I guess it was only a matter of time before someone came up with a convincing exposé. The gun crowd were all so dismissive about what Prof. Wintemute came out with recently. But, Mayor Bloomberg has provided us with what to me looks like indisputable evidence of what everyone has known all along. Private sales at gun shows are a source for criminals to get guns.
What gets me is the attitude demonstrated on the video, the laughing, the nonchalance, the admitting that the seller wouldn't pass the background check either.
I find it filthy dirty and I can't understand how otherwise honest law-abiding citizens continue to turn a blind eye, continue to defend this activity and continue to pretend it has nothing to do with them.
What's your opinion? Here's what Sebastian had to say about it.
What’s really disgusting about Bloomberg’s tactics, is none of these transactions and dealers shown here have anything to do with gun show loophole. It’s illegal to operate as a gun dealer, for livelihood and profit, without a Federal Firearms License. It’s illegal to knowingly sell guns to criminals. In all of these cases shown, they could be prosecuted under current laws. But he’s not going to tell you that, because the goal is to get rid of gun shows.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the tactics "disgusting," but I do admit to a certain disdain of the proverbial undercover or sting operation. But how this can be said to not qualify as the "gun show loophole" seems a bit of a stretch to me. The fact that existing laws are being broken has nothing to do with it. You can't throw out the entire argument by saying there are already laws which cover that. The laws which cover these activities are obviously inadequate.
Another quibble I have with Sebastian's take on it, and it's not just his take I realize, is the presumed intention in the mind of Bloomberg. I cannot see any reason to not believe that he wants to do exactly what he says. I see no reason to think that the real objective is to "get rid of gun shows."
What do you think? Are Bloomberg's tactics disgusting? Do you think that requiring background checks on all gun transfers would accomplish something good? What about those gun sellers who admitted they wouldn't pass the background check either. Shouldn't they be put out of business?
Please leave a comment.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the tactics "disgusting," but I do admit to a certain disdain of the proverbial undercover or sting operation. But how this can be said to not qualify as the "gun show loophole" seems a bit of a stretch to me. The fact that existing laws are being broken has nothing to do with it. You can't throw out the entire argument by saying there are already laws which cover that. The laws which cover these activities are obviously inadequate.
ReplyDeleteloophole: a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.
Can you tell us what the "loophole" is in this instance?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou admit that, if they are guilty, they are already breaking the law, right?
What will one more law do to stop it?
Please explain how people who are willing to break multiple jobs will be stopped by another law.
The laws which cover these activities are obviously inadequate.
ReplyDeleteI guess that means that our laws against murder are inadequate, since it is still happening.
And robbery, fraud, rape, embezzlement, assualt, speeding, child porn, burglary, vandalism, DUI, smoking, underage drinking, etc. etc.
Basically, mikeb, what you are saying is nothing short of a totalitarian state will do.
Bloomberg's tactics are not only disgusting, they are CRIMINAL.
ReplyDeleteThat's OK though right MikeB? Criminality is OK if you're an anti-gunner?
MikeW, MikeB is STILL bragging about owning guns illegally.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think?
"The fact that existing laws are being broken has nothing to do with it. You can't throw out the entire argument by saying there are already laws which cover that. The laws which cover these activities are obviously inadequate."
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your logic here. So if we pass more laws that these criminals could break, that would stop them from breaking laws?
Following that same theory, let's pass more laws against murder so that the murderers will stop committing murder.
"The fact that existing laws are being broken has nothing to do with it. You can't throw out the entire argument by saying there are already laws which cover that. The laws which cover these activities are obviously inadequate."
ReplyDeleteThe old (and utterly moronic) One More Law fallacy. Folks like MikeB honestly feel that people who think nothing of commiting a whole myriad of serious felonies will cease their criminal ways and become good little citizens if we can pass just a few more laws.
It's thinking like this that is so flatly irrational I'll never be able to wrap my head around it.
They are disgusting because in doing this the last time, he interfered with criminal investigations that were ongoing into some of these operations. See the links I mentioned in the article.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you read the bill that's proposed to close the gun show loophole? There can be no basis for discussion until you actually read the bill, and what it does. That's by basis for arguing Bloomberg's bill intends to get rid of gun shows, because there are many many problems with that bill that open the door for doing exactly that.
If private transfers are a problem, let's talk about that. That has nothing to do with gun shows.
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteI find it filthy dirty and I can't understand how otherwise honest law-abiding citizens continue to turn a blind eye, continue to defend this activity and continue to pretend it has nothing to do with them.
I state (not "pretend") that it has nothing to do with me because I don't make such sales (I have, in fact never sold a gun--I just buy them).
As to how I can, with a gloriously clean conscience, defend this activity--it's easy. Illegal gun sales are a victimless "crime." Someone who is shot is no more a "gun sale victim" than someone who is stabbed is a "knife sale victim."
Besides, Mikeb, didn't you just argue that the "gun show 'loophole'" isn't really about gun shows, and acknowledge that only a tiny percentage (2%) of guns used in gun related crimes were purchased at gun shows?
What I would really like to see is more people buying incomplete receivers, for which no background check is required, no paper trail is left, and no serial number is involved. I think some enterprising sort should not only sell those at gun shows (one of the things Wintemute whined about), but should have the tools on hand (kind of a "portable workshop") to do the finishing work, and would guide customers through the process (from right over their shoulder, if necessary)--all for a fee. Let's make all the gun laws even more ineffectual and irrelevant than they already are.
for which no background check is required, no paper trail is left, and no serial number is involved.
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly why keeping private transfers legal is so important.
I once had a non gun owner ask me about the purchase process here in DE (her son was interested in buying a gun)
After I explained it she stated that she didn't think like that at all because the government would know what you owned.
This was a woman with no dog in this fight and even she could make the logical connections to government confiscation and conclude that she'd rather buy a gun "off-book."
I find it filthy dirty and I can't understand how otherwise honest law-abiding citizens continue to turn a blind eye, continue to defend this activity and continue to pretend it has nothing to do with them.
ReplyDeleteWho's turning a blind eye? The people depicted in these videos are criminals. Prosecute them. There's no need to pass a new law. You can seek a federal indictment today for dealing without a license, and for selling a firearm to someone the seller knew to be prohibited. Both are felonies.
So what exactly is your solution, Mike? I mean, since what the guys in the videos did was already illegal, what do you want to do, make it more illegal?
ReplyDeleteHaving read Wintermute's report, my main complaint was his lack of a scientific approach to his investigation. He did not develop a hypothesis and test it, he chose a conclusion and only reported evidence which supported that.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I can see both sides of this argument.
Pros claim that gunshows have nothing to do with the law that makes private sales at gun shows legal. This is factually correct.
Antis want to ban gun shows because of this supposed loophole (which technically doesn't exist...there is no 'loophole').
The ONLY issue here is requiring a check for personal transactions (which California, for example, already has...yet they still have constant attempts to ban gun shows). This is where anti's have a problem...claiming one thing, but really wanting another, to the point that no one can trust their true motivations.
I'll get rakes over the coals for this, but in my opinion, I would not mind background checks being required for all firearms transactions, HOWEVER: the check should be performed at no cost, should be relatively instantaneous, and once approval is received, no record of the transaction should be allowed to be kept by any centralized organization.
The real question I have here is...how many attempted purchases were made to get the 8(?) illegal responses they got. I can look through small town classified ads and find that many offers of 'no background check!' out there. Even my local paper has occasional firearms for about double the retail rate...the only reason I can think anyone would purchase that way would be due to background check avoidance. So how much of a problem is this really, or is it just another underhanded 'look at my right hand while my left hand is trying to ban everything I don't like' approach?
The ONLY issue here is requiring a check for personal transactions (which California, for example, already has...yet they still have constant attempts to ban gun shows). This is where anti's have a problem...claiming one thing, but really wanting another, to the point that no one can trust their true motivations.
ReplyDeleteExactly. There's no reason to give in to these demands, because there's no evidence that's all they want, and plenty of evidence that when this measure fails to reduce crimes, they will start banning guns shows, as is happening in California.
I'll get rakes over the coals for this, but in my opinion, I would not mind background checks being required for all firearms transactions, HOWEVER: the check should be performed at no cost, should be relatively instantaneous, and once approval is received, no record of the transaction should be allowed to be kept by any centralized organization.
I won't rake you over the coals for it. I would, under certain circumstance, accept negotiating on this too, but they have to listen to us, respect us, understand it's a right we're dealing with, and be willing to think about overhauling the whole system to address our concerns. But they won't, and will continue to push bad bills that have hidden agendas in it. That's because this isn't about background checks. If it was, why did Brady fight NICS for all those years?
Then there's the inconvenient little fact that California has nearly every gun law the Brady Campaign whines for--especially anti-trafficking laws--and is the second largest source state for illegal guns in Mexico:
ReplyDeleteIn 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.
Gotta love the efficacy of gun laws, doncha'?
Dude, as my kids would say,
ReplyDeleteThat is the proverbial drop in the bucket of criminality. Yes arrest those clowns, but I am from originally from NYC. I can get a handgun within 30 minutes of landing at JFK.
That is a fact.
Now how about we do something serious about crime. Real Crime. Drug fueled crime.
Seven knuckleheads in three states does not a crime wave make, and how many did they have to ask to get those seven?
How about we waging a counter-insurgency campaign against gangbangers, drug lords, and their ilk wit well trained National Guardsmen? Or would that be too detestable to your mind? Plenty of illegal guns would be rounded up, felons incarcerated, city streets would be far safer; Jeez it's a win-win for everyone!
Albert
Why I Carry a Gun ('Cause a cop is to heavy to lug around!)
Albert, I have been saying the same thing you just said for the last 6 months....
ReplyDeleteI lived in the lower East Side of manhattan for 30 years and still have an apartment there and many old friends...
If things haven't changed in the last 6 months, I maintain that I could buy a gun or a number of guns of varying models in just a few hours.
I will be in Manhattan at the end of this month, anything I can pick up for you?
If things haven't changed in the last 6 months, I maintain that I could buy a gun or a number of guns of varying models in just a few hours.
ReplyDeleteHere's another fact for Mikeb to ignore. If he could magically make all guns disappear from the hands of private citizens overnite, I guarantee there would be more guns in the hands of criminals by the next day. And for simplicity's sake I'm willing to rule out criminals assaulting cops for their guns, or any other unlawful taking. Not many, mind you. But a trickle that would soon turn into a flood.
I had an uncle when I was young who was a master machinist, and he had a completely equipped machine shop in his basement (well-equipped for the '60s anyway). I know that he could have made a rudimentary handgun or rifle in a day or so. With the proper knowledge, it wouldn't be hard. And there isn't any exotic materials you need to make one.
So, guns are gone, you have machine shops all over the place that would be happy to start replacing what was lost, at a premium cost, of course. But it wouldn't take long for underground factories to make a manner of firearms if the need was there.
Just some food for thought, and yet more facts for mikey to completely ignore.
N.B. The time frames are just a rough estimate. Remembering my uncle, I swear he could whip up just about anything in an afternoon. Anybody with machinist experience would be welcome to correct me.
"How about we waging a counter-insurgency campaign against gangbangers, drug lords, and their ilk wit well trained National Guardsmen?"
ReplyDeleteNow that's something I can get behind. Gang members make up about 1% of the American population, but are responsible for over half of the violent crimes in this country.
Albert asked, "Seven knuckleheads in three states does not a crime wave make, and how many did they have to ask to get those seven?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point and a good question. I don't think it's limited to just seven total. I think whatever the numbers were, you can reasonably estimate from them the extent of the problem. But, not if you try to say there were only seven knuckleheads.
It was more like 60% or 70% of those approached, which when multiplied by all the dealers doing "private sales" is a lot.
In this case one more law is needed. It's the one which demands background checks on all transfers. Of course some people will still do what they want, but many will not. Many of these guys are not dedicated criminals and would stop contributing to the problem. The problem won't magically go away, no one ever said that, but it would diminish.
In this case one more law is needed. It's the one which demands background checks on all transfers.
ReplyDeleteSo, someone says they can't pass a background check, and are from another state, and someone else sells them a firearm (inspite committing a felony). And you believe that requiring all transfers to have a background check will fix that?
Do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy too?
I think they are disgusting. They should've put time and money into proscuting these jerks.
ReplyDeleteThere's under cover cops, posing as civilians, who investigate police depts. So why not have undercover agents cruising gun shows, and arresting folks like this. Cheaper than dealing with legislation....
Reputo - Even in cases where multiple laws are being broken MikeB thinks that "One More Law" will suddenly change things.
ReplyDeleteIt's mindnumbingly stupid, but that's his position.