Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Straw Buyers Account for 90%

The Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune reports on the problem of straw purchases of guns.

"Say a couple comes in, and the male is looking at guns while the female doesn't do anything, and finally he says, 'I will take this gun,'" said the owner of Koscielski's Guns and Ammo in south Minneapolis. "We hand him the federal form, and he will hand it to his girlfriend or wife. Can't do that."

That's how federal authorities want gun sellers to respond to "straw buyers" -- people with no criminal record who buy a gun and then hand it over someone who can't legally buy one because they're a criminal, mentally ill or underage.


Do you think that's how most of them do it? I seriously doubt it.

Experts estimate that 90 percent of guns used in crimes come through this "gray market," said Bernard Zapor, special agent in charge of the St. Paul field division of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

At some point, someone is taking those guns from the lawful market to the unlawful market, he said. Whether it's someone looking to make an extra buck or a girlfriend doing a favor for a boyfriend, it's illegal.

Recently it's been suggested that most of the guns in criminal hands come from theft. It's odd that the ATF experts can differ so drastically from that idea. According to them, less than 10% are stolen and the vast majority are funnelled into the criminal world through straw purchases.

Of course it's a lot easier to defend the lawful gun owners who are victims of theft, something which I happen to dispute, but it's a lot easier to do that than to defend all those gun dealers who are allowing, by turning a blind eye, or actually assisting in straw purchases.

What's your opinion? Is this 90% figure too high? It would certainly place a spotlight of blame on the gun sellers wouldn't it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

22 comments:

  1. 90% percent or not it is certainly a problem, but what can be done about it? I'm not sure how much more "illegaler" it can be made.

    ReplyDelete
  2. > I seriously doubt it.

    You're right to have doubts. Calling de facto illegal straw purchases a "gray market" is incorrect. The article is also inaccurate about how Klebold acquired weapons.

    90 percent sounds really high. That agent probably transposed the numbers.

    The penalty for a straw purchase conviction is indeed a felony. That fits your "one strike you're out" ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem is that there is no accurate figure for how many firearms are actually stolen.

    First off, ATF's position is that guns which are allegedly stolen are guns which are trafficked. When a gun is recovered, the "original purchaser" (OP) says the gun was stolen.

    Hence, the rather symbolic reporting of lost or stolen firearms laws.

    The thought is that firearms which are actually stolen will be reported, otherwise the OP can be charged with failing to report the theft w/in 24-48 hours.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  4. 90% of made-up bullshit statistics come from government employees.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thankfully because all firearms transactions go through the state here in Massachusetts we have no gun crimes and no "gray market"...right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would certainly place a spotlight of blame on the gun sellers wouldn't it?

    A straw purchase does not indicate any intent or even knowledge on the part of the seller. Criminals are known for their deceit. I guess that doesn't fit your narrative here, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's probably higher than 90%.

    Consider this: taking a look at the Bloomberg stings--we know a fairly large percentage of FFLs are more than willing to sell guns to folks who openly admit they are prohibited to buy firearms. Now, when you have a straw purchaser, FFLs have all the legal cover they want and need to sell guns.

    And that's just the first tier point of sale.

    You also have the secondary market where folks buy firearms--then turn around and sell them as "private transactions."

    Anon claims that making a straw purchase is a felony. Of course, the law is written that makes it virtually impossible to enforce. The same goes for for lying on a 4473. Gunloons often point to the laws and claim that they can't make such practices more "illegaler"--while fully understanding that the chances of being caught and prosecuted are nil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, I realize the usual gunloons will bleat and whine about my comments re straw purchases--but, per usual, I can back them up.

    The felon G. Gordon Liddy often brags that as a convicted felon, he is barred from buying or owning any firearms. Yet, Liddy will often brag that his wife owns lots of guns. And that some of those guns are found under his side of the bed, in his desk drawer, and in his pickup.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RuffRidr, in his typically biased and exaggerated way said, "A straw purchase does not indicate any intent or even knowledge on the part of the seller."

    Do you mean never? Are you saying that the unscrupulous gun dealer who allows an obvious straw purchase to take place is a total fabrication and never ever happens?

    Or are you just exaggerating a little, as per your usual method, and what you really mean is that type of FFL guy represents only .00001% of the group?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 90 percent sounds really high. That agent probably transposed the numbers.

    Which leads to the converse of Jadegold's comment.

    If 90% of all firearms used by criminals are stolen, that is a good argument that firearms are not the best method of home protection.

    After all, it doesn't really make any sense to have something for "protection" if there is a strong chance that it will be used against you.

    But the real point is that there are no accurate figures for how many firearms are stolen. I pointed out that ATF doesn't hold that the number is accurate since their position is that traffickers will say "the gun was stolen" when it turns up at a crime scene.

    Either way, large number of guns stolen or large number of guns enter the black market through straw purchases, the fact remains that most illegal firearms start out as legal items.

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you mean never? Are you saying that the unscrupulous gun dealer who allows an obvious straw purchase to take place is a total fabrication and never ever happens?

    No, I'm sure there are some unscrupulous dealers out there. I have no problem with the BATFE cracking down on them will the full force of the law. Good detective work should be able to track these dealers down.

    Your original comment made it sound as if you believe most gun sellers to be dishonest. I don't think you quite understand how easy it is for a person to make a straw purchase for someone without the seller's knowledge. If they pass the checks and don't specifically make a remark about buying for someone else, then how would you ever know? If you have some way of divining the intent of the buyer, then you should let us know. I'm sure the BATFE as well as thousands of FFL across the country would love to know your method. Or is it that you once again offer no real solutions?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eviscerating Ruffy, one by one:

    No, I'm sure there are some unscrupulous dealers out there. I have no problem with the BATFE cracking down on them will the full force of the law. Good detective work should be able to track these dealers down.

    Really? You support the Tiahrt Amendment which makes it very difficult for law enforcement agencies to associate guns used in crimes with gun dealers. Further, whenever the BATF does crack down on FFLs who break the law, you're the first to whine about it.

    Your original comment made it sound as if you believe most gun sellers to be dishonest. I don't think you quite understand how easy it is for a person to make a straw purchase for someone without the seller's knowledge.

    Come now, even you don't believe that. Even if you did--why wouldn't you support laws that would largely eliminate straw purchases?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course Jade appears to just want better laws for stronger enforcement...hence why he's all about letting criminals go after they get caught with illegal guns.
    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/lakeisha-gadson-acquitted.html

    So full of shit they don't even bother to attempt to hide it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Really? You support the Tiahrt Amendment which makes it very difficult for law enforcement agencies to associate guns used in crimes with gun dealers.

    You're either willfully ignorant or you don't understand the amendment. It restricts firearms trace data to the public. There are no such restrictions on law enforcement agencies. The BATFE can and does already use trace data to track down straw purchasers and to investigate unscrupulous dealers.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ruffy: Your explanation demonstrates you don't kow what's in the Tiahrt Amendment. Not only doe the TA restrict the public from getting the info--it prevents law enforcement from sharing the info except in very limited circumstances.

    For example, let's say I'm a police dept. in East Pitchfork, OK. I notice, by luck, that several guns used in crime can be traced back to the XYZ gun shop. While I can access data related to the specific crimes associated with those guns--I cannot request to see what other crime guns have been traced back to XYZ.

    ReplyDelete
  16. While I can access data related to the specific crimes associated with those guns--I cannot request to see what other crime guns have been traced back to XYZ.

    Bzzzzt, wrong. This was fixed in the 2010 revision to the Tiahrt Amendment. The change enables law enforcement agencies to have full access to the trace database to analyze trafficking patterns.

    Try to keep up, would ya?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bzzzt. So sorry...you're wrong, Ruffy.

    But we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

    The 2010 change allowed LEOs slightly greater access to data regarding ongoing criminal investigations. It does not allow for research into suspected criminal activity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. A Major problem, the Tiahrt Amendment violates the the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Even though it allows law enforcement more access, they are still limited to how they can use that trace data.

    But even without Tiahrt, the ATF is limited in its power to enforce the firearms laws. The current US firearms laws were written in order to make enforcement difficult (note all the need to prove "knowledge" in them).

    Again, RoughRider shoots himself in the foot by showing that the current state of US gun laws is inadaquate to prevent the flow of firearms into the hands of criminals and the insane.

    Personally, I find the the "gun rights" position is far more anti-gun than one which believes in gun control.

    Eventually people will become frustrated with the current situation and demand that the laws are tightened up. The Heller-McDonald decisions allow for reasonable regulation.

    Then again, P.T. Barnum always pointed out that "nodbody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

    Laci

    ReplyDelete
  19. I love how Jade keeps pointing out that the Tiahrt amendment keeps law enforcement from doing traces, yet he and MikeB will point out story after story where the ATF and other law enforcement agencies were able to do the trace, despite the Tiahrt amendment.


    How can that be????

    ReplyDelete
  20. Laci's owner, you have made several lapses in logic in your past posts. I'll ignore Jade for now since he is too easy.

    Criminals don't obtain firearms limited to straw purchase or theft, so you can't put one in a 10% and the other in a 90% bucket. In reality, both methods we're currently discussing make up 8-12% depending on the citation source.

    Less than half of ATF investigations on traffickers involve straw purchasing--which isn't a representative sample either since straws are much easier to investigate with their inherent paper trail.

    You also state erroneously that a gun is useless for defense since it's more likely to be used against you. In actuality, those using guns for offense have their guns used against them far more often.

    You also seem to be denouncing presumption of innocence and reversal of the burden of proof standards. I hope that works out for you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said, "Criminals don't obtain firearms limited to straw purchase or theft, so you can't put one in a 10% and the other in a 90% bucket. In reality, both methods we're currently discussing make up 8-12% depending on the citation source."

    I'm sorry, you lost me. If straw purchases and theft account for only 12% of the guns in criminal hands, where do the rest come from.

    Oh, wait a minute, the rest are lawful gun owners gone bad. Of course. What else is there?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mike, you're repeating Laci's error in assuming a finite set of sources.

    Look up an authoratative source that may provide an insight to truth.

    Youre ass doesn't count.

    ReplyDelete