Francisco Javier Reyes, 29, is suspected of running the underground venture while he worked for the Oklahoma anti-drug agency, court records show. He was released on bail. Neither Reyes nor his lawyer returned calls seeking comment.I don't suppose they have the one-gun-a-month rule down there. In Oklahoma they wouldn't stand for such an onerous restriction on their god-given rights. But, don't you think it would significantly slow down this kind of operation? If straw buyers are really so difficult to identify, which I don't completely believe, wouldn't it make sense to limit their purchasing power, even at the cost of inconveniencing the others?Court papers said Reyes recruited at least two men to act as “straw buyers” to purchase .50-caliber guns and assault-style rifles for him in Oklahoma. One has not been charged, and the other has since died under circumstances that relatives said are suspicious, according to court records.
The documents said Reyes paid the buyers $50 to $100 for each gun they bought, which made him a target of Project Gunrunner, an ATF initiative aimed at gun traffickers.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
MikeB: “I don't suppose they have the one-gun-a-month rule down there”
ReplyDeleteNor do they in any of your gun control states. Their laws only apply to handguns, not rifles.
Guess what one gun a month does do.
ReplyDeleteIt makes it harder for the ATF to trace bulk purchasors of handguns.
By state law preventing the sale, they preempt the FFL from reporting multiple purchases as required by federal law.
Unintended consequences.
Now how did they find this narcotics officer? Surely it's impossible without these so-called common-sense gun laws that you guys keep calling for.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteMikeB loves posting stories of how law enforcement is successful in stopping criminals in states with "lax" gun laws.
I have never followed his logic: laws are working, cops are successful, criminals are caught so we need more laws????
I don't suppose they have the one-gun-a-month rule down there.
ReplyDeleteWould it have mattered? Gun control advocates don't typically support restrictions for law enforcement officers, as they elevate them to a higher status, so this individual likely would have still been able to obtain as many guns as he wished.
"It makes it harder for the ATF to trace bulk purchasors of handguns."
ReplyDeleteLogic is not your friend.
One gun a month prevents bulk purchasing of firearms. Conceivably, you could have a bad guy willing to amass a number of weapons over the period of several years but it wouldn't be economically feasible.
"Gun control advocates don't typically support restrictions for law enforcement officers, as they elevate them to a higher status, so this individual likely would have still been able to obtain as many guns as he wished."
ReplyDeleteA small detail ignored by Ruffy is that in cases where law enforcement are involved in gun trafficking--there are always civilian gun dealers who are complicit in the criminal actions. There's a case down in Humble TX where the local cop shop was selling its guns to a gun dealer/range operator.
Jadefool wrote:
ReplyDelete"Logic is not your friend.
One gun a month prevents bulk purchasing of firearms. Conceivably, you could have a bad guy willing to amass a number of weapons over the period of several years but it wouldn't be economically feasible."
And apparently reading comprehension isn't your friend.
That was his entire point Jade. Thanks for the summary though. It was sage.
"One gun a month prevents bulk purchasing of firearms. Conceivably, you could have a bad guy willing to amass a number of weapons over the period of several years but it wouldn't be economically feasible."
ReplyDeleteOf course Jade, because someone willing to break the law and engage in straw purchasing would never lie about their identity or falsify paperwork. They are all about obeying the law and all.
Jade: “A small detail ignored by Ruffy is that in cases where law enforcement are involved in gun trafficking--there are always civilian gun dealers who are complicit in the criminal actions.”
ReplyDeleteHow was the gun dealer complicit in this case?
Jade: “Logic is not your friend.” (RE It makes it harder for the ATF to trace bulk purchasors of handguns.)
Regardless of your thoughts on how one-a-month laws will deter gun flow, Anon’s statement is still true. It would be harder for the ATF to find and catch gunrunners.
That is some convoluted justification you guys have come up with in this thread. We should allow criminal straw purchasers to buy in bulk so the ATF can the easier track them.
ReplyDeleteIncredible.
No MikeB, you've missed it again.
ReplyDeleteIt's not "let them buy in bulk to make it easier to catch them." It's "the law doesn't work for its stated purpose, so repeal the law."
One gun a month doesn't work, and is actually counterproductive to law enforcement efforts to track guys that are buying in bulk and reselling (possibly illegally).
Incredible, isn't it?
MikeB, all I said was that it is a true statement that it will be harder for the ATF to catch gunrunners. Even when you look at it through gun-hating googles it is something that should be weighed against your benefit of reduced gun flow. I would imagine that the savvy ones are already breaking purchases out by time, location, and quantity of straw purchasers and would not be deterred in the least by one-a-month laws. This law may have the unintended consequence of making them all savvy.
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain demand for guns in the criminal world. The market will meet that demand whatever way possible and one-a-month per person is probably still enough. Still, it is not like straw purchasers are the biggest source of crime guns, so it could easily be made up with more robberies (and therefore more crime victims).
TS, Thanks for your reasoned discourse. Are you saying that theft if the biggest source of guns for criminals rather than straw purchases?
ReplyDelete