Rights" that protects citizens from the government trying to restrict our rights in such a way.

Would you also check someone to make sure they are ok to go to church or own a bible?

Would you also check someone to make sure their ok to vote?

Would you check someone to make sure they can run a political blog or read a newspaper?

Years ago the states passed a "poll tax" to try to prevent poor blacks from voting. The supreme court struck the poll tax as unconstitutional.

You see, here in the USA, our rights are protected - for the most part anyway. There are certain rights that the government can only "slightly" infringe on. Citizens already have to pass through a series of checks to buy a firearms, but like everything else, sometimes the crazies slip through. Sometimes an alcoholic can buy a car, sometimes a fruit cake gets ahold of a firearm. Usually the criminal only kills 1 or 2 people, while drunk drivers kill entire families.

 

[Scotteq]

Oh. OK. They have a "No rules apply" law for conventions :\

The rules do apply: An actual dealer is still required to follow local and Federal laws whether he's at a show or not. The loophole is that Federal Law doesn't abridge an individual's right to sell personal property (weapons), as long as that sale doesn't otherwise violate local law.

It's a huge loophole, and (personally speaking) I would support requiring a licensed weapons dealer facilitate such transactions.


in this case, though - The Mayor of New York has no authority to do what he did.

 

[HAL9000]

Here in the USA, we have this thing called the "Bill of Rights" that protects citizens from the government trying to restrict our right sin such a way.

Would you also check someone to make sure they are ok to go to church or own a bible?

Would you also check someone to make sure their ok to vote?

Would you check someone to make sure they can run a political blog or read a news paper?

Years ago the states passed a "poll tax" to try to prevent poor blacks from voting. The supreme court struck the poll tax as unconstitutional.

You see, here in the USA, our rights are protected - for the most part anyway. There are certain rights that the government can only "slightly" infringe on. Citizens already have to pass through a series of checks to buy a firearms, but like everything else, sometimes the crazies slip through. Sometimes an alcoholic can buy a car, sometimes a fruit cake gets ahold of a firearm. Usually the criminal only kills 1 or 2 people, while drunk drivers kill entire families.

Wow that was a list of irrelevancies.

A news paper?! You seriously think an Assault Rifle = A newspaper....?!

 

[HAL9000]

The rules do apply: An actual dealer is still required to follow local and Federal laws whether he's at a show or not. The loophole is that Federal Law doesn't abridge an individual's right to sell personal property (weapons), as long as that sale doesn't otherwise violate local law.

It's a huge loophole, and (personally speaking) I would support requiring a licensed weapons dealer facilitate such transactions.


in this case, though - The Mayor of New York has no authority to do what he did.

Oh fair enough then, it is a big loophole I agree needs dealing with asap.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, an apple by any other name is still an apple.

Any government that does not allow / or restricts the right of firearms ownership, does not a free country make.

And there is a difference between a free market and free people.

Bullshit. No one here has said that owning a firearm defines freedom.

See the quote, above.

Banning law-abiding citizens from owning them most certainly IS a removal of freedom. And you are clueless if you call private sellers unlicensed dealers. There is more to having a FFL than just selling guns at a gun show, the volume is irrelevant. If I thought you were doing anything more than spouting your uneducated idiocy I'd guide you towards getting a clue, but since you aren't I won't waste my time.

That's one of the emptiest things ever posted on this forum, and there have been plenty. Volume has nothing to do with it... In other words, If I were to travel the gun show circuit, sell dozens or hundreds of firearms per year as a "private seller" while not making background checks, then I'm really a private seller, and not a dealer flying under the radar, or what?

Private sellers are not a gun shop's competition.

They are at a gun show.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Boy I can't wait for the pro-gun law people to cry for Bloombergs arrest for his illegal gun activities (as evidenced by "straw purchase").

Yep, they'll be along any minute. Oops, I forgot, "heroes" of The Movement aren't required to obey the laws they say need to be obeyed. The end justifies the mean.

 

[Scotteq]

Boy I can't wait for the pro-gun law people to cry for Bloombergs arrest for his illegal gun activities (as evidenced by "straw purchase").

Yep, they'll be along any minute. Oops, I forgot, "heroes" of The Movement aren't required to obey the laws they say need to be obeyed. The end justifies the mean.

If the weapons didn't cross state borders, I don't see where a case could be made. And I'm pretty sure they aren't *that* stupid...

The activity filmed here is legal in AZ.