(The ATF) today announced the culmination of a six-month investigation that resulted in the arrest of two "straw purchasers," individuals who falsified information and purchased at least 37 firearms that were subsequently delivered to felons in Colorado Springs and Northern California. To date, 12 of the 37 firearms have been recovered in criminal investigations throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
This story seems to be a classic example of how States with more lax gun laws feed the States with stricter ones. I wrote about this about one year ago, it's in the 5th paragraph. In that case it was Nevada, but the mechanism is the same and it's repeated continually.
"Straw purchasers are responsible for illegal diversion of guns. Many of these firearms ended up in the hands of criminals and used in violent crimes," said ATF's Acting Special Agent in Charge Michael Gleysteen. "We must stop the flow of guns from legal commerce to the criminals."
Gleysteen praised his law enforcement partners and thanked the United States Attorney's Offices for their support throughout the investigation.
"No matter where one might fall in the debate over gun control, there is little dispute that firearms must not end up in the hands of convicted felons," said United States Attorney Lawrence Brown.
No one denies that, but the dispute comes in when trying to accomplish it inconveniences gun owners. They immediately start talking about "infringement" and "gun bans," when actually we're not talking about those things at all.
Simple record keeping and registration policies could solve this problem in a jiffy. What could be easier than identifying the buyers of multiple weapons and investigating them? Nothing could be easier than that except for all the interference on the part of the gun owners and their organization the NRA.
We're not talking about banning anything. And we're certainly not talking about denying anyone their rights. But that's how the gun enthusiasts insist on describing this discussion. We're talking about minimal inconvenience, that's all. But most of the gun owners who comment around here wouldn't even consider of it.
This is another example of why I blame them for the problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
So you must support licensing and registration of bloggers? Afterall, it would make tracking down criminals and terrorists so much easier.
ReplyDeleteIt has been asked before, but what is the number allowed before we are to be investigated? Our justice system is based on evidence. No evidence, no warrant, wiretap, surveillance, etc. One of the rights that would be violated is the "unreasonable search and seizure" (don't be disappointed that it isn't the 2nd amendment, most of the pro-rights group supports all of the those rights). Buying a lot of a legal product is not reason to conduct an investigation, because there is nothing illegal about it.
In this case, something tipped the ATF off to the illegal activity. The article doesn't say, but it could be a dealer that didn't sell a firearm because he thought the purchase was suspicious, it could be a friend, it could be a criminal who was caught and pleaded for a lighter sentence. In any case, that information says that there is illegal activity going on, which then allows them to start an investigation.
Our country's legal system is not based on fishing expeditions. And I really don't think you want it to be. We don't have enough law enforcement personnel to engage in fishing expeditions. And it is a huge waste of resources to boot. If you do, then be honest about it.
Should all computer downloads be registered and licensed?
Should gasoline purchases be registered and licensed?
How about knives, baseball bats, or shoes?
Rope?
Rocks?
Water?
Explain where you draw the line and how that is consistent logically. Use some of that honest reasoning and common sense you claim to have.
Wow, where to start?
ReplyDelete"(The ATF) today announced the culmination of a six-month investigation..."
No problems here, an actual investigation of illegal activity is all OK with me.
"Straw purchasers are responsible for illegal diversion of guns. We must stop the flow of guns from legal commerce to the criminals."
Straw purchases are already NOT LEGAL COMMERCE.
You knew that, right?
"They immediately start talking about "infringement" and "gun bans," when actually we're not talking about those things at all."
You support the Brady Campaign and the VPC, so please tell me what 2A infringement or gun ban either org has spoken out against. Just one. One single gun ban they have oppossed.
The BC wants to ban handguns because they are small.
The BC wants to ban 50 cals because they are large.
The BC want to ban so-called "assault weapons" because they are medium sized and fire what is defined as an intermediate cartridge.
The BC wants to ban real firearms that look like toys.
The BC wants to ban toy guns that look real.
The BC wants to ban inexpensive guns by calling them Saturday Night Specials.
The BC wants to ban expensive guns by calling them WMD's.
The BC wants to ban scoped rifles by calling them sniper weapons.
The BC wants to eventually see a total gun ban, one slice at a time.
Checkmate.
"Simple record keeping and registration policies could solve this problem in a jiffy."
You do know that federal registration is illegal, right?
"Nothing could be easier than that except for all the interference on the part of the gun owners and their organization the NRA."
Yes, the NRA is the 800 pound gorilla in the room but you're forgetting to misplace blame on the GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO, SAS, NAHC. OFF and strangely enough, even the AHSA and many many others.
With you vast knowledge of all things firearms, I'm sure I don't need to explain the acronyms. I know you like to blame the NRA but it is a timid unicorn fart compared to GOA or JPFO.
"We're not talking about banning anything."
Total BS, see above.
"And we're certainly not talking about denying anyone their rights."
Amazingly large pile of steaming BS.
"We're talking about minimal inconvenience, that's all."
Wow, another pile of pure BS.
"But most of the gun owners who comment around here wouldn't even consider of it."
Here's the true gem.
Ya see, we HAVE considered the gun control laws and oppose them because we have considered how it would impact us, the law abiding citizen.
Have a nice day.
I'm not sure I understand what you are complaining about.
ReplyDeleteThis is a story of the law working. It is illegal to make straw purchases. The cops investigated, built a case, arrested them and stopped them. What do you want?
You say that this activity is the reason that states with strict gun laws have such high rates of gun violence. When the law is enforced (hence this story) you use it as an example of what is wrong.
"Simple record keeping and registration policies could solve this problem in a jiffy..."
It looks like it did. These people were lying to a dealer who was recording their data in his book just like he is required to do by law and the ATF used this information to build a case.
"We're not talking about banning anything."
Obviously you are. Here is a story where the law was used to stop a criminal activity yet you use it as an example to say that not enough is being done.
Ummm, you do know that they are being ARRESTED and going to face likely harsh FEDERAL charges.
ReplyDeleteWhat they did was VERY illegal...how would another law have fixed this?
BTW I've decided since your side has effectively lost I'm going to intermittently comment now.
You're like those Japanese foot soldiers who still thought the war was going on.
Why not come out of your cave and help us rebuild the damage your side has done?
I note that these folks broke a law, and were punished.
ReplyDeleteWhat is unknown is how many similar law-breaking events happen on a regular basis, and how many law-abiding purchases will be infringed in attempting to stop them.
(Rather like there are laws against slander and libel, but no one has to get a license to speak/print/blog, with the licensure and regulation meant to curb libel and slander. Some would say that the pesky First Amendment gets in the way of common-sense enforcement of slander laws...I wouldn't say that, but it could be argued.)
The problem is that registration will lead to confiscation. It really is not the business of the government to keep tabs on lawfully purchased goods that I keep in my house.
ReplyDeleteGun violence is a huge problem, but it pales compared to the numbers of people killed by their own governments. Each and every time, these slaughters were preceded by registration/confiscation/criminalization of firearms. Given the historical record, allowing the government to keep lists of gun owners, or owned guns is a very. bad. idea.
Clearly, the data trail already exists to collar straw purchasers and probably convict them. Further legislation will not prevent this from happening. You cannot punish the law abiding because others are not so.
You talk as if it is the hassle of registration that bothers us, rather than the principle.
ReplyDeleteDrunk driving checkpoints bother me quite a bit. This is despite the fact that I don't think I have been over the limit in the last 10 years at all, and certainly not while driving.
Banks being required to report large cash withdrawals bother me, even though I am unlikely to ever do that myself.
Having to sign a register for pseudoephedrine or hypodermic needles bothers me far more than the inconvenience involved--less than 10 minutes of my life so far.
Putting people in jail for taking the wrong drugs, or without the right paperwork bothers me, even though I do not do anything stronger than bourbon.
I do not understand how defining a marriage as only between a man and woman is anything other than imposing a fundamentalist Christian view on the rest of us--even though I have no personal desire to marry a man.
In all of these, I would be willing to spend much more time and hassle ending these restrictions on freedom, even though most are not freedoms I personally want to exercise. It is important to me that decent people are allowed to own guns that the government is not aware of, even if I don't.
Some people like to call gun owners small minded idiots with tiny penises.
ReplyDeleteHelmke of the BC, Sugarmann of the VPC and Miller of CFNJ. Also some of your por-control commenters.
But we're not as stupid as they would paint us to be.
You blog about guns not because it's a personal interest of yours; you blog about guns because it's a hot button issue that puts butts in the seats in front of your website.
You know it's true.
I know it's true.
I can't say that I find any fault in your outreach for attention. I only request that you do some simple research about the subject you wish to pontificate about.
It's raining here in Oregon(duh), I hope you have sunshine.
kaveman said, "Some people like to call gun owners small minded idiots with tiny penises.
ReplyDeleteHelmke of the BC, Sugarmann of the VPC and Miller of CFNJ. Also some of your por-control commenters."
I was going to challenge you on that one, but then I realized it's probably right.
I don't like that stuff and don't use it myself.
As several of you guys pointed out, this case illustrates how the law works. The criminals broke the law and they were caught and will probably be punished. But, I'm afraid it's the exception that proves the rule. The rule is that this kind of thing is happening too frequently and the record keeping procedures which are in place are inadequate to keep up with the problem, not to mention the lack of man power of the ATF and FBI. They need help.
ReplyDeleteThe rule is that this kind of thing is happening too frequently and the record keeping procedures which are in place are inadequate to keep up with the problem, not to mention the lack of man power of the ATF and FBI. They need help.
ReplyDeleteI agree, they do need help. Let's help them by repealing some of the most ridiculous gun laws we have. How about allowing imports of foreign "assault weapons." Remove the sporting purposes clause. Get rid of the $200 tax from the 30s. Get rid of registration for silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns. Get rid of the "place of business" wording that ran all of the "kitchen table" gun dealers off. Finally, quit prosecuting dealers for not having the 4473 filled out properly (what I think is most hilarious, is it has taken the ATF until 2009 to finally get an electronic version of that form - just shows that their concern is inconveniencing the buyer and dealer, not being able to have traceable records).
Once this is all done, there should be a plenty of people at the ATF that don't have anything to do. So we can put them to work on a list of people who we have evidence might have actually committed a crime. That 1.5 million of the background checks that failed.
Mikeb, I know in your perfect world, a straw buyer attempts to buy a gun and 12 agents immediately swoop in, arrest him, and we all live happily ever after. Police work isn't like that. TV and movies are not reality. Investigations are rarely completed in 1 hour - 13 minutes of commercials. And sometimes, there are bigger fish to fry, so we let the petty criminals continue with their illegal activity.
"The criminals broke the law and they were caught and will probably be punished. But, I'm afraid it's the exception that proves the rule."
ReplyDeleteThat's true for any crime from speeding to murder. The majority of offenders get away with it. It's not because of a lack of law, but because of a lack of resources. In a country of 300 million, you can't catch everyone who does something illegal.