Rogue gun dealers

[O6nop]

I'm always interested in the opinions of situations like these, often I'm finding myself on the fence.
Is this guy abusing gun rights and contributing to crime or is he lawfully practicing his 2A rights as provided to him by the beauracracy.
This is obviously an anti-gun article, but what do you think?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=511361

Editorial: Shielding rogue gun dealers
Editorial, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL
Friday, October 13, 2006

Nate Finkley bought 22 guns from Lou's Jewelry and Loan in suburban Philadelphia in 1986 and '87 to supply Jamaican drug gangs, according to federal court records. The store was a favorite source of guns for the Philadelphia underworld because, unlike its competitors, the clerks asked no questions about suspicious buys.

Finkley told this to the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, which has sued the store.



Finally, in July, the feds revoked the store's license to sell guns because of "numerous and egregious violations of the Gun Control Act," as an official put it. But a bill — which has sailed through the House, thanks in large part to the piloting of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican — would make such license revocations a thing of the past, as former officials of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have noted.

Sensenbrenner and his colleagues ought to be ashamed for rushing to protect rogue gun dealers at the expense of public safety.

The Senate must not let this dangerous bill see the light of day.

The Brady Center has put out a well-documented report on Lou's, whose guns accounted for 19 homicides and 65 aggravated assaults in Philadelphia alone between 2003 and 2005.

Citing news stories, court records and a former employee, the report says that the store repeatedly sold to blatant straw buyers and obvious gun traffickers.

ATF cited at least 239 federal violations at Lou's, including at least five instances of selling to straw buyers, at least three instances of selling to prohibited purchasers and at least five instances of selling many guns to single purchasers, without notifying ATF and local police of the suspicious sale, as the law requires.

One straw buyer was Theresa Bush. The real purchaser was her boyfriend, Saad Abdul Salaam, who supplied weapons to a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bush bought 30 to 50 handguns for Salaam between 1990 and 1993, according to court testimony.

Most licensed gun dealers are scrupulous — and try not to sell to straw buyers or traffickers or terrorists.

But HR 5092 would protect the unscrupulous dealers. The law already ties the hands of federal agents in monitoring gun dealers. For one, it permits the agents to make only one unannounced inspection a year to a gun shop. Hence, a store where such an inspection has taken place knows it is safe from such oversight for a year.

The law also requires the feds to show that a violation is willful and defines "willful" in such a way as to make the proof difficult.

The bill would narrow "willful" even more, to the point where the feds would almost be required to read the minds of dealers — the reason the group of ex-ATF officials warn that revocations would be "virtually impossible."

The bill would also define as "minor" what are in fact major violations. Minor violations would trigger light fines, not license revocations.

Yes, passage of the bill is a top priority of the National Rifle Association, which lobbies to keep gun transactions as unfettered as possible.

But just because the NRA says jump doesn't mean that Sensenbrenner and his colleagues have to.

 

[CDH]

The repeated and obvious infractions committed by that shop were all violations of the strawman purchase laws. Since they did it repeatedly and the sales were all done with "blatant straw buyers and obvious gun traffickers", then the shop should be shut down immediately and probably warrants further investigation for prosecution.

On the other hand, the new law passed that help gun dealers in the event that they overlook minor paperwork errors is just that, and any attempt to characterize it as anything more is just hollow anti-gun BS.

The bill would also define as "minor" what are in fact major violations. Minor violations would trigger light fines, not license revocations.

I'm good with that because it means that BATF can't look for any excuse they want to shut someone down (the purpose of the law), but they can STILL prosecute and shut down dealers such as the one mentioned.
I see no way that the new law will "protect" unscrupulous dealers in any way.

To me, this is a big non-issue other than it gets the BATF off the backs of honest gun dealers who simply make mistakes while still allowing proper enforcement when numerous and more serious laws are intentionally done.

So that's it; there ain't no more.

Carter

 

[Eghad]

I have defeated the evil left wing control conspiracy on the internet and have come up with this tidbit. If you read it it pretty much refutes the brady release.

As far as the willful part, it merely says that the BATFE must notify and educate dealers on regulation changes. Pretty much the same thing when a city passes a new ordinance.

"But HR 5092 would protect the unscrupulous dealers. The law already ties the hands of federal agents in monitoring gun dealers. For one, it permits the agents to make only one unannounced inspection a year to a gun shop. Hence, a store where such an inspection has taken place knows it is safe from such oversight for a year."

So how many announced visits can they make and how much lead time on the notification do they have to give?

you decide

"Long version from Congressman Coble's office:

Sec. 1. This section cites the short title of the bill as the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act of 2006.”

Sec. 2. Graduated Penalties for Civil Violations By Federal Firearms Licensees. This section provides ATF with the ability to impose graduated civil penalties against persons who violate any statute or regulation in ATF’s jurisdiction. The penalties are graduated based on whether the violation is a “serious” or “non-serious” violation. A “serious” violation is defined as one that: (1) results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing or receiving the firearm or ammunition under chapter 44; (2) obstructs or could have obstructed a bona fide civil or criminal investigation; or (3) prevents or could have prevented a licensee from complying with subsection (g)(7). A “non-serious” violation is one that is not covered by the definition for “serious” violation.

For a serious violation, ATF may impose a civil penalty of not more that $2500 for each violation, up to a maximum of $15,000, suspend the license for up to 90 days, or revoke the license. For a “non-serious” violation, ATF may impose a civil penalty of not more than $1000 for each violation, a maximum of $5000, and may suspend a license for not more than 30 days if the licensee has at least 2 prior violations (serious or non-serious). The violation-specific limitation is designed to operate as a cap. ATF would have discretion to set a graduated scale of penalties up to that maximum ($1000 and $2500 per non-serious and serious violation, respectively) to reflect the nature and severity of the violation, the size of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the prior record of the licensee.

The section also bars ATF from initiating a civil enforcement action to five years from the date of the violation, except if the licensee intentionally obstructed discovery of the violation.

This section also reforms existing law on due process hearings to permit a licensee subject to an enforcement order to seek a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and sets deadlines for the completion of such a hearing. By streamlining the hearing process, and requiring an independent Administrative Law Judge to conduct such a hearing, the intent is to expedite resolution of enforcement matters and to ensure a fair and consistent review of potential violations. Any enforcement order would be stayed pending review. The ALJ’s determination would be subject to court review as provided in existing law, and would retain the de novo standard for district court and appellate review.

Sec. 3. Consideration of Federal Firearms License Applications. This section provides procedures for preliminary consideration of license applications, and affords applicants with an opportunity to supplement the application with additional information and with the ability to request a hearing before an ALJ.

Sec. 4. Definition of Willfully. This section clarifies the definition of “willfully” when establishing the intent for a violation. The intent standard, as applied to licensees, would reflect the fact that licensees are provided with extensive education and notice of all legal and regulatory obligations. Thus, a violation of a known legal obligation would require ATF to establish that the licensee was aware of the obligation and intentionally or purposely violated such obligation.

Sec. 5. Establishment of Formal Investigative Guidelines. This section requires that ATF establish formal investigative guidelines similar to those already applicable to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 6. Review by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice of the Gun Show Enforcement Program; Report. This section requires the Inspector General to conduct a review of ATF’s operations in order to assess the manner in which ATF conducts its gun show enforcement program and blanket residency checks of prospective and actual firearms purchasers. Within one year of enactment, the IG is required to submit to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a report as to its findings in its review.

Sec. 7. Limitations on Use of Firearms Purchaser Information. This section amends section 923(g)(1)(D) of title 18, United States Code, to ensure that ATF only shares information about individuals gathered in its enforcement programs with other law enforcement agencies when such agency certifies that the agency will not disclose such information to any nongovernmental entity. The intent in this provision is to ensure that sharing of information among law enforcement agencies does not result in disclosures of private information to non-governmental entities which are not involved in law enforcement efforts. Such a prohibition would not extend to private contractors who work for law enforcement agencies (e.g. intelligence support or other law enforcement activities)

Sec. 8. Clarification of Responsibilities. This section amends ATF’s authorities to focus ATF’s enforcement efforts and resources on criminal and regulatory violations of the federal firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol, and tobacco smuggling laws. A focused mission statement for ATF is necessary to ensure that ATF continues to concentrate on violations of these statutes and regulations, and avoids expending resources on tangentially related functions, such as drug trafficking, or other federal violations within the expertise of other law enforcement agencies.

Sec. 9. Liquidation of Inventory in Federal Firearms License Expiration, Surrender or Revocation Cases. This section amends section 923 of title 18 to ensure that a person has 60 days to liquidate the firearms inventory of a business, which shall be extended for reasonable cause.

Sec. 10. Opportunity to Cure Violations after Acquisition of Firearms Business. This section amends section 923 of title 18 to provide a purchaser of a firearms business with an opportunity to cure any violations, and limits ATF’s ability to impose penalties for violations that may have existed prior to a transferee assuming control of the business.

Sec. 11. Standards for Criminal Violations of Record-Keeping Requirements. This section amends section 922(m) of title 18 to require that any criminal violation of the record-keeping requirements involve “materially” false entries, and “materially” significant entry. The punishment for such a violation is a one year misdemeanor.

Sec. 12. Effective Date. This section provides that the effective date of the Act is to be 180 days after enactment."

 

[springmom]

is he lawfully practicing his 2A rights as provided to him by the beauracracy

Not to be picky, but it is no bureaucracy that provides Second Amendment rights. Natural rights are endemic to our being human, whether a bureaucrat tries to restrict those rights or not.

If Lou's is guilty, BATFE has all the ability it needs to shut it down. Any time I see the words "Brady Center" in an article, I know that it's skewed, at best, or outright falsification at worst.

Springmom

 

[O6nop]

Not to be picky, but it is no bureaucracy that provides Second Amendment rights. Natural rights are endemic to our being human, whether a bureaucrat tries to restrict those rights or not.

First, sorry, I'm not much of a "wordsmith" but I agree 100% with our Natural Rights to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedom by any means, but as I see it the 2A was written so that the government did not overlook those specific rights. However, it seems they are doing everything they can to limit those rights, thus we have to accept, by law, what we are "provided" until those laws are changed and corrected.

Second - what's a "straw buyer"? I take it as one person who is actually buying a firearm for someone else's use?

Last, So - are these two separate stories rolled into one? Are Sensenbrenner's efforts directly associated with Lou's store or is the media manipulating (obvious) the story to cast doubts on Sensenbrenner's credibility?

 

[constitution]

It has the brady bunch in there so thats supposed to mean it has credibility.I find that being as the brady campain is in there, it ruins any credibility I might have towards the story.


A straw buyer is someone who buys a firearm for another person whom has been deemed unworthy of owning firearms...in other words a "prohibited" person.


If brady is in there,I look for a twist because there always is one.Criminals do not nor will they ever abide by any of the thousands of gun laws already on the books.