Some 7,000 gun stores operate along the U.S.-Mexican border. Most are not required to notify authorities even if an individual buys dozens of assault weapons in a short period. In fiscal 2009 U.S. agents revoked the licenses of just 11 stores for violations. Once the guns are purchased -- usually by "straw" buyers acting on behalf of cartel middlemen -- they are easily trafficked across the border.
Duh, I wonder what should be done? It's really a tough one.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
We could secure our border. That's something we haven't tried.
ReplyDeleteAnd by "secure our border", I mean something other than the overpaid mall security that is our current border patrol.
How do they define "along the border"? I suck at geography, but isn't that nearly four gun stores per mile of border?
ReplyDeleteSounds like they are counting most of the stores in each state that borders Mexico.
Sounds like she wants to remove another Constitutional right from within the so-called constitution free zone.
ReplyDeleteIt is Mexico's problem, not ours. They are the one's with the silly gun laws that they do not enforce against their own drug dealers.
ReplyDelete"Duh, I wonder what should be done? It's really a tough one."
Yeah. It is tough to enforce Mexican laws in Mexico for the Mexicans that are mostly lawless when their own Mexican government that writes silly laws that they themselves cannot enforce.
How about this: Since alcohol is illegal in Pakistan, let's ban alcohol in the U.S. since 90% of the alcohol in Pakistan came from the U.S.
Fat White Man: "How about this: Since alcohol is illegal in Pakistan, let's ban alcohol in the U.S. since 90% of the alcohol in Pakistan came from the U.S."
ReplyDeleteBravo.
Kevin H., Part of the explanation is that each FFL guy does not own a gun shop. Some of those guys work out of their trailers or out of the back of their pickup.
ReplyDeleteMikeb:
ReplyDeleteSome of those guys work out of their trailers or out of the back of their pickup.
Setting aside, for the moment, the fact that an FFL must be associated with a permanent address (meaning that the back of a pickup wouldn't pass jackbooted thug muster), I take it that the operation of a gun dealership without a regular storefront is to be seen as sinister and wrong?
For some reason?
Zorro - Isn't it pathetic that MikeB can't help but lie?
ReplyDeleteIt is my lying opinion that some of those 7,000 FFL guys are criminals in disguise.
ReplyDeleteThe possibility thereof being greatly increased by elimination of the storefront gun shop owners.
So, yes, something very sinister indeed.
So, Mikeb, because of your opinion about the notional "disguised" criminality of some of the licensed dealers, we need to "do something" about all of them?
ReplyDeleteAnd, um--what's this about?
The possibility thereof being greatly increased by elimination of the storefront gun shop owners.
The possibility of what--criminal behavior by gun dealers? How does "eliminating" (sounds a bit ominous) storefront gun dealers increase the possibility of criminal behavior, and who has proposed eliminating them? I know the VPC goes into full-gloat mode when non-storefront gun dealers are persecuted to the point of leaving the business, but I can't figure out what you are even talking about.
Sorry, that was quite an obtuse sentence.
ReplyDeleteThere are 7,000 FFL guys "on the border."
Let's remove all those who have an actual gun shop.
Of the ones that remain, I'd bet you've got a much higher incidence of criminal behaviour than you would among the gun shop owners.
Well, Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader, I guess I'll have to call that something of an improvement--from incomprehensible, to merely ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to learn to lower my standards for you (difficult--I don't tend to spend much time near the bottom of the Mariana Trench).
Thanks for the good laugh. The Mariana Trench line is a good one.
ReplyDeleteBut about the clearer rendering of my idea, which you've upgraded to "ridiculous," I'd like to hear what you say about it.
The FFL guys who don't own gun shops "down along the border" are a bit like those 3,000 or so concealed carry guys in PA who got their licenses from Florida and Utah.
Among these two groups you'll probably find a much higher incindence of criminal activity, don't you think?
Do you personally know ANYONE that has an FFL and doesn't operate a "store"? I just ask, because I know three. I've bought guns from all three at one time or another.
ReplyDeleteThey all take it quite seriously, and even though I knew my friend Ken for two years before I bought a gun from him, he still was a by-the-book, "you've got to come down to my place and do the paperwork" kind of guy.
I've never met an FFL that wasn't. Not one. They work too hard and can lose their FFL over stupid clerical errors, like putting in "PA" instead of "Pennsylvania," or "Y" instead of "Yes."
Witch hunt, much?
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteAmong these two groups you'll probably find a much higher incindence of criminal activity, don't you think?
Perhaps--if we're using "criminal" in the legal sense of the word, rather than the ethical one. In an earlier discussion, though, you gave me the impression that on this blog, you are more interested in dealing with questions of ethics, rather than legality.
If we're talking about "criminality" in the ethical sense, rather than in the legal one, I don't see any reason to believe that either Mexican border FFL holders without storefronts, or PA residents who carry defensive firearms in PA on FL licenses, should be viewed with any kind of heightened suspicion.