Skip to main content

View Diary: This is the gun market at least 41 senators want continued because curbing it would tick off the NRA (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  but the question is (0+ / 0-)

    since straw purchases are illegal, why aren't Bloomberg's goons still in prison?

    "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:03:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Goons"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, Debby

      Private investigators who conducted a sting operation into unquestionably illegal gun sales are "goons" to you?

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:37:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  private security dudes (0+ / 0-)

        doing illegal things in the service of a billionaire?   Short of busting heads, it doesn't get an more goon than that.

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:03:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Riiiight (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby

          Yeah, I forgot that your ultimate objective was to ensure that no one learns just how easy it is to circumvent the rules on gun sales.  So yes, I can see why this kind of sting would upset you.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 02:06:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Because the Seller turned a blind eye (0+ / 0-)

      and let the "goons" get away with it -- as is the usual practice.   A sale is a sale is a sale and a commission is a commission is a commission.

      Since sellers are not required to keep records of sales and serial numbers or show them  to ATF agents more than once in any 12 months, if they do,  HOW would anyone know who bought what gun when?

      So ... practically speaking, how and where  ARE "straw sales" really "illegal" under today's laws?

      My understanding is that "illegal" is when qualified buyer transfers the weapon to someone he/she KNOWS to be a disbarred buyer.

      In the NY/VA sting operation, The guy who (supposedly) wasn't able to buy the gun (and who in reality was a concealed carry permit holder) "didn't exist." as far as the sales clerks were concerned. He was just the well dressed guy anonymous guy,  holding the wallet of the shabby scruffy guy whose background check had just come back A-OK.

      Now, had a law officer WITNESSED the straw buyer passing the pistol to the disbarred buyer ... maybe Virginia law punishes that -- maybe not.  Do YOU know, for sure"  Can you provide a link?

      Of course, as NY concealed carry permit holders,  either of the private investigators could have simply holstered the new purchase and brought it into NY.  As it happens they secured the guns in Virgina and filed their report.

      And HOW the NRA hated that !

      •  They still falsified (0+ / 0-)

        Form 4473s.

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:01:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're sure of that, are you ? (0+ / 0-)
          The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS, although prosecutions are rare in the absence of another felony committed with the gun purchased.
          Now, it happens there was a little bit of street theatre in which the buyer took money from a third party (in sight of the clerk) and then handed the boxed pistol over to the third party -- also in sight of the clerk and drove off in a car with NY State license plates

          But, the buyer was "eligible".  His ID documents were legitimate and his own.  The seller recorded the sale.

          How was the Federal law NOT satisfied?

          If, as you suggest there was a law in effect in Virginia banning straw sales, the clerk MIGHT have jotted down the couple's automobile license plate number  (one difference between guns and cars) and called the police.

          In that case, would the criminal have been the Buyer, his "acquaintance" ... both?   neither ?

          The point here is:  not "always" -- but over and over again Virginia gun store clerks, witnessing an obvious straw purchase in progress,  did nothing;  and the weapon left the store in a vehicle with NY State license plates?

          And YOU think the "goons" are the ones who ought to have been locked up?

          And the Mayor of New York ought to have just minded his own business?

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
            Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
            the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to
            you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:19:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site