Federal law requires each buyer of a firearm complete a Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) certifying he is the “actual buyer of the firearm.” The ATF Form 4473 warns the buyer he is not the actual buyer if he is “acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person,” and making a false statement on the form is a federal crime.
According to the indictment, Morales-Martinez paid an unnamed co-conspirator to buy firearms and paid him a commission based on the number of guns he delivered. It is alleged this person bought some firearms himself and also recruited and paid others, including Blanco, to go to gun stores to illegally purchase the firearms as “straw buyers.” It is alleged the unnamed person instructed the straw buyers to go to several firearms dealers located in Oklahoma City and Woodward, who all were licensed by the ATF to sell firearms, to make the purchases and told them what firearms to buy.
Here's how it should work. When a person fills in that form stating that they themselves are the buyer of the gun, that triggers a registration record automatically. Sometime later they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. If they cannot produce the weapon at that time, they go straight to jail.
In a country where we've got thousands of people incarcerated for possession of marijuana, I don't think that's too severe. After one year of consistent enforcement, the business of straw purchasing will all but disappear.
What do you think? Is that a good plan, or what?
Please leave a comment.
"Sometime later they can expect a visit from local law enforcement."
ReplyDeleteThat is a terrific use of local police. Especially at a time when departments are laying off police officers and local judges and Sheriff's are urging people to arm themselves since the police cannot always protect them.
Lets see, per US government agency USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer annual report 2008, the USDOJ Firearms use by felons survey 2001, FBI UCR & CDC data the truth is this.
ReplyDeleteOnly 4.48% of felons attempt to buy from a licensed source.
Less than 1% of those who attempt to do so are actually prosecuted = 4.48% x 1% max or only .048% of felons are actually prevented from doing exactly what you say. You can show everyone that the 99.942% of felons who are not affected by this, or any other gun control law didn't then go and buy from an unlicensed source (over 1.66 million not prosecuted as per the report) eh?
Then of course factoring in that since less than 1,500 felons a year are prosecuted, and the rate of murders by firearms possessed by felons, that amounts to maybe 1 death and 8 injuries prevented a year for how many tens of millions of dollars spent?
But per police and media reports available due to shots being fired, over the last three years, we can count over 500 people saved from defensive gun uses (Keep & Bear Arms, American Rifleman, etc, etc, etc,)
Then the biggest failure of your premise that registration prevents felons from acquiring firearms. Go to any country that implemented such a gun control, and please regale everyone how their violent crimes involving firearms didn't reduce. Australia, Canada, England 1997, violent crime stayed the same, increased between 30% to 150%. Murders didn't decline etc, etc (see aic.gov, statcan, home office databases).
How is it that Australia & Canada's violent crime rate is twice the US today and England's is 5 times the US today?
How is it that during that same time frame the US violent crime rate has dropped 30% and murder totals by 40% all while useless gun control laws are rescinded and gun ownership at an all time high (FBI UCR & ATF)?
Registration doesn't prevent crime, never has, and anyone who claims different never has any proof to prove otherwise. So in turn anyone who claims this is a valid choice is either an idiot, or the mindless meat puppet at the end of their masters strings, you choose!
When a person fills in that form stating that they themselves are the buyer of the gun, that triggers a registration record automatically.
ReplyDeleteConducting perfectly legal (Constitutionally protected, no less) activity triggers suspicion of criminality, and extreme scrutiny.
Sometime later they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. If they cannot produce the weapon at that time, they go straight to jail.
Hmm . . . a gun-hater who wants to send people to jail for not having a gun--that's . . . creative(ly stupid), at least. And if there's been a fire, an earthquake, a break-in? How about after that visit--how do you intend to intimidate the citizenry to your whims then? The threat of more police visits? So more waste of limited police resources?
In a country where we've got thousands of people incarcerated for possession of marijuana, I don't think that's too severe.
We violate rights and fill our prisons with non-violent victims of the War on Drugs, therefore, it's entirely appropriate that we do the same with non-violent victims of the War on Guns.
Two wrongs do make a right!
"Is that a good plan, or what?"
ReplyDeleteOr what. Definitely "or what."
"Here's how it should work. When a person fills in that form stating that they themselves are the buyer of the gun, that triggers a registration record automatically. Sometime later they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. If they cannot produce the weapon at that time, they go straight to jail."
ReplyDeletePut it on a bill, tough guy, and see how that works for you!
You can crow all you want, little birdie, you'll still lose.
There's a reason why all your ideas are irrelevant, and why only a fistful of mental deviants agree with you.
FWM beat me to it. Our police force are understaffed, underpaid, and overworked as it is.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, police would LOVE being assigned a task of asking people to pull out firearms.
ReplyDeleteIs there any wonder gun owners oppose registration? It gets framed as a minor cost/minor inconvenience, used to help police track guns used in crimes- and why should we have a problem with it? Then some gun controller like MikeB says they also would like to use it as a list to have police show up at your door unannounced, conduct a search, and arrest those in non-compliance.
ReplyDeleteAgain to reiterate a point already mentioned a couple of times- when the police are spending time going door to door to millions of gun owner’s houses, what AREN’T they spending their time doing? You have all these ideas to stop gun flow, but never consider what those resources would take away from, and the negative effect it would have. In the end, you used a story where people got busted under the current law (which you say is unenforceable), to say something needs to change.
TS, I wish I'd said that.
ReplyDeleteVery well done, sir.
Zorro, you’re still Mike’s favorite ;)
ReplyDeleteI know this will bounce of the stupid's tin ear, but why not have reasonable talks with reasonable people on their blog?
ReplyDeleteHow about all the times you legally don't have possession of a gun? I've lent and had guns lent to me by people. "Hey go try this out!" or "Hey borrow my gun when you go hunting, its better than yours!"
I had a buddy lend me his rifle because the thing wouldn't shoot and wanted to see if I could get it running. (Packing grease in the firing pin channel...fixed it!)
I've sent guns back to the factory or to gunsmiths for repairs.
I've had guns live in my safe while the owner was on an extended vacation and having work done on his house. Obviously MikeB would like him arrested because he took precautions against theft!
Again I'd love to see this stupidity placed on a bill and backed buy the Brady Campaign and the Joyce foundation so we can purge the traitors from our nation.
Maybe send the shitbags to Italy, they'll let anything that crawls live there!
TS:
ReplyDeleteZorro, you’re still Mike’s favorite ;)
Good thing you smiled when you said that ;-).
Weer’d beard, since MikeB is on his blog break, I’ll try my best to answer what he would want in those cases:
ReplyDelete“I've lent and had guns lent to me by people.”
That’s a big no-no. Lending or sharing of firearms would be forbidden. You want a particular gun- go buy it yourself (though I am not sure how that helps his goal of reducing the total number of firearms in circulation). I supposed he’d approve of lending if there were a background check (that happens to only be available to FFLs). I think he’d be reasonable enough to go for the instant background check for lending, rather than the 10-day “cool off” mandate.
“I've sent guns back to the factory or to gunsmiths for repairs.”
Since we are talking about full registration, we would have to prearrange a temporary transfer with the FFL.
“I've had guns live in my safe while the owner was on an extended vacation and having work done on his house.”
There would be no sharing of safes either. Since the main goal requiring a safe is to reduce the amount of people who have the means to own guns, this falls right in line with the plan. I keep one gun out of state because I’d be arrested for bringing it home. I guess I am damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
The other case I was thinking about would be people who own multiple properties like a hunting cabin in the woods, or a self-defense firearm at a business location. Not only would the gun have to be registered to a person, but a location as well.
heheh Great points TS!
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad the gun control movement has gone the way of Aryn Nation and other bigoted hate-groups!
The world has woken up to what lies behind the deception of the proponents of gun-control
"Sometime later they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. If they cannot produce the weapon at that time, they go straight to jail."
ReplyDeleteAnd this is one of the many reasons I am against registration. Not only is that a waste of police resources, it's an invasion of privacy as well.
What's next? Police officers showing up at my door to make sure i'm still in possession of my automobile?
Small inconvenience and small cost to virtually eradicate gun flow to criminals. The time and money spent by the police or ATF officers who land the task of checking on recent gun buyers for compliance will be well worth it. Of course it would not be necessary in the first place if you guys were responsible enough to hang on to your guns.
ReplyDeletePerhaps not a single one of the commenters on this blog is an offender, therefore you'd suffer only minor inconvenience yourselves. It would be nothing more than producing your car registration and proof of insurance when asked for it. Of course the ones among the famous 10% who are offenders would suffer. And the big side effect of the whole thing is that no straw purchaser with half a brain would continue buying guns for his gangster friends.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteSmall inconvenience and small cost to virtually eradicate gun flow to criminals.
Are you truly delusional, or just utterly lacking in honesty?
And some of us tend not to look on the trampling of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights as a "small inconvenience," unless you'd care to characterize the stacks of corpses that would be the inevitable result of any attempt to implement and enforce such laws as a "small inconvenience."
Molon Labe, tough guy.
What you call "trampling of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights" I call common sense and doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI'd say you're the delusional one to think you're personal convenience is more important than doing something about the gun problem in the US.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWhat you call "trampling of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights" I call common sense and doing the right thing.
Of course you do--as a pro-tyranny lobbyist, how could you see the trampling of Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights as anything but "common sense and doing the right thing"?
You are, after all, the one who referred to "the tremendous downside of all that freedom and liberty."