NYC sends undercover offices to infiltrate Phoenix Crossroads Gun Show

[Brian Pfleuger]

Meh. That's just a rant by the owners of the gun show in question.

Maybe, but I think they're right.


I'm not convinced that the purchase is legal even if they are AZ residents. Unfortunately, we'll never know unless someone in the district in question presses charges.

It seems to me that participating in an illegal transaction is a crime. If the seller is not allowed to sell, the buyer is not allowed to buy.

I can legally buy antibiotics from a pharmacist. The pharmacist can legally sell them to me.... but I need a "license", a prescription.

If I go to a pharmacist and tell him that I don't have a prescription but I'd like to buy this antibiotic and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I have a prescription in my pocket.

If I can legally buy a handgun but I tell the guy that I can't and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I CAN legally buy the gun.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'd advise folks to calm down and KNOW what you are talking about before you rant.

If you say the action is illegal - prove it with AZ or Federal law cites, please.

If you don't like Bloomberg personally - we don't care.

Rants-0'-fun, closed threads!

- So was the investigators actions technically illegal?

- Were the actions of the potential sellers going to be or were they illegal?

That's the issue.

 

[Evan Thomas]

If I go to a pharmacist and tell him that I don't have a prescription but I'd like to buy this antibiotic and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I have a prescription in my pocket.

True, but irrelevant. In that case, both parties have a responsibility: for the sale to take place legally, you're required to present the prescription, and the pharmacist is required to record its information on the container used for the drugs. It's not legal for you to possess prescription drugs without a current prescription for them.

If I can legally buy a handgun but I tell the guy that I can't and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I CAN legally buy the gun.

According to the ATF's website:
"To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."

All the onus here is on the seller, not on the buyer. As the buyer was not in fact "prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law," he commited no crime by doing so. It may be mean, tricky, and underhanded to set someone up in this way, but I really don't think you can argue that it's illegal....

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

All the onus here is on the seller, not on the buyer. As the buyer was not in fact "prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law," he commits no crime by doing so. It may be mean, tricky, and underhanded to set someone up in this way, but I really don't think you can argue that it's illegal....

It's true that the regs (at least that one) seem to make no mention of this type of instance, but who would have thought that an otherwise legal purchaser would INTENTIONALLY appear to be illegal?


It's also true that the pharmacy analogy falls apart at some level. It's not a perfect example but I think the idea is similar.

If you have a prescription for a drug is it legal for you to buy it from someone who can not legally sell it to you?

Anyway, I don't know the laws, I'm surmising, but if it's NOT illegal to do what they did, it SHOULD be.

Knowingly participating in an illegal transaction should be illegal, for BOTH parties.

 

[youngunz4life]

not sure if you can read MTT TL

I am assuming you can but just were reading a little too fast.

Truly? You would repeat something your buddy told you over taking .0045 seconds for a google search? That is amazing.

Its not amazing. I heard the wrong facts on the news. My buddy said I was wrong at the time and I didn't believe him(opposite of what you just said above).

 

[Micropterus]

I though this comment was interesting

Jim Cavanaugh, a retired agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where he was in charge of the Nashville division, said he didn't believe the sales described by the mayor were, in fact, illegal.

"It's not a prosecutable offense" because the purchasers were not truly felons, minors or drug abusers and because they didn't tell the sellers definitively that they were, Cavanaugh said. As for Bloomberg, he said, "ATF has asked him not to do it and to please coordinate with ATF if he thinks a violation is occurring."

From MyWay

 

[Musketeer]

"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."

Here is the rub. I listened to one of the tapes. The undercover buyer asked asked if a background check was needed. The seller said no. The buyer then said "good, I probably couldn't pass one."

That is a pretty strong case against the seller.

I don't like Bloomberg and think he is wasting his constituents money doing this but the case was made crystal clear that at this gun show sellers were wantonly violating the federal law. If the gun shows do not police themselves by enabling background checks and requiring them for sales done on the premises then public outcry and political action will force a much more intrusive "solution".

Dislike Mike but reserve a space in hades for the private party sellers who will help bring about legislative action.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't like Bloomberg and think he is wasting his constituents money doing this but the case was made crystal clear that at this gun show sellers were wantonly violating the federal law. If the gun shows do not police themselves by enabling background checks and requiring them for sales done on the premises then public outcry and political action will force a much more intrusive "solution".

Dislike Mike but reserve a space in hades for the private party sellers who will help bring about legislative action.

All for naught, regardless. Those who can not pass a background check will simply seek private sales elsewhere. Require background checks for all private transactions and they will simply conduct illegal transactions. It's lose-lose for us.

 

[TXAZ]

Can criminal & civil complaint be filed against the NYC cops for felony wiretapping?

Since Glenn suggested someone state a law that was broken, how about felony wiretapping. (and I'm not a lawyer)

Arizona Revised Statute 13-3005 says that an individual must have the consent of at least one party to a conversation in order to legally intercept a wire or electronic communication (including oral) in Arizona. Otherwise, this conduct is a felony.
Link = http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03005.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

If you listen to the video played by Mayor Bloomberg, some of a side conversation appeared to be picked up on the tape. I can only ass-u-me that the detectives did not get prior permission. Are they guilty of a felony?
Any lawyers care to chime in?

As a citizen of AZ, can if file a civil complaint here in AZ against them?

 

[Tom Servo]

According to this article from the Associated Press, published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Bloomberg's office said all the investigators were Arizona residents and broke no laws."

Did the investigators buy these guns with the intention of keeping them for their own use? If not, the guns were bought on the behalf of someone else, and that would constitute a straw purchase.

Bloomberg hiring someone to do so across state lines would run afoul of RICO.

He did a string of things like this with gun dealers a few years back. He hired private investigators to go to gun shops and conduct straw purchases. If a shop allowed one to go through, he would prosecute them in New York, where the shop owners had little or no hope of finding a sympathetic jury.

Now, that's illegal on both counts I mentioned above. The ATF got their toes stepped on, but were told to stand down. A couple of state legislatures took matters into their own hands and instituted state-level penalties for such actions as well.

It surprises me that he's still using this tactic.

 

[jimpeel]

This is not Bloomberg's first foray into this type of behavior.

SOURCE

ATF may take action vs. gun show dealers caught in Mayor Bloomberg's gun sting

By Celeste Katz
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Originally Published:Saturday, October 10th 2009, 10:36 PM
Updated: Saturday, October 10th 2009, 10:36 PM

Alan Gottlieb received a letter from BATFE on this matter back in 2007. after he inquired about the legality of the 2006 stings Bloomberg conducted.

The Justice Department subsequently smacked Bloomberg for his underhanded tactics and warned that his actions could place the city in jeopardy of legal action.

HERE is the letter in .pdf format.

In that letter, Michael Battle stated:

“…you should be aware that there are potential legal liabilities that may attach when persons outside of law enforcement undertake actions typically reserved for law enforcement agents. This risk is particularly acute when such persons, however well-intentioned, but without proper law enforcement authority, misrepresent that they are the actual purchasers of the firearms when, in fact, the purchases are being made on behalf of another person or entity (for instance, on behalf of the City). In addition, civilian efforts can unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations.”

 

[jimpeel]

Even members of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) caught on to Bloomberg's misinformation campaign and one of them, Harry A. Moore, Oldmans Township, resigned from MAIG in a scathing letter to Bloomberg.

HERE is that letter.

HERE is the NSSF fact sheet on Bloomberg's activities.

 

[divil]

If the seller is not allowed to sell, the buyer is not allowed to buy.

Not necessarily - the seller suspecting that the buyer is prohibited makes it illegal for him to sell the gun, but it doesn't make it illegal for the buyer to receive the gun. The buyer could be an accessory to the seller's crime however, if they knew the seller was breaking the law.

Did the investigators buy these guns with the intention of keeping them for their own use? If not, the guns were bought on the behalf of someone else, and that would constitute a straw purchase.

I think you're clutching at straws there. Not intending to keep them for their own use does not mean that they bought them on someone else's behalf.

Besides, there is no law against buying a gun on someone else's behalf if it doesn't involve lying on a federal form.

This transaction would not result in a conviction. Even with the video there is no proof that the seller heard what the buyer said about the background check and the video would probably not be admissible anyway.

Finally, not that this would hold any legal weight, but it's simply a fact that knowing someone would probably not pass a background check does not constitute knowing that they're prohibited from buying a gun. Some legitimate buyers fail background checks all the time. I have been there myself and have often considered buying privately to get around the problem. Nothing illegal about that.

(Disclaimer: please don't take the above as legal advice. Don't take anything I've posted as legal advice for that matter - I'm not a lawyer and haven't watched Matlock in years)

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The buyer could be an accessory to the seller's crime however, if they knew the seller was breaking the law.

That's what I mean... they KNEW the seller was conducting an illegal transaction. They should be an accessory, at minimum. Plus, more information is coming out that Bloomburg was advised by the ATF that his activities were endangering legitimate, ongoing law enforcement investigations. As far as I'm concerned, that means he and his minions could all be charged with hindering and, maybe, obstruction.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Mike made the newspaper and TV in every city in the country.

mission accomplished!!!!!!

AFS

 

[Musketeer]

Folks, does anybody think the executive branch will push anything against Bloomberg for his actions? Come on, it is a moot point and all the naught letters from ATF to him in the world mean NOTHING.

Bloomberg has tape of sellers at gun shows explicitly ignoring federal law when directly told by the buyer that they cannot pass a background check.

All our ranting in the world about procedures he violated and bounds he exceeded means NOTHING to anybody but us and our opinion does not matter here.

What matters is Bloomberg is controlling the debate. He has show gun sellers violating the law. He has tied that in the public's eye to the type of gun and extended mags used in a recent massacre. He has also effectively (to the public) tied it to gun shows.

Bloomberg has done all of this and all we do is wag our fingers at him and throw tantrums nobody but us cares about. What we need to be doing is policing our own. These law breaking sellers, and that is what they are, are our fellow gun owners. They will cost us dearly if we do not address the issue. Continuing to state that gun shows with no background necks are not a problem, even if statistically correct, will mean absolutely nothing when every private sale anywhere comes to require a background check. Bloomberg is playing the public relations game very well for his own agenda. We frankly suck at it.

 

[zxcvbob]

d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

For those of you who think the buyer may have been legal but the seller broke the law, which of the above restrictions does saying "probably couldn't pass a background check" fall under? (I'm not saying it was a good idea, just not illegal) The buyers however seem to have been making straw purchases.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

What we need to be doing is policing our own. These law breaking sellers, and that is what they are, are our fellow gun owners. They will cost us dearly if we do not address the issue.

Anyone who cares is already following the law. Anyone who doesn't, isn't and won't.

We can "wag our fingers" at them and it will matter LESS than it does to Bloomburg. We don't even know who "they" are and they aren't politicians who respond to poll data.

More people than not have no problem being cheaters and liars when it benefits them. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive in the extreme.

There is absolutely nothing we can do about people who will not voluntarily follow the law.

It's the same reason that more gun laws won't work. Criminals are criminals, liars are liars, cheaters cheat.

All I can do is make sure that I follow the laws, that I do what's right, even when no one is looking, and that I do not hang around with or excuse others who do not do the same. But, there are plenty of "them" in our culture, both as a whole and the gun culture itself, and they will simply continue to do what they do.

We must continue to point out the wrongs that we see. From within and from without. We're not going to change Bloomburg or the lawbreakers but we can make sure others know that we don't support it or tolerate it, from either side.

For those of you who think the buyer may have been legal but the seller broke the law, which of the above restrictions does saying "probably couldn't pass a background check" fall under?

I don't believe any part of the law indicates that you have to know which category the person falls under.

"Couldn't pass a background check" IMPLIES that the person falls under one of those categories. It doesn't matter WHICH one.

"Having reasonable cause to believe".... if he TELLS ME he can't pass a background check, is that NOT reasonable cause to believe that he is prohibited?

 

[Evan Thomas]

The buyer could be an accessory to the seller's crime however, if they knew the seller was breaking the law.

That's what I mean... they KNEW the seller was conducting an illegal transaction. They should be an accessory, at minimum. Plus, more information is coming out that Bloomburg was advised by the ATF that his activities were endangering legitimate, ongoing law enforcement investigations. As far as I'm concerned, that means he and his minions could all be charged with hindering and, maybe, obstruction.

Whether Mr. Bloomberg could be prosecuted for interfering with ongoing ATF investigations is an interesting question, although it's worth noting that he hasn't been, despite several years' worth of orchestrating this type of sting operation.

However, it's not that uncommon for other entities to engage in this sort of sting: for example, in 2009, Dateline NBC conducted an investigation of lottery fraud by retail store clerks The modus operandi was essentially the same as that of Mr. Bloomberg's gun show sting: in some cases (in California, for example), NBC filmed investigators working for the state lottery agency, but in at least one (New York), NBC sent its own investigators, equipped with hidden cameras and winning lottery tickets, to try to redeem their winnings. Overall, they found that in 7 of 50 cases, clerks or store owners attempted to defraud lottery ticket holders of some or all of their winnings. As a result of the stings, several people were prosecuted, and some stores lost their licenses to sell lottery tickets.

The New York state lottery agency not only refused to cooperate with the NBC investigation, but sent out a warning about it to lottery agents, and also claimed that NBC's effort to obtain winning lottery tickets for their investigation was illegal.

But they did not claim that, because they knew that one party to the transaction was committing a crime, NBC's investigators were accessories to the attempted thefts.

If you think that Mayor Bloomberg's investigators should have been charged as accessories -- do you think that NBC's lottery fraud investigators should have been, as well? There's not much difference, that I can see.

Bloomberg has tape of sellers at gun shows explicitly ignoring federal law when directly told by the buyer that they cannot pass a background check.

All our ranting in the world about procedures he violated and bounds he exceeded means NOTHING to anybody but us and our opinion does not matter here.

Exactly.

It's common, when people on one side of an issue are caught in wrongdoing, for their supporters to argue that what the other side -- the one that pointed out the wrongdoing -- did was just as bad. It's sometimes effective as a diversionary tactic, but I think that it's often used just as a way of shoring up one's own belief in the moral righteousness of one's own side: a way of avoiding having to deal with the actual issue, which in this case, is just that, much as we don't want to admit it, there are gun owners out there who are quite willing to skirt, or break, the law.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

But they did not claim that, because they knew that one party to the transaction was committing a crime, NBC's investigators were accessories to the attempted thefts.

Yes, but they didn't ASK the lottery agents to participate in an illegal action either.

Bloomburgs "agents" initiated what was an illegal transaction.

It would be like in my original example with the pharmacist. If you ASKED them to do something illegal and PARTICIPATED in the transaction versus if you had a prescription that you simply wanted filled and the pharmacist gave you cocaine instead.