Three gunshops to be avoided at all costs...

There is no such legal term as a "simulated sale of a firearm". The people filled out, and signed, the paperwork. They legally, through their signature, affirmed that the information was correct. One of the questions asked is about who the signatory is purchasing the weapon for. Willingly falsifying the document is a felony.

It seems a little far-fetched that one or another of the couple handing a clerk the money is indicative of a "straw man" purchase. It is, however, great "sound byte" footage.

Of even more interest, though, is that these people weren't residents of the visited states. They weren't Law Enforcement Officers in the state, either. They weren't operating with the local LEOs, hadn't notified them of their intent, and must have used forged identification. I guess, then, that as long as I assure anyone who catches me, that I'm buying a firearm with fake id, and falsifying federal documents, that it's only a simulated purchase, they shouldn't charge me?

I have to agree with the poster who said that we should boycott NYC. Boycotting the stores that this was perpetrated against seems counterproductive.:)
 
How is this not a crime?

Buy a gun from a FFL dealer, using false ID, lying on the Federal forms (which state that lying on the forms is a crime), how is this not a crime? Because it was paid for by a rich NYC politician?

OK, there is the defense for everyone charged with "straw man" purchases, just claim Bloomberg hired you to do it. Make him spend a little of his money defending himself by proving he didn't hire you. (yeah, I know it isn't realistic, but I can dream)

Or, since the good mayor took it upon himself to finance this operation (that is correct isn't it? or were NYC tax dollars spent to do this?) If he paid for it, then isn't he involved (personally) in a conspiracy to violate federal firearms laws? Or is this just another case of the rich and politically powerful being able to do what ever they want?
 
I'm going to play devils advocate here.

Many in this thread have said that if these dealers were violating the law, the BATF would have shut them down. That's not true. The BATF has been terrible at enforcing existing gun laws.

We have a dealer here in my area that is rated worst in the country for crime guns. In 2005 more then one crime gun a day was traced to this dealer, Badger Outdoors. Local news has repeatedly filmed straw purchases taking place in this shop and counter people talking about how to get around the laws. The BATF always refuses to even comment. A law suit supenoea forced the BATF to release this info:

Each of the five dealers, the court documents show, had an average of more than one gun recovered in crime every day of the year in 2005. By contrast, 86 percent of gun dealers in America have no crime guns traced to their stores in a typical year.
Just 1.2 percent of gun dealers supply 57 percent of all crime guns recovered across the nation.

The dealers named: Badger Outdoors, West Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 537 Crime Guns; Trader Sports, San Leandro, California - 447 Crime Guns (which is the subject of the government's case); Elliot's Small Arms, Jefferson, Louisiana - 442 Crime Guns; Don's Guns and Galleries, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana - 431 Crime Guns and Hyatt Coin & Gun Shop, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina - 405 Crime Guns.
Click to expand...

If the Feds are responsible for enforcing existing guns laws, and they don't, what was Bloomberg suppose to do?

As I said, I'm playing devils advocate here, but as gun owners, one of our mantra's for years have been "We don't need new gun laws, simply enforce what's on the books already". Isn't this, in fact, a case of that?
 
It could have been a fact, but the evidence suggests entrapment. Nowhere on the tapes does anyone "tell about ways to get around the law". In fact, it would seem that the entire "fault" revolves around the woman filling out the paperwork, and the man paying for the weapon. It even has them saying that they are man and wife. There are any of a number of other instances where the person signs for a contract, or a piece of property, where another person, identified as a spouse, pays for it. That doesn't construe, under the law, that the property, or contract, reverts to the payer.

It was a poorly (or carefully, if it's sound byte politics) crafted manuver, taking advantage of a gray area, and attempting to generate guilt where none is found by reasonable people.

If, in fact, the woman DID intend to purchase the weapon for another, she is guilty of a felony after she signed the 4473, as QUESTION NUMBER ONE is "are you purchasing this firearm for yourself?" She was also using forged documents, as she wasn't a resident of the state. She even went through a NICS check in Georgia.

Should anyone be guilty of illegal behavior, it would be the buyers, and not the shop.:)
 
There were 60 shops involved in this sting. 45 felt is wasn't a "gray area" and refused to sell to the investigators. The 15 being sued did sell. NYC went after these dealers based on info from the BATF, that most of the guns used in crimes in NYC came from these 60 dealers.

I don't like this tactic that Bloomberg is using. It's to easy for innocent business's to get caught up in this, and go bankrupt defending themselves. However, it's the BATF not doing their job that has led to this. A small percentage of dealers are responsible for most of the crime guns recovered. Why isn't the BATF doing these types of investigations, when they know this is going on with these dealers.

Dealers that do this, like the shop I mentioned in my previous post (Badger Outdoors) hurt our cause, and give ammunition to the anti-gun crazies. Bloomberg would never have been able to do this if the BATF was doing it's job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top