Bloomberg is at it again.

[doc540]

When he's successful at preventing illegal gun crime in his own jurisdiction, he can go to work cleaning up the rest of the known universe.

 

[Dannix]

Do legislators swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution? If so, couldn't anyone who votes to pass a RKBA infringing bill be tried for treason?

We as a nation started trading liberty for feelings ("security") a long time ago.

 

[Old Fuff]

Cosmoline (and others) have made a good point, but they're might be a problem when it comes to providing evidence of what Bloomberg's agents do and say.

Since they like to make recordings maybe private sellers should do the same. When a prospective buyer starts talking about buying a gun, trip a voice recorder to "on." If they try to entice a seller into making a questionable sale or engage in entrapment, the seller's recording just might put someone in jail.

This practice would I think, discourage both illegal buyers and Bloomberg spies. A sign at the door stating that sales may be recorded could be a substantial deterrent to both.

 

[rbernie]

I have no doubt that Bloomberg and his Minions Of Evil <tm> are doing bad things. I have no doubt that the GCA'68, and its restrictions on who may and may not buy a gun, are silly and are demonstrably statistically worthless at impacting crime rates. I am absolutely sure that eliminating private sales of firearms and placing the government in the role of 'approving' each gun sale is one GIANT step toward the loss of the RKBA.

But I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed that we would spend our time castigating Bloomberg for his actions as opposed to trying to figure out how to clean up our own ranks.

 

[Old Fuff]

Note my post #28.

If sales are likely to be recorded, both questionable buyers and Bloomburg's agents will be unhappy campers. The only other way I can think of is to have show promoters send they're own people to questionable tables to see if they can present themselves as a prohibited person and then make a buy.

Maybe it's come to that...

 

[rbernie]

Fuff - I was responding to the majority of the twenty seven prior posts.

I wonder if it wouldn't simply be a good idea for gun shows to start posting giant signs at each entrance with something along the lines of:

You may NOT sell a firearm if you have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited by Federal or State Law. It is YOUR responsibility to know and comply with all appropriate state and Federal laws!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here is the law:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));​

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or​

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.​

See what I put in bold? It would have to be proven in court that a person who sold a gun to a prohibited person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the recipient was a prohibited person. A stranger saying that he, " probably could not pass a background check," is neither reasonable cause to believe nor is it knowing. If the prohibited person shows something like a parolee ID card, or a Dishonorable Discharge, or a court document showing a conviction of some kind, or flat out says they are in fact a prohibited person, or it is someone who everyone knows is a prohibited person like Martha Stewart or G. Gordon Liddy, then fine, you've got knowing or reasonable cause to believe.

.

Our worst enemy is not us or even some of us. Our worst enemy or enemies are the likes of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Chuck Schumer, the unconstitutional laws, and the violent criminals who are allowed to walk the streets. All the rest of us are simply exercising and engaging in our most valuable right, and trade of the very same arms that our keeping and bearing of that government is prohibited to infringe upon.

Bloomberg and company are at fault here; their acts facilitated by unconstitutional laws. If it weren't for the unconstitutional laws, Bloomberg and company couldn't engage in this hanky panky. Think on that for a second or two. What we have here is "... two or more persons conspire(ing) to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person(s) in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States..." in violation of 18 USC § 241 (Conspiracy against rights).

Don't put this on us or even on some of us. It's absurd. Put the onus on to whom the onus belongs. Otherwise, it's like saying We the People are the cause of the terror attacks against us.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later. B.E. Wood

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

I suppose what ought to be done by a seller if someone at a show says something like "I can't pass a background check" is to stand up, look indignant and say in a loud speaking voice to be heard by the tables all round:

"What da'ya mean you can't pass a background check? Are you a shill for Bloomberg?"

Then ask the management to have the guy removed from the venue.

It should be obvious that no serious buyer (legal or illegal) is going to tell you he can't pass a check.

 

[rbernie]

A stranger saying that he, " probably could not pass a background check," is neither reasonable cause to believe [that they are prohibited] nor is it knowing.

If you think that you could convince ANYONE of this in a court of law, then I want you on my legal team. Sadly, the argument that 'hearing it' does not constitute a basis for 'reasonable belief' is flatly irrational and will be seen as such by anyone to whom it is presented.

Don't put this on us or even on some of us. It's absurd. Put the onus on to whom the onus belongs.

The onus to know and abide by the laws of the land, however we may dislike them, is certainly upon us and cannot be sloughed off out of political convenience or conviction.

 

[KyJim]

In looking at the video report, it appears to me that at least a couple of the "private" sellers are actually in the business of selling firearms and should be licensed. Someone selling 348 SKSes in a year is in the business. Someone with a table full of pistols and who sells "lots" of them is very likely in the business and should be licensed. These people do not deserve our support. They are breaking the law.

I will also add that it is possible Bloomberg's investigators could have violated Nevada law by secretly taping conversations with dealers (assuming they taped in Nevada). Nevada is a two party consent state. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/nevada.html

I'm not surprised about this given the fact that during the last undercover operation outside New York, the Bloomberg's investigators actually made illegal straw purchases and were warned by the ATF.

 

[Dannix]

In looking at the video report, it appears to me that at least a couple of the "private" sellers are actually in the business of selling firearms and should be licensed. Someone selling 348 SKSes in a year is in the business. Someone with a table full of pistols and who sells "lots" of them is very likely in the business and should be licensed. These people do not deserve our support. They are breaking the law.

Couldn't they be only buying and selling guns in state? I assume there are plenty "mom an pop" intrastate gun shops in the rural parts of some states that are nonfed licensed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you think that you could convince ANYONE of this in a court of law, then I want you on my legal team. Sadly, the argument that 'hearing it' does not constitute a basis for 'reasonable belief' is flatly irrational and will be seen as such by anyone to whom it is presented.

It depends on what you hear. Obviously, the stranger doesn't know for sure that he can or cannot pass a background check. The seller didn't hear the buyer say that he is a prohibited person. To take the stranger's statement that he probably can't to mean specifically that he can't is about the same as proving a negative. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution that the person selling the arm knew or believed the stranger is a prohibited person. The stranger would have to provide the proof to the seller, either with documentation or an absolute unambiguous admission of ineligibility. In this particular case, the buyer doesn't know himself. "Probably" is not "am".

If the buyer is a prohibited person and knows it, he misrepresented himself.

Couldn't they be only buying and selling guns in state? I assume there are plenty "mom an pop" intrastate gun shops in the rural parts of some states that are nonfed licensed.

It would seem to me that these unlicensed "mom and pop" intrastate buyers and sellers of guns are not receiving guns in interstate commerce. These guns would have already been brought into the state and sold by a licensed dealer. I see nothing in the law that would prohibit me from buying a used gun from one neighbor and selling it to another. That happens all the time in gun shows and across dinner tables.

Woody

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Step 1: no FTF private party sales
Step 2: All sales FFL
Step 3: MORE AND MORE REGULATION on FFLs
Step 4: Licensing or a ban (Which ever they can do, because they would then control the sales)

 

[Dannix]

Couldn't they be only buying and selling guns in state? I assume there are plenty "mom an pop" intrastate gun shops in the rural parts of some states that are nonfed licensed.

It would seem to me that these unlicensed "mom and pop" intrastate buyers and sellers of guns are not receiving guns in interstate commerce. These guns would have already been brought into the state and sold by a licensed dealer. I see nothing in the law that would prohibit me from buying a used gun from one neighbor and selling it to another. That happens all the time in gun shows and across dinner tables.

A intrastate-only side business could be interesting. I guess it wouldn't really be much different that a collector, except perhaps corporized. If the feds really wanted to get ugly with an intrastate-only setup though, couldn't they issue a straw purchase charge? Buying with the intent to sell to another?

 

[Defense Minister]

WAAAY more guns end up in the hands of criminals because they are stolen. The thing I can't figure out is that theft is illegal, so, how does it happen?

 

[AKElroy]

I posted this earlier in a dupe thread on this issue. I agree with the notion that Bloomberg's crew violated the law, but like all well connected enemies of freedom, I am not holding my breath for justice.

Bloomberg has invested millions in supporting these types of gotcha situations. He is one of the most powerful media moguls extant, and he despises our RKBA, and is willing to pleadge tremendous resources to take it away. I am not about to question the ignorance or motives of these sellers, bad actors though they may be. Their actions have nothing to do with my right to buy a gun from someone that wants to sell it.

The issue is not that individuals at gunshows avoid NIC's, but that we have NIC's at all. We do not require a background check to freely assemble, request a redress of our grievences or to practice the religion of our choice. We should not require it to freely exercize our RKBA.

Remember who frames the argument---the same media defining our rights this way:

"Gun show loophole" -- Your right to buy a gun from someone who wants to sell it.

"Cop killer bullets" -- Any ammunition suitable for self defense.

"Assault Weapon" -- Any firearm suitable for self defense.

 

[RP88]

I watched one of the videos.

The guy mumbles that he PROBABLY wouldn't pass, or that he wasn't sure if he could or not. He also does so in such a low voice that the seller could have possibly not heard him. Without a definitive "no/can't/not" answer, I wonder what that means legally i.e. since the buyer did not outright say that he WOULD/WILL fail, does that mean that it could be disputed as a lawful sale?

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Wow, lots of people sticking up for shady people selling guns.

You can type a giant wall of text with your legal interpretation mumbo jumbo. It takes me one sentence to say I would NOT even consider selling a gun or ammo or anything to someone if they told me they "probably couldn't pass a check" etc.

What's with all the hypothetical situations? A dozen sellers were plainly, loudly, clearly told things that would make it seem like the buyer is a person who cannot own a firearm and they continued the sale anyway, even joking about it.

 

[lions]

From samgotit's link in post #11:

Some private sellers were selling numerous guns. For example, one seller acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year – for revenue likely exceeding approximately $174,000.

Here is a nice bit, not misleading at all. They guy they are talking about was selling SKSs. Apparently he gets them all for free and sells them for $500 each, pure profit. I must be in the wrong line of work.

 

[gunnutery]

The undercover operation took place from about May to August and its $1.5 million cost was paid by city taxpayers.

How many guns did they buy???!!!

 

[TexasBill]

I've sold at gun shows in the past (distant past when the ink on the '68 GCA was still fairly fresh). Even then, we knew we couldn't knowingly sell guns to prohibited persons and we couldn't sell handguns to someone from out-of-state. Agreement to comply with federal and state laws, as well as the rules governing the show, was part of the deal when you bought a table. There were no background checks in Texas back then and we couldn't use a Form 4473, but we did at least ask to see a Texas driver's license with each sale to verify residence and age. No TDL, no sale.

If a person tells me they couldn't pass a background check, then I am not going to sell them a gun. Especially in a public venue like a gun show where some "plant" can make a purchase and wander over to the nearest cop and turn me in. That's just stupid. Their verbal statement is all the law needs to show that I had 'reasonable knowledge" the transaction would be illegal. In a court of law, all the prosecutor has to ask is did the person tell me they would not be able to pass a background check and I would have to answer "yes" which might as well be a "guilty" plea.

No, I don't think Bloomberg should have done this. No, I don't think the taxpayers of New York should have had to pay $1.5 million for the operation. But the idiots who made the sales just made it harder for the rest of us to keep FTF sales legal and I think private sales are important.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If a person tells me they couldn't pass a background check, then I am not going to sell them a gun. Especially in a public venue like a gun show where some "plant" can make a purchase and wander over to the nearest cop and turn me in. That's just stupid. Their verbal statement is all the law needs to show that I had 'reasonable knowledge" the transaction would be illegal. In a court of law, all the prosecutor has to ask is did the person tell me they would not be able to pass a background check and I would have to answer "yes" which might as well be a "guilty" plea.

You changed the rules. The buyers did not say they couldn't pass a background check. They said "probably". In your scenario, yes, don't sell the gun. In the Bloomberg case, go ahead in my opinion. Bloomberg most likely told them to say "probably" or something like it in order to get the sellers to go ahead and sell. If Bloomberg's crew went ahead and said they couldn't pass, or that they had a felony, or were nuts, or came from another state, I doubt they would have had many sell at all. For all we know, that's how the "sting" began, didn't get any takers, and changed the rules to make it look like people were selling guns to prohibited persons.

Bloomberg is a sleaze when it comes to our gun rights and I wouldn't put anything past him. Also, the lack of any action by the BATFE against Bloomberg's first escapade, in my opinion, emboldened him to go further. That's what sleaze bags do. Once they get away with something, they'll do it again and again and again until someone shuts them down or they run out of victims. I've run into a few sleaze bags in my 63 years.

Woody

 

[Speedo66]

I love how the Mayor of that rat infested island thinks he's President.

I have no doubt he's already thinking (and making plans) in that direction.

 

[ar10]

But I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed that we would spend our time castigating Bloomberg for his actions as opposed to trying to figure out how to clean up our own ranks.

So am I and I live in Ohio, I've been to gun shows, I buy guns, work at a private/public range. I also fill out the 4473 for every gun I buy.
I don't like Bloomberg tactics, he has a political agenda and lots of money, but I do believe gun owner advocates need to clean up their own ranks instead of going after a mayor in some other city. We already know Bloomberg's thoughts, no one can change that.

 

[AKElroy]

clean up our own ranks.

These people are not my ranks. We should not be inviting them into "our ranks" by taking ownership of them & responsiblity "as a community" for them. If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. The worst possible thing good actors can do is to defend them if they are guilty. The second worst thing we can do is to take responsibilty for them by claiming they are bad actors "within our ranks". Not my ranks, thanks. How I live my life & the rights I am blessed with are not in any way contingent on the bad actions of someone else, and I will not volunteer the ground that says they are.

If every gun owner on the planet abuses thier RKBA, I still have my rights intact.

For the record, I side with Woody on the merits of the case against these actors. I am not condemning or defending these sellers, I simply choose to not affiliate my rights with thier actions.