NYC undercover stings expose 'gun show loophole'

[Garufa]

Weren't these "investigators" themselves breaking the law?

Tennesse should take Virginia's lead and tell NYC and Bloomberg that they have no business whatsoever conducting this type of operation and will face prosecution if it continues.

This has been posted here before and was enacted in 2007... Va. Tells NYC to Stop Gun Stings - washingtonpost.com

While I do not disagree that there are unscrupulous dealers, sellers and buyers out there, Bloomberg needs to stay in his own City and quit buttin' in to others' affairs.

[56FordGuy]

News Channel 5 in Nashville just did a short piece on this. They went to the RK show in Franklin, talked to some folks.

They said Bloomberg was sending his report to Congress and asking for a law to require all private sales to go through a background check.

[macville]

They said Bloomberg was sending his report to Congress and asking for a law to require all private sales to go through a background check.

I don't know how Congress would word it so they could restrict such sales since it doesn't go across state lines. In fact, I am 100% sure if they could figure out a way to restrict such sales they would have already. Of course, they have already violated the 2d amendment by restrictions on full auto guns and other federal gun laws. Kinda like they forgot what "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" actually meant.

Matthew

[TGO David]

Anyone who attends the Nashville shows should recognize this dealer. Their booth stands out out.

That is extremely disappointing. They were one of the better "looking" vendor displays at the local shows. Extremely, extremely stupid and careless on their part.

[DaveTN]

I don't know how Congress would word it so they could restrict such sales since it doesn't go across state lines. In fact, I am 100% sure if they could figure out a way to restrict such sales they would have already. Of course, they have already violated the 2d amendment by restrictions on full auto guns and other federal gun laws. Kinda like they forgot what "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" actually meant.

Matthew

The same way they passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, The Nation Firearms Act, and the Brady handgun Violence Prevention Act. They haven’t done it because they haven’t had the votes; that could change at any time.

[Guest thorn]

You think the Nashville Mayor will send some PI's to NYC to pick up a 12yo sex slave on the street or call one of the 1-800 numbers to get bud or some other drug of choice?

[eapking]

The contacts here are Mayor A C Wharton of Shelby County and Mayor Tom Beehan of Oak Ridge. My guess would be that they had investigators here buy the weapons and turn them in to local law enforcement to be tagged in evidence. But that’s just a WAG.

AC Warton is a member of "Mayors Against All Guns". It's on the NRA site.

[Guest guardlobo]

Such ridiculous nonsense! I agree lets send our own PI's on a sting mission to NYC...and then send NYC the bill for being kind enough to expose the needs that they should be looking after instead of trying to babysit the whole nation. Like the Bible says; "Get that beam out of your own eye before you try to help me get a speck out of mine!"

[Guest guardlobo]

OK, I went to the Mayor's site and now I am really ticked. Don't you have to get permission to use someone's voice and picture in a video?

Seriously, I don't want big brother watching what I do at a gun show. I do everything legal and above board, but I don't want my picture out for anyone to see that I was at a gun show.

Where is this privacy and freedom that American's are supposed to treasure so dearly?

GGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLD ME BACK...

[vontar]

It's only a straw purchase if the person "buying" the gun is doing so for someone ineligible to purchase it themselves. The guy in the video never said he couldn't pass the check. He looked at the gun and his "wife" bought it. Maybe it was for her in the first place and he was just picking it out for her? Maybe she was buying it to give to him for a birthday present? It's not necessarily as bad as they want everyone to believe. Lots of "reasonable doubt" in that video.

Could be argued that the man could not Read and Write. Not everyone can read and write.

[Guest strelcevina]

i can see that some people here who are making money of those private sales are outraged with this issue.

i don't have problems with background check. anyway all guns i owned are background checked.

to desperate seller anybody with cash looks good .

[StPatrick]

i can see that some people here who are making money of those private sales are outraged with this issue.

i don't have problems with background check. anyway all guns i owned are background checked.

to desperate seller anybody with cash looks good .

What you say is entirely possible, if not all that likely, but you paint with too broad a brush regarding the meaning of "desperation" - there are easy and legal avenues for gun sales available for those who need money quickly (pawn shops come to mind); following that, you make an appeal to authority (If you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?) that always leads to further control of law-abiding citizens, regardless of the issue at hand.

These are both reasonable and pragmatic arguments, but ultimately end up controlling 99.9% of those who follow the law, at the expense of the 1 in 1000 who willfully live beyond the bounds of a legal and civilized society.

[Guest Gunbunnie]

Is there a differece in the wording "I do not think that I can not pass a background check" and " I can not/will not pass a background check"? The reason that I am asking if the law was broken with the "I do not think..." were these people arrested? Also if the goverment really beleve that the law is being broken there why do they not police the shows?

[robbiev]

Is there a differece in the wording "I do not think that I can not pass a background check" and " I can not/will not pass a background check"? The reason that I am asking if the law was broken with the "I do not think..." were these people arrested? Also if the goverment really beleve that the law is being broken there why do they not police the shows?

From a standpoint of the dealer, if you have any reason to believe the person cannot legally buy the gun, and that whoever is buying the gun may be buying it for the other person, you're not supposed to complete the transaction.

[Guest Knightsr25]

The issue of unlicensed sellers came about from the clinton administration attempt to eliminate as many dealers as possible. The brick and mortar gun dealers went along not realizing they were opening the door to further restrictions leading to the desired disarmament of the U.S.. Divide and conquer is an effective stategy, just as it was in 1984 when the NRA refused to fight for the machinegunners rights. Appeasement does not work in relation to your rights, the sensible laws you approve of today become the confiscation later. Just be glad criminals only use guns, if they ever wise up to using explosives we will really have problems.

[DaveTN]

not realizing they were opening the door to further restrictions leading to the desired disarmament of the U.S.

That won’t happen. Disarming the U.S. would require the agreement and cooperation of all 50 states; that just won’t happen.

[East_TN_Patriot]

As responsible gun owners we need to police ourselves. The anti-gun lobby is looking

for excuses to enact more restrictive gun laws.

Bloomberg the billionare nutjob will do anything to push his anti-gun agenda.

Just be smart. Follow the law of your states.

+1 on this. My thought is that instead of cursing Bloomberg, we need to be calling out these folks who are selling guns illegally. If you disagree with gun laws, that's an issue by itself, but as long as the laws are what they are, gun owners/dealers/sellers are obligated to follow them. There are reasons why people are not able to pass a background check. They do try to get their guns from sellers they know are willing to break the law to sell them a gun. We have an obligation to make sure that we don't knowingly violate the law by selling them a gun. Bloomberg called us out and handed our butts to us. He may be a liberal douchebag, but he was right and is going to use that against us. Maybe their efforts are unethical or maybe illegal, but that's the ultimate point. The investigators made it clear that they were trying to buy a gun illegally and sellers were more than happy to oblige.

[lowbud]

Anyone who attends the Nashville shows should recognize this dealer. Their booth stands out out.

Oh SNAP! ****'s gonna hit the fan.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Wow....just wow.....that guy should lose his license...what a pos. Dealers like that give the 99% that do things legally a bad name.

[Guest strelcevina]

There was some people here on TGO saying same thing .

That they couldn't pass Background check either ,but that is problem in the BG system .

And they shouldn't be discouraged from trying to purchase a gun .

[robbiev]

There was some people here on TGO saying same thing .

That they couldn't pass Background check either ,but that is problem in the BG system .

And they shouldn't be discouraged from trying to purchase a gun .

Agreed there, generally speaking, but trying pass a background check and being denied is not illegal (unless you are a prohibited person) and certainly, not illegal if the only problem is a glitch in the system. Knowing you can't pass one and having your cousin do the paperwork for you is illegal and carries pretty stiff penalties if you're caught doing it, for all three parties involved.

[Guest Knightsr25]

That won’t happen. Disarming the U.S. would require the agreement and cooperation of all 50 states; that just won’t happen.

That doesnt have to happen, you only need to increase restrictions to the point that compliance is nearly impossible or too expensive to achieve.

[Guest Knightsr25]

Anyone who attends the Nashville shows should recognize this dealer. Their booth stands out out.

Anyone consider he was picking out a gun for his wife? I never heard him say the gun was for himself. They were paid to provide proof of a predetermined point of view.

[robbiev]

Anyone consider he was picking out a gun for his wife? I never heard him say the gun was for himself. They were paid to provide proof of a predetermined point of view.

But didn't he say that he couldn't pass a background check or didn't think he could and then pass off the paperwork to the woman? At that point, it becomes a suspicious transaction (suspicion of a possible straw purchase), and it's up to the dealer to decide if he wants to finish it. The problem isn't that it might be legal. The problem is, it might not be legal, and a dealer can be fined and lose his license the <STRIKE>first time it happens.</STRIKE> the first time he gets caught.

Edited October 25, 2010 by robbiev

[DaveTN]

That doesnt have to happen, you only need to increase restrictions to the point that compliance is nearly impossible or too expensive to achieve.

It would still require the states to disarm themselves. Where, when and how you carry is not an individual right; it is defined by the states. Some states would tell the Feds to go pound sand. It’s the same reason the SCOTUS ruled we have an individual right to keep arms; the state controls the bearing of arms.

I’m not saying the current Federal government wouldn’t like to disarm us; but it just can’t happen.

States Rights is a double-edged sword. It is what has keep the SCOTUS from ruling you have the right to slap on a gun and walk down the street. But it is also what keeps the Feds from making unreasonable laws.