NYC sends undercover offices to infiltrate Phoenix Crossroads Gun Show

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

Bloomburgs "agents" initiated what was an illegal transaction.
Click to expand...
In both cases, the investigators set up a situation in which the other party had a choice about whether or not to do something illegal. In the case of the gun show sting, the investigator stated that he might not pass a background check in order to set up the situation -- there's no requirement that a seller ask a prospective buyer if he could pass a background check, so without that statement, there's no setup -- it's just another sale.

It might be possible to argue that it's entrapment, but that's a separate issue; and I think it's irrelevant in the gun show case, since there were no adverse consequences for the sellers.

But you're arguing that knowledge of the other party's illegal behavior makes the investigator an accessory to the crime. Whether the investigator's role is that of instigator, or purely that of potential victim, is a separate issue. In the case of the lottery investigation, the investigators knew they had winning tickets, and once a clerk told them they were not winners, they knew the clerk was committing a crime. And in the case of the New York state investigation, there would also have been no legal consequences for the clerk, since the lottery agency had refused to cooperate with the investigation, and in fact wanted to thwart it.

It seems to me that if the investigator is an accessory in one case, he is in the other, as well; and if not, not. ;)
 
That's not how I see it.

In the lottery instance, the investigator initiated a perfectly legal activity that he knew would result in someone else doing something illegal but the illegal activity was entirely one sided.

In the gun show instance, the "investigator" initiated an activity that he knew would result in an illegal activity and then he directly BENEFITED from the illegal action.

The difference is PARTICIPATING and BENEFITING in the illegal action. In the lottery scheme, the investigator was a VICTIM who initiated but did not participate, in the gun show scheme he was a BENEFACTOR who initiated and PARTICIPATED. Totally, totally different.
 
The way I see it... Bloomberg told someone to go buy a gun... that makes it a strawman purchase?

Brent
 
Bloomberg told someone to go buy a gun... that makes it a strawman purchase?
Click to expand...

The definition of "straw purchase" is hotly disputed on this forum. But in so far as it's generally taken to mean an illegal act, then no, this is not a straw purchase; there is absolutely nothing illegal about having someone buy a gun on your behalf, or buying a gun on someone else's behalf, in a private sale.

It's illegal to buy from a dealer on someone else's behalf because it would require you to lie on the form. But if you were filling out the form, then you'd be doing a background check, which would have defeated the purpose of the investigation.
 
A little thing I noticed while watching the videos is the gansta handling of the gun. The PI is saying he probably can't pass a background check while repeatedly flipping the gun 90 degrees sideways while aiming at the far wall. It's as if he is saying " I am a Gangster! I am going to use this weapon while selling drugs! Oh and I probably can't pass a background check......" He appeared to me that he was trying to behave like the stereotype of someone who isn't allowed to buy a firearm.

And regardless, the whole thing made gun owners look like idiots because we all get lumped together with these gun show sellers. This isn't about fair this is about perception. The more people complain about Bloomberg the more those complaining seem out of touch. What Bloomberg did was smarmy, not illegal. What the gun sellers did was to sell a firearm to a person whom they had a reasonable belief -- I probably can't pass a background check -- would not be able to pass background check; you know illegal.

It wasn't just a political stunt, it was a highly effective political stunt. If you want to take some of the power away from Bloomberg, then agree that these sellers were out of line. By defending the indefensible -- the sellers, you lose the rhetorical battle.
 
If someone tells you as the seller of a handgun that they can't pass a background check, and you are still willing to sell to them, you are a fool. I don't care for Bloomberg either, but why would you not just send the dude packing when he tells you he won't pass the check? I have no sympathy for these sellers.
 
peetzakilla said:
In the lottery instance, the investigator initiated a perfectly legal activity that he knew would result in someone else doing something illegal but the illegal activity was entirely one sided.

In the gun show instance, the "investigator" initiated an activity that he knew would result in an illegal activity and then he directly BENEFITED from the illegal action.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't "know that it would result in an illegal activity..." The seller could have said, "Oops, sorry, man, don't think I can do business with you if you're not sure you could pass a background check." (And I'd love to know what proportion of the sellers who were approached by these investigators did exactly that.) There's a fine line between offering someone the opportunity to commit a crime, and inducing him to do so when he wasn't otherwise so inclined. As to the benefit... the goal of the investigator wasn't to purchase a gun illegally (since he wasn't actually a prohibited person), but to, umm, investigate illegal gun sales.

The difference is PARTICIPATING and BENEFITING in the illegal action. In the lottery scheme, the investigator was a VICTIM who initiated but did not participate, in the gun show scheme he was a BENEFACTOR who initiated and PARTICIPATED. Totally, totally different.
Click to expand...

I think you're confounding (a) entrapment -- inducing an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime in order to arrest and charge them with it, (b) being an accomplice -- participating in the crime in some way, and presumably benefiting, and (c) being an accessory after the fact -- having knowledge that a crime has been committed, and concealing it.

In the lottery fraud investigation, there's clearly no entrapment, but the investigators did know that a crime was being committed.

But in neither case did the investigators intend to conceal the crime -- very much the opposite, in fact. So I think it's stretching it pretty far to say that they were participants in the crime, or that they acted as accessories, with knowledge (and concealment) but not participation.

As I said above, I think it's possible to argue that the actions of Mayor Bloomberg's investigators would constitute entrapment if they had been carried out by law enforcement officials in a sting operation, but if no arrest takes place, there's no entrapment case to be made. And in any case, I'm not sure that just stating that one might not pass a background check rises to the level of inducing someone else to commit a crime; no incentive is being offered, nor is any persuasion being used...

But let's not bicker, PK...;)

I think we agree that Mr. Bloomberg's operations in other states go way beyond anything that any mayor has any business doing on the taxpayers' dime.
 
We're not bickering. We're disagreeing... it's happened once or twice before.:D;)


See, if Bloomburg had done this on his own turf, I would totally agree with you.


But he wasn't.


I see it like this:

I know an area in the city where there are drug dealers. I go down there are a private citizen and walk up to people asking them if I can buy some crack. Finally, one of sells me crack. I have a hidden camera and get the whole thing on film.

I immediately go to the police and show the all the evidence.

Did I just commit a crime?

Yes, I did.


It's not OK for me to buy crack so I can turn in the dealer. It's illegal for me to buy crack.


Now, I know what you'll say "yeah, but crack is illegal".

Yep, it is. I contend that buying a firearm from someone that the law compels to not sell it to you is ALSO illegal. Even if you could otherwise own the gun.

Is it coercion? Accessory? Entrapment?

I have no idea.... but it should be illegal, if it's not.
 
The legality of Bloomberg's actions is a moot point. He will never, ever be taken to task for it with anything but a wagged finger and possibly a letter He knows it and we kniw it so why argue it

The results which he aired and the power it has to sway the politicians and populace is the critical factor.
 
Who cares where the officers were from, if they had any jurisdiction, or even if they had not acquired Arizona residency and may have violated Arizona law - THE POINT IS THAT IT IS EASY for the resident of New York to hop on a plane and get a weapon in Arizona.
 
TheKlawMan said:
Who cares where the officers were from, if they had any jurisdiction, or even if they had not acquired Arizona residency and may have violated Arizona law - THE POINT IS THAT IT IS EASY for the resident of New York to hop on a plane and get a weapon in Arizona.
Click to expand...


So what? It's easy for a resident of NY to get an illegal gun in NY. Why would he go all the way to AZ to do it?


It's odd how people are continuously surprised that criminals will do illegal things.

You might as well be shocked when the sun rises tomorrow.
 
The problem, PK....

... is that we need to make it illegal to use guns in commission of felonies.

Oh, wait...

Um.... we need to make assault and murder illegal...

This is tougher than I thought.
 
TheKlawMan said:
THE POINT IS THAT IT IS EASY for the resident of New York to hop on a plane and get a weapon in Arizona.
Click to expand...
Not to hijack the thread, but I suspect that it might be a bit more problematic to hop back on the plane with the (illegally acquired) gun in one's luggage.

I haven't flown in a while, with or without firearms... when you check a gun with your luggage, does the TSA make any attempt to determine if you're legally in possession of it?

Glenn E. Meyer said:
Ok, Bloomberg hates guns. Did the sellers play into his hands?

What's the conclusion?
Click to expand...

I still want to know what proportion of the sellers who were approached by his investigators backed off when they learned the potential buyer might not pass the background check. Without that information, it's hard to draw much of a conclusion, and I somehow don't think Mr. Bloomberg plans to tell us... :rolleyes:
 
Not to hijack the thread, but I suspect that it might be a bit more problematic to hop back on the plane with the (illegally acquired) gun in one's luggage.

I haven't flown in a while, with or without firearms... when you check a gun with your luggage, does the TSA make any attempt to determine if you're legally in possession of it?
Click to expand...

It depends on where you are leaving from. Case in point, I flew from Long Island NY to Orlando FL and back.

Leaving NY the local PD at the airport were also called who confirmed the SN on my handgun was the same as the one on my permit. NY requires a permit to OWN a handgun and every gun owned is listed on said permit. Picking up in FL was simple, just a normal bag. Your gun carrying luggage is NOT flagged.

Returning from FL only required the confirmation of the firearm's status (unloaded and packed per the TSA and Southwest requirements). There was no looking for a permit, SN or anything else although it was clear I was from NY and going there. Picking up in NY was simp picking up a bag, unmarked and the same as thousands of others.
 
When I became a cop in 1970 one of the first things that we were instructed to be careful of was to not get involved if crimes taking place outside our jurisdiction. Without knowing all the details I can't be sure but it is possible they can be arrested
 
Glenn,

Ok, Bloomberg hates guns. Did the sellers play into his hands?
Click to expand...

They played into his hands unknowingly as their actions were their own. The fraudulent investigators gave them an opportunity to violate the law and they did so.

What's the conclusion?
Click to expand...

The people who were tricked would not have been so if they had simply adhered to the law regardless of their desire to sell a firearm. The cardinal rule is WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T.
 
jimpeel...

... I'm not so sure they broke any law.

Were the sellers FFLs? If so, they have to do the paperwork.

If they were private sellers, then they have lesser standards to meet.

As far as a guy saying, "I probably wouldn't pass a check," I haven't heard the tape. Did the guy sound sneaky, or snarky? (Anybody who's been on active duty has probably heard jokes about anything from drugs to hookers in the luggage, hope they don't check, etc...) My point being, did the guy sound like he was actually serious, or did he make light of it like he was just being funny?

Too many variables.
 
Most gun shows now have a requirement that anything that is sold under their roof has to have a background check done before the sale. They have FFLs there working the phones for that purpose only.

The private seller has to take the sale to one of those FFLs to do the NICS check to sell a firearm at the show.

I have no idea if this particular gun show had those provisions or what the law is in the state of AZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top