A Houston windshield repairman has admitted to helping manage a part of a broader conspiracy to traffic more than 300 military-style weapons across the border, part of a plea deal requiring him to tell federal agents about the ring that supplied weapons to Mexico's fearsome Zetas drug cartel.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has taken down more than a dozen U.S. citizens the agency contends purchased weapons to help fuel a protracted war that has taken thousands of lives south of the border.
The latest, and one of the more significant players, was Christian Garza, 26, who admitted in federal court Friday to conspiring to lie to gun dealers about where the weapons were headed.
Although the Houston Chronicle is still talking about "military-style weapons," a description that no one really likes, they do get the problem exactly right: "the agency contends purchased weapons help fuel a protracted war that has taken thousands of lives south of the border."
No mention of the percentage, no blaming the U.S. entirely for the problem, just simply stating that these smuggling operations "help fuel" the war.
The interesting thing is what Christian Garza did.
The crime by which investigators repeatedly snag culprits is that when they purchase guns for the cartel, they claim on an official application that the guns are for their own use, when in fact they are not.
This is referred to as "a straw purchase." The gun control suggestion about registering guns to specific owners would put a big obstacle in an operation like this. After several purchases, the buyer could be required by the ATF to produce the weapons to prove they've not been smuggled. Is that too much government intervention for the gun owners? Is that too invasive into the rights of gun owners? I don't think so. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
"Is that too much government intervention for the gun owners? Is that too invasive into the rights of gun owners?"
ReplyDeleteFederal registration of firearms is illegal and has been since 1986.
Although drug trafficking is already illegal in Mexico, those laws are insufficient--obviously Mexican citizens need to give up more rights in order to solve the drug problems we have here in the US.
ReplyDelete(That's sarcasm, in case you can't tell)
After several purchases, the buyer could be required by the ATF to produce the weapons to prove they've not been smuggled.
ReplyDeleteAs usual MikeB you show yourself to be an anti-rights bigot.
I live in the U.S., and as such I do NOT have to prove my innocence under the assumption that my legal activity COULD be smuggling.
I know, rights and silly trivial things like presumption of innocence must really piss you off.
Mike W. says in his usual exaggerating manner, "I know, rights and silly trivial things like presumption of innocence must really piss you off."
ReplyDeleteActually those things don't piss me off at all. What bothers me is the abuse and manipulation of rights.
How about when someone buys a gun it's registered to them and they have to be responsible for it. They cannot sell it or give it away unless a background check is done on the perspective new owner and the ownership document is transferred to the new guy. This way, the ATF can ask anyone anytime to produce their weapons to show they possess the ones they've bought. What's wrong with something like that? Why would law abiding people who have nothing to hide object to that? Wouldn't the inconvenience be worth it for the great good of diminishing the gun flow?
It's no exaggeration. You just flat out said that gun owners should have to PROVE their own innocence, rather than the government proving they're guilty of a crime.
ReplyDeleteAs usual you have as much contempt for the rest of the BOR as you do for the 2nd.
This way, the ATF can ask anyone anytime to produce their weapons to show they possess the ones they've bought.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to live somewhere where the phrase "papers please" is a common thing you go right ahead and move to Russia. I'll enjoy my freedoms as an American.
And again with presumption of innocence. The onus is on the government to prove wrongdoing, not on the citizen.
There is NO reason the ATF should ever be in my home. If they want to check my weapons they are free to do so with a warrant.
Mike W. said "You just flat out said that gun owners should have to PROVE their own innocence."
ReplyDeleteI said nothing of the kind. Why do you keep twisting my words in order to change their meaning so you can attack something I didn't say in the first place? You give new meaning to the word "contentious."
Mike W. again: "If you want to live somewhere where the phrase "papers please" is a common thing you go right ahead and move to Russia."
ReplyDeleteHave you never been stopped by the police for a traffic violation? The first thing they do is say "papers please."
Do you resist that, Mike? Do you immediately go into a big song and dance about your rights?
I said nothing of the kind.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely did say that. You said that at any given time the ATF should be able to enter my house and demand that I prove all of my guns were purchased legally.
You just flat out said that gun owners should have to prove their own innocence, rather than the government having to prove they committed a crime.
Have you never been stopped by the police for a traffic violation? The first thing they do is say "papers please."
ReplyDeleteAs usual your analogy is false and totally illogical. The police are pulling me over for a violation of the law NOT for the purpose of checking my papers. They had cause to pull me over.
Mike, sometimes the police pull people over because their hair is too long or their skin is too black. They ask for a drivers license and registration and proof of insurance.
ReplyDelete