Philadelphia gun-store owner James Colosimo plans to close his decades-old shop, which has been targeted recently with antiviolence protests and federal inquiries into its business practices.
Since protests this year, the Buruea of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has filed a notice to revoke Colosimo's federal license to sell firearms, said Colosimo's attorney, Joe Canuso.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's Office accused the store of selling 10 guns to people employees "knew or had reason to believe" were illegal straw buyers.
How common is that, do you think, the gun shop policy of turning a blind eye or actually assisting in straw purchases? Remember Iknadosian, who although eventually acquitted, was caught actually advising people how to smuggle guns into Mexico. Why do supposedly legitimate gun owners support people like this? I would think they give a bad name to the whole gun-owning world.
Do you think it's standard operating procedure for gun shops to do this, or is it a rare occurrence? Do you think Mr. Colosimo is the victim of oversealous gun control people?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Do you think Mr. Colosimo is the victim of oversealous gun control people?
ReplyDeleteYes.
"On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's Office accused the store of selling 10 guns to people employees "knew or had reason to believe" were illegal straw buyers."
ReplyDeleteKey word here is ACCUSED.
And yet, you immediately find them guilty by saying...
"How common is that, do you think, the gun shop policy of turning a blind eye or actually assisting in straw purchases?"
In your world, an accusation proves guilt.
Is that really the world you want to live in?
Personally, I prefer due process.
I'm just funny that way.
Bureau of Justice Statistics show about 400,000 violent crimes committed with firearms in 2006. Add in 12,000 murders = 412,000.
ReplyDelete10 guns sold illegally :
(10/412,000)*100 = 0.00242%
There would have to be 4,132 stores each knowingly making straw sales to reach your 10% of the gun owners.
Is that reasonable MikeB?
Remember Iknadosian, who although eventually acquitted . . .
ReplyDeleteTo say Iknadosian was "eventually acquitted" is one way to put it--another, more informative, way would be to say that the case was thrown out for total nonexistence of evidence.
As the judge said:
Gottsfield dismissed the case on the grounds that the prosecutors had not proven the third-party buyers, or "straw purchasers," had misrepresented their identities when buying the guns.
"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearms," he said in a ruling.
I know you're not a big fan of the concept of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt (at least not unless the accused is sufficiently "downtrodden" for your tastes), but could you at least require presumption of innocence until there's at least a shred of evidence against the accused?
kaveman said, "Key word here is ACCUSED.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, you immediately find them guilty by saying..."
Good point, I do do that.
beowulf, You're right "eventually acquitted" is not exactly right when talking about Iknadosian. "Eventully exonerated" would have been better. But, the point's the same.
beowulf, You're right "eventually acquitted" is not exactly right when talking about Iknadosian. "Eventully exonerated" would have been better.
ReplyDeleteI still like my more detailed, more informative version a great deal better. Still, I can see why ignoring certain details (like the judge chiding the prosecution for having no case whatsoever--something I think I've seen you refer to as a "technicality") would appeal to you.
Shorter MikeB - I don't care that the judge threw out the case against Iknadosian because the prosecution could offer NO EVIDENCE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW. He's an EVIL gun dealer and I think he's guilty, so to hell with the facts & to hell with the civil liberty protections of the American legal system.
ReplyDeleteIs that about right MikeB?
No, Mike, that's not about right. Iknadosian was on tape telling people how to smuggle guns into Mexico without getting caught. Then it was decided they didn't have a case against him.
ReplyDeleteIt's more like the murderer who gets arrested by the cops who then extract a confession out of him before his lawyer gets there. The judge then has no choice but to "throw it out for lack of evidence."
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteIknadosian was on tape telling people how to smuggle guns into Mexico without getting caught.
I don't remember reading anything about any such conversations being "on tape"--got a source for that assertion?
Besides, what is illegal about "telling people how to smuggle guns . . . "? Is stomping on the Second Amendment no longer enough for you--have you decided to go after the First, as well?
I remember one of the most ridiculous arguments advocating a ban of .50 caliber rifles (and there's a lot of competition for that "honor")--that such a rifle could be used to shoot down Air Force One, thus killing the president. The article was complete with a diagram of the plane, showing where the fuel tanks and oxygen tanks were.
By your standards, shouldn't the purveyors of that information be locked up? They have, after all, "told people" how to assassinate the president (although it would be a pretty silly way to try to do it).