It would seem as though the good friend of all firearm-owning Americans, Mayor Bloomberg, has made it back into the national news headlines by once again hiring people to break the law for him:
Investigators hired by New York City conducted stings at gun shows in states that have not closed the “gun show loophole” and found some vendors openly selling weapons to buyers who admitted they couldn’t pass background checks.
The stings, described in a city report released Wednesday, were conducted at seven gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada. Those states are among the many that permit private unlicensed dealers, known as “occasional sellers,” to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting background checks.
Uncle clears up some vocabulary points before we proceed any farther:
A few things. Stings are done by police under color of law, which investigators from NY are not when in Tennessee. The gun show loophole is a scary catchphrase for lawful citizen to citizen transfer of a firearm. And occasional sellers are just regular citizens selling personal firearms.
As for the title of this particular post, I am not a lawyer, but last I paid attention, it was illegal to hire people to do illegal activities for you. What was illegal about this not-really-sting, you ask? Well, the news article goes on to say:
Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.
To purchase a handgun in a state in which you are not a resident (even from a private individual, in a private sale), you must first transfer the handgun to an FFL-holder in your state, and then receive it from him. Buying a handgun “over the counter” in any state in which you are not a resident is a federal crime:
A person may only buy a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.
[18 USC 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 178.29]
Furthermore, if I am reading that excerpt properly (and, again, I am not a lawyer), and if you are outside of your state of legal residence, it is illegal to purchase any firearm from any individual who does not have an FFL.
It seems to me that at least 20 (and possibly even 22) crimes were probably committed in the course of this “investigation”, and thoroughly documented by the actual perpetrators… when should we expect charges to be filed against those responsible?
Linoge, You overlooked one thing. The videos showed clear evidence of exactly what you and all your friends have been denying. Criminals buy guns at gun shows. That’s the point, not Bloomberg’s scruples. The point is transfers of firearms without a background checks are an invitation to criminals. Why do you support that? I thought you were a law-abiding gun owner.
I had more to say about it.
[Link redacted - ed.]
Where did we deny that criminals buy guns at gun shows?
The facts are well documented, criminals rarely buy guns at gun shows. Also it is illegal for them to do so.
I’m unclear actually WHO is buying these guns. Is it a real criminal (in which case Bloomberg is breaking the law as well) or a pretend criminal, (in which case nothing illegal or bad is happening)
But of course you don’t want to talk about that
MikeB302000: Well hello there, woman with the earrings… I was wondering when you would chance poking your head in here again and continue to live up to your new moniker. Let me see if I can address each of your points, such as they are, in turn.
False. I simply chose not to address it in the course of this post, mainly because I knew you and the rest of your anti-rights brethren would be slobbering all over it.
False. No one has ever said that criminals never purchase firearms at gun shows, only that the number of criminals doing so is astonishingly small, especially considering how you and other anti-rights advocates constantly harp about how “dangerous” gun shows supposedly are.
Regarding the evidence, if, in fact, those firearm-sellers did, in fact, break the law, then I fully expect Bloomberg and the rest of his paid lackeys to turn over their evidence to the BATFE such that the law-breakers can be charged appropriately, just like Bloomberg did last time there was one of these … oh … wait … he did not really do that, now did he? In fact, during the last one of these “investigations”, he actually managed to screw up numerous real BATFE investigations. This false “sting” is as much about law-breaking as your comments are about keeping people safe.
Additionally, if those firearm-sellers did break the law, being at a gun show had nothing to do with it. The specious “gun show loophole” had nothing to do with it. They broke already-existing laws (either being an “unlicensed dealer” or selling to someone who could not pass a background check or both), so how does adding more laws to the books keep them from breaking the current laws? If they broke the law, they should go to jail – that is, after all, how the system works. And if they do not obey current laws (that they could and should be punished for), how are you going to ensure they obey future laws? Breaking the law is not a “loophole” – it is breaking the gorramed law.
If someone breaks the law, they should be appropriately punished… but another person’s criminal nature is no reason to abridge my rights, whatsoever.
Furthermore, you are being unsurprisingly hypocritical, yourself… as usual, you have the nerve to castigate all gun show attendees and sellers for potentially breaking the law, while simultaneously overlooking the fact that Bloomberg and his lackeys most probably broke the law as well. They admit to purchasing handguns out of state. They admit to straw purchases. Both of those are illegal How nice, that you support law-breaking when it suits your purposes. Why do you support criminals, Mikey?
True, but in so mind-boggling low numbers, they are almost statistically insignificant. Consider this “Firearm Use by Offenders” report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Two studies from the National Institute of Justice concluded much the same thing:
And, best of all, a five-year study by the FBI included this very interesting statistic:
Along with this priceless quote:
Remind me again how closing the non-existant, mythical “gun show loophole” would stop people who do not care about our laws, and are not hindered by them?
False. The ends do not justify the means. It is quite likely that Bloomberg and his paid lackeys violated multiple state and federal laws in the course of their “investigation”, and doing so not only forcibly removes them from whatever moral high ground they thought they occupied, but also invalidates each and every point they were trying to make about law-breakers. Hypocrites are not valid sources of information on the topics they are hypocritical about.
False. First, it is already illegal for criminals to own firearms, purchase firearms, and use firearms, so transferring a firearm to a criminal with or without a background check is already illegal, and something already being illegal hardly counts as “an invitation”. Second, honestly, Mikey, your continued reliance upon logical fallacies to make your specious and fallacious points is just getting old. In this case, neither appealing to probability nor argumentum ad edacitam (the “gain” being “stopping criminals”, in this case) nor argumentum ad metum are sufficient to overcome the simple fact that criminals almost never purchase firearms at gun shows, despite the anti-rights movement’s continued and unsupported claims that they do. Furthermore, one person possibly being able to break many already-existing laws is a grossly insufficient cause to abridge the rights of all people, no matter how you cut the scenario. You could still physically murder someone, despite the fact that it is against the law – is that sufficient reason for all people to be placed under house arrest?
And, to continue your logical fallacy parade, we now have a beautiful little strawman, in addition to a hybrid false dichotomy/presumption. I do not support criminals procuring firearms, which is why I do support the already existing laws making it illegal to sell a firearm to a criminal, illegal for a criminal to possess a firearm, illegal for a criminal to use a firearm, and so forth. Try not to put words in people’s mouths, Mikey.
Rounding out your comment, we have some prejudicial language, and a backhanded ad hominem attack. I confess to being amazed at how you can never get through a single comment or post online without leaning on logical fallacies like a crutch… At any rate, obviously, I do not need to defend myself or my law-abiding nature to you, and equally-obviously, my supporting the right of legal, law-abiding adults engaging in private commerce does not change any law-abiding nature I already possessed. But feel free to cast more baseless aspersions – they only serve to show how weak your position really is.
Aaaaand I do not care. As I told you before and have done in the past, any links you leave here pointing back to your site (including the commenter URL you provided) will be treated as spam and summarily deleted. After all, you only comment on other sites to try and drive up traffic to your own – it is not like you are actually interested in conversation or debate.
Weer’d: You should know by now that Mikey will never let something as inconsequential as “facts” get in the way of a good anti-rights screed – he feels he is right, and thus he is right, and there can be no questioning of that feeling. That is why Mikey will always be the woman with the earrings to me.
And, as per his standard modus operandi, MikeB302000 swoops in, drops off his mental excrement and ego-inflating backlinks, and then flees in the face of actual debate and systematic destructions of his fallacious points…
There is, after all, nothing new under the sun…