The city of Sharonville today released a statement in response to an undercover investigation by New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg into illegal gun sales. The investigation, which covered seven gun shows in three states, including the Sharonville Convention Center, allegedly showed how easy it is for criminals to buy firearms at gun shows.
When we discussed this the other day, there was certainly no shortage of critical comments. Some pro-gun guys however did admit that the transactions highlighted in the report were illegal and should simply be prosecuted. The Sharonville complaint seems to be that Bloomberg had no authority to do what he did and as a result what his team discovered cannot be pursued legally. But the article goes on to simply deny that wrongdoing occurs.
Our Convention Center has provided the venue for these and many other events over the past 15 years without a single violation being reported by any law enforcement agency.
It should be noted that federal agencies are actively involved in monitoring and enforcing these gun shows including the one represented in the investigation. The violations referred to are federal and not state. The City of Sharonville does not have jurisdiction over federal laws, but does take any violation very seriously.
To our knowledge no federal agency was informed of this private investigation and, therefore, makes enforcement of these particular incidents impossible.
Is the author of the Sharonville response saying that no crime has ever taken place, as far as they know, but if it has, it's not their concern because it would be federal, and besides, Bloomberg messed up the whole thing anyway by not informing the proper authorities? Is that about it?
Wha's your opinion? Do you think the Bloomberg investigation succeeded in showing how easy it is to buy guns at gun shows, even if you're a prohibited person? Don't you think that was the point?
What's your opinion? Is the Sharonville Ohio response representative of the "turning a blind eye" which I've accused the pro-gun folks of doing? To me it seems like a perfect illustration.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
I think Ohio has special problems. Ohio is traditionally Republican territory. The problem they have is that they have a large population of blacks and minorities and they have a history of passing laws that aren't friendly to minorities.
ReplyDeleteThey are at a crossroads.
Democrats in Ohio need to protest to be heard. It's very much a state in flux.
The gun thing is just a distraction. I'm sure they know they have dealers selling guns illegally. Until they get called on them, it's not going to stop.
A riot or two wouldn't hurt Ohio. It might actually help them work out their problems.
Wow--aren't we traveling far afield right from the get-go! A post about Bloomberg's Junior G-Man "sting" operation, designed to elicit media support for his anti-gun show crusade (which the media fawningly granted) has, with the very first comment, turned--somehow--into a discussion about partisan politics, race relations, and violent protest.
ReplyDeleteJust to make the hijacking complete, maybe we should talk about UFOs, or Britney Spears, or something, now.
beowulf,
ReplyDeleteReally? Playing the UFO card so soon. Don't you know it is all just a cover-up for the Sharonville FEMA deathcamp?
Anon's B.S. aside, what the city of Sharonville is saying is very simple. They have never heard of any complaint being filed for criminal activity at their convention center--that is an easy thing for them to verify as any legitimate complaint would be filed. Secondly, the only crime that they can see happening in these quick silly video clips--which really have no evidential value--would be Federal violations and Sharonville does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute Federal crimes.
What would you have Sharonville do?
While there are many gunowners who oppose more regulation on rights grounds, there are also many gunowers like me who are willing to compromise on a system that would enable and require private sellers to access the background check system at gun shows. The main obtacle to such compromise has been the intrangience and extremism of gun control advocates. For example: I would consider legislation giving private sellers at gun shows access to the current instant background check system, but gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more, which is unacceptable to gunowners. Also, in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns there by attempting to ban them in the most popular (or sometimes only) locations. This recently occurred in California, and is obviously unacceptable to gunowners. Moderate gunowners are open to reasonable compromise: Background checks for sales by private sellers at gun shows IF gun control advocates agree to NOT abolish the instant check system and NOT continue to attack gun shows. But gun control advocates have NOT been open to reasonable compromise.
ReplyDeleteI'm most definitely not a moderate gun owner, FishyJay (I suspect that even many of my fellow extremists would sometimes prefer that I pipe down), and therefore I don't agree with the compromises you're talking about, but you do make some excellent points. There isn't a compromise that will satisfy the anti-gun crowd, as illustrated beautifully by your California example.
ReplyDeleteWhy not have a system similar to the Curio and Relic licence? Someting where a collector will keep a record of the transactions?
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that the instant check system, when it's up, works incredibly quickly. And there should be enough FFL holders to complete the transaction at a gunshow willing to do this for a fee.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteIt is already against the law for a prohibited person to buy a firearm.
Why should non-criminals have to pay more (can't expect an FFL to run the check for free) to do something that is already covered by law?
More and more of these type of laws are simply trying to make firearm ownership too expensive or cumbersome for the average person.
Even if a mandatory background check was implemented, do you think it would stop criminals from getting firearms? I don't. Not one.
So, why do it if it won't stop the problem and cause a greater barrier for the legitimate buyer?
Laci: "The thing is that the instant check system, when it's up, works incredibly quickly."
ReplyDeleteYES -- but the other thing is that gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more. They need to rupudiate that position before the speed of the instant check system can be used as reason for gunowners to accept further restrictions.
What would I have the city of Sharonville do, asks FatWhiteMan.
ReplyDeleteI'd have them just shut up. I'd have them not take the aggressive and write all that nonsense in response to what Bloomberg did. Everything they wrote was technically true but morally dirty. No reports of wrongdoing ever received, and if there had been any, they would have been federal so they wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway. Besides, they pointed out, Bloomberg interfered with any federal investigations that might have been ongoing.
They know, just like the rest of you know, private sales are an open door for criminals. Why do you cover for them and continue to make them possible?
I'd have them just shut up. I'd have them not take the aggressive and write all that nonsense in response to what Bloomberg did. Everything they wrote was technically true but morally dirty.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to Bloomberg and his ilk who have the high road here by setting up "sting" operations with no authority, and then doing nothing to report the illegal activity to the proper authorities (BATFE). Maybe because, since they didn't have authority to do the "stings" in the first place, what they were doing was ILLEGAL.
Says Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteEverything they wrote was technically true but morally dirty.
How can the truth ("technical" truth, or not) be "dirty"?
By the way, will anyone join me in emailing the BATFE (ATFMail@atf.gov.), asking if there is any investigation pending, looking into the possibility (probability, it seems to me) that Bloomberg is guilty of conspiracy to commit straw purchases? I won't be holding my breath, of course, but we might as well see what weak-ass excuses they offer--if they even bother to respond at all.
"They know, just like the rest of you know, private sales are an open door for criminals. Why do you cover for them and continue to make them possible?"
ReplyDeleteBecause 10's of thousands of non-criminal sales happen every year in Ohio--far more than are criminal. I like going over to my friend's home and trading guns without having to call the Feds and get their permission.
If some punk decides to break the law and buy or sell a gun to a prohibited person then another law will have no affect on their already criminal activity. However, another law would affect me.
Show us how a law barring private transfers without the nanny state's approval will stop a criminal from breaking laws?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSays FWM:
ReplyDeleteShow us how a law barring private transfers without the nanny state's approval will stop a criminal from breaking laws?
Actually, FWM, I think you can shorten that sentence. By requiring that every transfer be accompanied by a background check (and remember, Mikeb scolds us for calling it the "gun show loophole" even though it's his side's term), because the real goal is background checks on all sales.
So you can remove the "without the nanny state's approval," and just say, "Show us how a law barring private transfers will stop a criminal from breaking laws?"--because that's what we're talking about here--banning private transfers.
Obviously, no sale that requires approval by the government, after looking into the identity and history of the prospective buyer, can be considered to be "private," by any rational meaning of the word.
Also, have you ever noticed any of these folks calling for private sales bans who don't also advocate repealing the requirement for destruction of sales records? That means that what they're really advocating is de facto registration of every gun sold (after they get their legislation in place).
That's a line in the sand that we MUST NOT allow ourselves to be pushed back from--even if standing our ground means we have to stack bodies on top of that line.
I've been thinking about these silly videos and just read a story on the New York Daily News that says the ATF may investigate these "dealers".
ReplyDeleteI really doubt the ATF will investigate as the investigation will have to end at the mayor's door.
Think about this: In order for there to have been a crime and charge these private sellers, the sellers would have to knowingly sell to a person prohibited from owning these firearms such as a resident from another state, a felon, etc. Therefore, both parties need to be prosecuted. The buyer with the camera is either a prohibited person and cannot legally purchase the guns and the seller knows this and sells to him anyway, or, the buyer is an Ohio resident not otherwise prohibited and can purchase the guns legally. If the latter is the case, then the seller has done nothing wrong.
So, either there is no crime here or there is a criminal conspiracy controlled and financed by a criminal enterprise headed by Mayor Bloomberg.
If the ATF does any real investigation, either they will find that no real crime took place or Bloomberg needs to go to jail. Knowing this, my bet is there will be no investigation.
Exactly, FWM. It takes two to tango. There can't be a "straw sale" without a "straw purchase." If there was a "straw purchase," then Bloomberg is the head of a conspiracy to commit a federal felony. That's why I'm urging everyone to contact the BATFE, and ask them if they plan to look into the possibility of Bloomberg and his goons having committed multiple federal felonies.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, do you have a link to that NY Daily News story? I could use that.
Says, uh . . . I:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, do you have a link to that NY Daily News story? I could use that.
Never mind, FWM--I think I found it. Thanks for the heads-up.
Background checks make sense for all sales, not just some of the sales.
ReplyDeleteIf you are afraid of the extra cost of a background check, maybe you shouldn't be buying a gun? Once you buy a gun you have to pay for bullets, you know? If you can't afford the background check, how are you ever going to be able to pay for ammo?
FWM says, "I like going over to my friend's home and trading guns without having to call the Feds and get their permission."
ReplyDeleteI can't deny that it sounds awfully unfair to interfere with that. But, what if your "friend" has a history of slapping his girlfriends around and you don't know it? What if he's planning on passing the gun to his brother-in-law who has a little problem with teh drugs and you don't know that?
I believe there are many situations in which lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience they've enjoyed up till now. The gun violence is bad enough that we all need to be willing to help. Don't you think?
Says Mikeb, presumably with a straight face:
ReplyDeleteWhat if he's planning on passing the gun to his brother-in-law who has a little problem with teh drugs and you don't know that?
And a background check on my friend will prevent him from going through with that plan of passing the gun on to his brother-in-law . . . how, exactly?
I believe there are many situations in which lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience they've enjoyed up till now. The gun violence is bad enough that we all need to be willing to help.
And your contribution (as an unlawful gun owner, I take it?), is to . . . tell us about those sacrifices that we need to make--what infringements upon that which shall not be infringed we must accept, right? How noble of you. Now that Obama has his Nobel Prize, maybe you should get one next year.
I have a tendency toward verbosity, but I think I can sum up my response to your call for "sacrifices" on the part of gun owners in two words: "shoveitupyour," and "ass."
bneowulf asked, "And a background check on my friend will prevent him from going through with that plan of passing the gun on to his brother-in-law . . . how, exactly?"
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you how exactly. Your friend is an honest guy, like you. He passed the background check and was able to get the gun from you. He wouldn't give or sell the gun to his drug addict brother-in-law without making the brother-in-law do the background check. So it stops there. Get it?
Tell me the truth, beowulf. Are you playing hard to get on this? Did I really have to spell it out for you?
"Background checks make sense for all sales, not just some of the sales.
ReplyDeleteIf you are afraid of the extra cost of a background check, maybe you shouldn't be buying a gun?"
Well that depends. In Washington DC to buy a handgun you need to pay $150 to get a transfer from the one gun shop in the district who will do that. So let's say you want to buy the VERY nice S&W M&P 9 (It's probably getting adopted by more police departments than any other make of firearm) The gun sells for about $600 new, Probably $450 used.
That $150 is probably a good 6 months worth of ammo costs:
http://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-115-gr-fmj-brown-bear-500-rounds
Maybe more, as Licky Gunner doesn't really blow me away with it's prices, I bet my local shop could top them.
But that's the least of the problem. Right now for a NICS check you need to go face-to-face with an 01 or 02 FFL to do the transfer. Where's your nearest one? I just happen to have two shops within 10 mins of my house, but my Buddy it was more than an hour in any direction.
I know guys who have to travel 2-3. And this is all East Coast! Think about the midwest where you might be a good hour from the GROCERY STORE, let alone a gun shop.
Also look in other threads about the issue with the ATF and anti-gun groups attacking FFLs.
What if all but 1-2 FFLs get shut down in your state?
That's a big problem!
Bigger still, is by transferring through a store you are essentially given the government access to a full gun registration.
That's the biggest problem!
I have an interesting thread going on such topics here:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/560158.html
You'll note MikeB doesn't dare comment on it.
Your friend is an honest guy, like you. He passed the background check and was able to get the gun from you. He wouldn't give or sell the gun to his drug addict brother-in-law without making the brother-in-law do the background check. So it stops there.
ReplyDeleteSorry I don't get it. Are you saying that because there would be a background check required FWM's friend doesn't beat his girlfriend and give his brother the gun? How exactly does that work (has it ever worked anywhere before - i.e passing a law prevents people from breaking the law)? If FWM and his friend are both honest (as you later insinuate), they why accuse his friend of beating his girlfriend and supplying his druggie brother with guns?
Your logic is truly mind boggling!
Reputo - the background check laws work for them because they are honest, law-abiding folks.
ReplyDeleteOf course the gangbangers, drug dealers, murderers felons etc. are going to buy, sell trade, possess and use guns as they always have, completely unconcerned and unencumbered by background checks they've never bothered with in the 1st place.
Yeah Mike's little story is a crock.
ReplyDeleteUnder current law when you sell a gun to somebody you're responsible for that sale. If I lived in a state where I could privately sell a gun (I don't) I could go to jail if some nice guy who I knew bought a gun from me, and turned out to be a wife-beater, or a felon, or an addict ect ect. Because of that I'd need to know who's buying my guns reasonable well, or be able to verify their legal status, or at WORST have information to pass off to Law Enforcement to aid in dismissal of charges.
This would mean I'd only sell to friends and close acquaintances, people who could show me a CCW permit (as non-legal people can't acquire those), I might accept an active service ID. At the LEAST I'd want a photocopy of their state drivers license (that would need to be the same state as mine).
If you know a person is a prohibited person, it's a crime to sell to them. If you pass a universal background check law, a person who was willing to make an illegal sale before is NOT going to change their mind because of an additional law.
Says Mikeb, with straight face presumably still intact:
ReplyDeleteTell me the truth, beowulf. Are you playing hard to get on this? Did I really have to spell it out for you?
Others have deftly replied to that, but basically, you didn't make clear that the friend was supposedly honest and in compliance with all the infringements on that which shall not be infringed, or that he was unaware of the brother-in-law's drug problems. The friend in your previous example, after all, was not exactly a stand up guy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, in my comment here, where I urged folks to email the BATFE, and demand that they investigate possible federal felonies on Bloomberg's part, I screwed up the email address (sorry)--here it is again: ATFMail@atf.gov.
ReplyDeleteThe first time, I accidentally included the period at the end of the sentence as part of the address.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "I believe there are many situations in which lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience they've enjoyed up till now."
ReplyDeleteEarlier in these comments I agreed to just such sacrifice, asking only for some reasonable compromise in return. I have posted similar on other gun controller sites (such as HuffPo) -- without response from gun control advocates.
They seem to want gunowners to capitulate to their demands without question or compromise -- at which point will come the next set of demands. The result: Moderate gunowners who would otherwise support some gun controls wind up siding with the NRA.
FishyJay, Mikeb thinks that Chicago's total ban of handguns is a "moderate" position--any "compromises" he offers would demand nothing less than utter, unconditional, ignominious, cowardly surrender on the part of gun owners (the legal ones, that is).
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I do have to commend Mikeb for one thing (my emphasis added):
ReplyDeleteI believe there are many situations in which lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience they've enjoyed up till now.
At least he acknowledges that that it's the lawful gun owners who get the shaft, and that the criminals would not be affected.
I'm still curious what's wrong with my comments that you keep deleting...
ReplyDeleteIsn't it amazing how Laci's comments never get deleted despite containing vicious personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteOr Daisy's.
But my comments and yours Weer'd seem to disappear quite often.
It's almost as if MikeB doesn't mind personal attacks as long as they don't question his motivation or honesty.
Well the comments I make are referencing something that MikeB openly admits.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand, it would be like me deleting comments when people make references to me being pro gay rights...or you, Bob, deleting comments about being a step-dad.
If MikeB is so damned ashamed of this thing, why does he talk about it all over the internet?
So, Weer'd Beard, you're telling me that the guy who tells us that "lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience [Mikeb's term for Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights] . . . " is (or has been) himself an unlawful gun owner? Hmm--does anyone else smell hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteOh, as if you couldn't smell hypocrisy before.
ReplyDeleteWell, he does a pretty good job of covering up the hypocrisy smell with quart bottles of Righteous Indignation and Self-Proclaimed Moral Superiority.
beowulf, Weer'd's lying in an attempt to personally attack me. Why do you think he hasn't provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I'm supposed to have done?
ReplyDeleteI won't allow personal attacks when they become too vicious or too repetitious. (and I'm sorry about how you feel about Laci, but I'm the judge on my own blog, you can think what you like). If necessary I'll re-engage the comment moderation. But before doing that, I make the Rodney King appeal to you, why can't we all just get along?
MikeB - You've specifically admitted to being an illegal gun owner yourself ON THIS VERY SITE and you're pissed when Weer'd brings it up.
ReplyDeleteCry me a river.
Little while ago, this post had 41 comments didn't it?
ReplyDeleteNow at 2:05 central time, it has 39.
Seems like MikeB is deleting comments to avoid something.
Wonder what it could be and how does that affect what we should believe about him?
How does everyone feel about a person who says one thing (won't delete comments unless a very narrow cause) then turns around and does another (deletes comments)?
Bob, Your attempt to support Weer'd in his obsessive attacking of me is worse than foolish. I've left it up to show that when you turn the entire direction of the thread towards my deleting comments and what that might mean, it is itself a personal attack of me.
ReplyDeleteI put the comment moderation back on, not because I have anything to hide, as you so stupidly suggested, but because I've repeatedly asked for no more personal attacks and you keep sending them.
This thread was about Ohio's response to Bloomberg, did you forget that?
Mikeb, I have no expectation of this getting past your censorship, er . . . I mean "moderation," but that's fine--I'll just talk to you. It's pretty clear that Weer'd Beard has caught you in at least one lie, dead to rights. You then compounded that lie, by denying it, and accusing him of lying, for calling you on it. My question is, what possible reason could you have to incinerate whatever credibility you once had? Sure, you can stop us from commenting here, but do you think many of your regular readers are not going to find out elsewhere that your integrity and honor are shot to hell?
ReplyDeleteI don't get it.
By the way, I think you know this, because I made little real effort to hide it, but in case you don't, I (beowulf) am actually 45superman. After I angrily stomped off, I thought I'd look kinda silly if I came right back--something that I strangely couldn't help doing--you being one of the very few anti-gun extremists who allow commenting (until now, perhaps?). So, I came back with a new name, but did little to hide my tracks--no proxy servers, and no effort to disguise my fairly distinctive (distinguished by its numerous weaknesses) writing style.
There was, obviously, no lie involved with the new identity--I was never asked about it, and never denied using a second name. If you want to "expose" me, that's no problem--I'm not making even a minimal effort to hide the pseudonym, anymore.
Anyway, if you want to explain, privately, what the hell you had in mind with the annihilation of your own credibility, you can email me at 45superman@gmail.com.
"By the way, I think you know this, because I made little real effort to hide it, but in case you don't, I (beowulf) am actually 45superman."
ReplyDeleteI didn't know it, and you know why? It's because I don't spend five minutes trying to figure out who people are and where their IP addresses are from and all that. I take people at face value.
I'm flattered that you felt you couldn't help coming back to comment here. I honestly feel you enrich these discussions, even though you've got it all wrong, or nearly all.
About the "annihilation of [my] own credibility" as you so dramatically and exaggeratedly put it, I posted on it today.