Bloomberg is at it again.
- Thread starter WoofersInc
- Start date
- Status
bigalexe
Member
(sarcasm warning)
We had a thread covering that recently, it includes a nice pictorial diagram to help you identify evil guns.
(sarcasm over)
Assault Rife = Rifle that media doesn't like
I think this is the thread in question.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=475252&highlight=journalist%27s
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=475252&highlight=journalist%27s
stickhauler
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 538
Just A Little Added Info..
One of the shows these videos were recorded at was in my town, Dayton, Ohio at a Bill Goodman's show at Hara Arena, a venue owned by the Wampler family. One of the Wamplers is quoted about the presence of BATFE agents being present at that particular show, as well as any held at their venue. If you have proof of illegal activities, why isn't it reported immediately?
Bloomberg did this in 2006, in several states, at gun shops trying to prove that he could get evidence of straw purchases. After getting his "proof", he sued the gun shops in civil suits.
Any law abiding gun owner knows that they have the responsibility to insure they don't sell guns to criminals, maybe that's why I won't sell to anyone I don't know at least for a while.
But I question how legitimate these tapes are, why if BATFE agents were there, would unlicensed gun dealers be allowed to set up with multiple guns displayed for sale? I know from going to a few of this show's events that they have fairly decent security, inside as well as outside.
One of the shows these videos were recorded at was in my town, Dayton, Ohio at a Bill Goodman's show at Hara Arena, a venue owned by the Wampler family. One of the Wamplers is quoted about the presence of BATFE agents being present at that particular show, as well as any held at their venue. If you have proof of illegal activities, why isn't it reported immediately?
Bloomberg did this in 2006, in several states, at gun shops trying to prove that he could get evidence of straw purchases. After getting his "proof", he sued the gun shops in civil suits.
Any law abiding gun owner knows that they have the responsibility to insure they don't sell guns to criminals, maybe that's why I won't sell to anyone I don't know at least for a while.
But I question how legitimate these tapes are, why if BATFE agents were there, would unlicensed gun dealers be allowed to set up with multiple guns displayed for sale? I know from going to a few of this show's events that they have fairly decent security, inside as well as outside.
Because they are not unlicensed gun dealers!
That's a term dreamed up by the anti-gun movement to describe private individuals that legally buy, trade and sometimes sell firearms at gun shows and other places. The 1968 GCA has a specific provision in it that provides for this.
Such individuals cannot buy new guns from distributors, manufacturers or importers for purposes of resale, nor can they buy used guns specifically for resale. They can occasionally sell or trade guns that are in their private collection. Also they cannot derive a substantial part of their income from what they are doing.
Most gun shows, particularly the larger ones, are monitored not only by the BATF&E, but other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies as well. Some are in plainclothes where others are in uniform.
It is unusual to find a private seller set up at a gun show that has a large number of identical firearms, and if they are of the tactical sort they can expected to be closely observed. Most are showing a mix of older (often discontinued) rifles, shotguns and handguns of various kinds. So long as the conform with state and local laws, what they are doing is completely legal.
Concerning background checks: The mainstream media never mentions that these private sellers cannot make background checks of there potential customers because to do so is against the law! The right to use the NICS system is restricted to only those that have a Federal Firearms Dealers License, and no one else – including law enforcement agencies!
Bloomburg’s aim, and that of other gun control advocates, is to force all private sales to go through an FFL, with the resulting paper trail. They have yet to prove that illegal sales at gun shows are a substantial contributor to criminal’s arsenals. In fact, the BATF&E has admitted that this is the case, and obviously they have been able to trace guns that were used in high-profile cases to gun show sellers, licensed or not.
Besides ending private sales, gun control advocates what to put as many shows as possible out of business because they are a valuable resource for pro-gun political candidates and organizations, such as the NRA and GOA. Gun shows provide a place where large numbers of gun owners gather, and can be solicited for funds, signatures on nominating petitions, and other support. Leftist Democrats in particular what to see gun shows end.
rbernie
Contributing Member
'Unlicensed gun dealer' is Brady Bunch newspeak for 'private seller' (e.g. you selling a gun that you don't want anymore).
So assuming this is reported correctly (I know
), all 40 PIs were from one single outside firm. It would seem unlikely (although possible) that they were all residents then of TN, OH, and NV.And they did actually purchase guns in these 3 states.
Unless the 40 PIs were either all FFLs or all residents of the states in which they tried to purchase the guns, is it possible that Bloomberg's operation violates the federal law about only being able to receiving hand guns from an FFL in your state (can't recieve one outside of your state basically, from FFL or private FTF) and only being able to recieve long guns from an FFL when you are outside of your home state?
I know it's an unpopular position here, but this video is pretty damning. Of course, you can say it's "cooked up" and part of a NY conspiracy, but the fact is lots and lots of private sellers at gun shows are putting guns into the hands of criminals. That's just a fact, whether you care or not. This same video could have been made at thousands of gun shows across the country every year.
Moreover, the provision that a seller cannot sell to someone who says they might not be eligible to purchase a gun is comic. What criminal is going to admit to this. The fact that many sellers just ignore this anyway shows even more how ineffective it is.
Guys, it's a problem - it makes gun owners look bad and puts guns in the hands of criminals. A majority of people here may be alright with that, I'm not. I'm for ending this loophole, even if it makes it a bit more expensive and a bit more of a hassle to buy and sell guns.
Go ahead, now, fire away. But do so knowing two things: 1) this loophole does put guns into the hands of criminals and 2) large numbers of private sellers at gun shows and elsewhere don't care who they sell to and blatantly ignore the rules. Them's just the facts.
Moreover, the provision that a seller cannot sell to someone who says they might not be eligible to purchase a gun is comic. What criminal is going to admit to this. The fact that many sellers just ignore this anyway shows even more how ineffective it is.
Guys, it's a problem - it makes gun owners look bad and puts guns in the hands of criminals. A majority of people here may be alright with that, I'm not. I'm for ending this loophole, even if it makes it a bit more expensive and a bit more of a hassle to buy and sell guns.
Go ahead, now, fire away. But do so knowing two things: 1) this loophole does put guns into the hands of criminals and 2) large numbers of private sellers at gun shows and elsewhere don't care who they sell to and blatantly ignore the rules. Them's just the facts.
General Geoff
Member
Bear2000, it's not a loophole since dealers are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
Old Fuff, that's as good a description of the "gun show loophole" as I've seen. Yes, it's legal now. Yes, they want to make it illegal. It might be more correct to say it is presently unregulated, and they want to regulate it.
Be that as it may, Bloomberg does not seem to understand that taping illegal activities at gun shows is not a reason for more gun control laws. Hey, Mike, these things are already illegal. It certainly may be evidence that more law enforcement is necessary, but that's a whole different thing.
I understand the interest in curtailing straw purchases, but making them illegaler is not going to help much.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Since 'the loophole' is defined as 'private face-to-face sale', you are advocating that every sale be processed via a dealer and that it be illegal for anyone to sell a gun to anyone outside of that context. Are you prepared to do the same for other 'dangerous' durable goods, such as cars?
Moreover, since the Brady Check is a mandatory part of every dealer sale, your approach would successfully ensure that the .gov has the right of refusal on every gun sale in the country. I'm not much on tinfoilhattery, but that just sounds like A Really Bad Idea.
Are we that eager to please our governmental masters that we would completely abdicate the right to lawful private transfer of firearms?
Yes, I am for ending face-to-face sales at, the very least, gun shows, where it would be easy for FFL's to set up shop to process purchases.
Guys, it's simple: face-to-face, private sales without background checks help put guns into hands of criminals. If you think that's the price you have to pay for freedom, fine. I'll respect that position. But if you're willing to go through a background at a gun shop, why can't you complete FTF deals with FFLs? Is that really asking too much of the gun-owning community to do its part to keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. Seems like it'd be stepping up and doing its part, thereby neutralizing some criticism from anti-gun groups.
Just my opinion, of course, but the fact is that private sales do create problems. Regulating them at public events like gun shows does not seem to be an undue burden.
In NC, you do need a pistol permit or CCW to purchase a handgun privately, which does place a limit on FTF/gun show purchases. People seem to live with it well enough.
Guys, it's simple: face-to-face, private sales without background checks help put guns into hands of criminals. If you think that's the price you have to pay for freedom, fine. I'll respect that position. But if you're willing to go through a background at a gun shop, why can't you complete FTF deals with FFLs? Is that really asking too much of the gun-owning community to do its part to keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. Seems like it'd be stepping up and doing its part, thereby neutralizing some criticism from anti-gun groups.
Just my opinion, of course, but the fact is that private sales do create problems. Regulating them at public events like gun shows does not seem to be an undue burden.
In NC, you do need a pistol permit or CCW to purchase a handgun privately, which does place a limit on FTF/gun show purchases. People seem to live with it well enough.
Bobarino
member
Bear, if that's your position, why are you not also lobbying for ban on all private sales of cars, ladders, bathtubs, knives, bats, swimming pools, shovels, rope, bricks, pens, paper, bibles, etc etc ad nauseum?
Bobby
Bobby
Some years ago the Tucson City Council or Pima County Commission got interested in passing an ordinance to prevent gun shows being held in either the County Fairgrounds or City Convention Center. It was one of the two, but I forget which one.
Anyway they ask the police or sheriff department to send up a senior officer to testify on the matter from the law enforcement perspective. To they’re great surprise he wasn’t a bit keen about the idea. He started by pointing out that guns confiscated from criminals that had a gun show history amounted to about 5% of the total, and suggested that they might better worry about where the 95% representing the remaining total came from.
Then he pointed out that if private sellers were concentrated at gun shows the sales were easy to oversee, and the presence of uniformed officers (not to mention the plainclothes ones) were a visible deterrent to those with questionable motives or backgrounds that were looking for some hardware.
If the gun shows were closed it was highly probable that sales would go on somewhere, but not were law enforcement would be likely to have any opportunity to observe. They liked things the way they were.
This threw a considerable damper on the plan to close gun shows, and given that it wasn’t particularly popular from a political point of view, those that were interested in running for reelection decided to drop the whole matter.
Those that are pushing for closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” have two principal motives.
1. They want to eventually force all firearms sales or other transfers to be conducted through a federally licensed dealer so that a paper trail can be established. Without such a trail the kind of control they want can never come to be. If each transfer involves a high fee they won’t cry – but buyers/sellers might.
2. They want to eliminate the political activity that goes on between pro-gun candidates and legislators that take advantage of the large crowds (sometimes numbering in the thousands) to collect signatures on nominating petitions, distribute literature, and solicit contributions. In addition they also want to block organizations such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) and GOA (Gun Owners of America) from having access to these show goers where they can also sign up new members, solicit money and pass out literature. Gun shows have proven to be a critical component in helping pro-run candidates and advocacy groups, and outfits like the Brady Bunch want to see them gone.
Some naive individuals believe that gun owner cooperation in the form of voluntarily submitting to additional laws and regulations will slow or stop criminals from getting guns. Whatever additional controls are enacted won’t touch criminals, just law-abiding gun owners.
If controls, laws, regulations, and such were effective we wouldn't have a illegal drug problem. The same approach toward guns will work equally well.
Anyway they ask the police or sheriff department to send up a senior officer to testify on the matter from the law enforcement perspective. To they’re great surprise he wasn’t a bit keen about the idea. He started by pointing out that guns confiscated from criminals that had a gun show history amounted to about 5% of the total, and suggested that they might better worry about where the 95% representing the remaining total came from.
Then he pointed out that if private sellers were concentrated at gun shows the sales were easy to oversee, and the presence of uniformed officers (not to mention the plainclothes ones) were a visible deterrent to those with questionable motives or backgrounds that were looking for some hardware.
If the gun shows were closed it was highly probable that sales would go on somewhere, but not were law enforcement would be likely to have any opportunity to observe. They liked things the way they were.
This threw a considerable damper on the plan to close gun shows, and given that it wasn’t particularly popular from a political point of view, those that were interested in running for reelection decided to drop the whole matter.
Those that are pushing for closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” have two principal motives.
1. They want to eventually force all firearms sales or other transfers to be conducted through a federally licensed dealer so that a paper trail can be established. Without such a trail the kind of control they want can never come to be. If each transfer involves a high fee they won’t cry – but buyers/sellers might.
2. They want to eliminate the political activity that goes on between pro-gun candidates and legislators that take advantage of the large crowds (sometimes numbering in the thousands) to collect signatures on nominating petitions, distribute literature, and solicit contributions. In addition they also want to block organizations such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) and GOA (Gun Owners of America) from having access to these show goers where they can also sign up new members, solicit money and pass out literature. Gun shows have proven to be a critical component in helping pro-run candidates and advocacy groups, and outfits like the Brady Bunch want to see them gone.
Some naive individuals believe that gun owner cooperation in the form of voluntarily submitting to additional laws and regulations will slow or stop criminals from getting guns. Whatever additional controls are enacted won’t touch criminals, just law-abiding gun owners.
If controls, laws, regulations, and such were effective we wouldn't have a illegal drug problem. The same approach toward guns will work equally well.
Last time I checked, criminals weren't using swimming pools to commit crimes. And while they may use cars to get away flee the scene and very occasionally do use them to commit crimes (as well as, I suppose, shovels, we are not deal with an epidemic of shovel violence). This line of argument (if we regulate guns, we have to regulate lipstick sales) is, I think, quite tedious and does little to serve the gun community's interests, not to mention the larger public.
It's a simple fact: the law as it currently stands helps put guns in the hands of criminals. Many private sellers are not responsible. By upholding your right to private sales in public places (gun shows), you are conceding that you're helping criminals obtain guns. That's fine. But please concede the point.
For the wider, non-gun owning public, the argument that guns are the same thing as swimming pools and cars is absurd. It may make sense to people on a gun board or at an NRA meeting, but it's politically and rhetorically ineffective and only serves to paint certain members of the gun community as radicals.
If you're willing to get a background check at a gun shop - and most gun owners on this board, I'm sure, don't really have too big of a problem with a quick background check - why are you unwilling to submit to one for a private sale? This is a small concession that would put gun-rights advocates in a stronger position. Until then, the evidence and stats will pile up that guns get into the hands of criminals through totally unregulated privates sales.
Also, I am not advocating a ban on private sales. I'm advocating a background check for private sales THROUGH AN FFL. I think there's a difference.
It's a simple fact: the law as it currently stands helps put guns in the hands of criminals. Many private sellers are not responsible. By upholding your right to private sales in public places (gun shows), you are conceding that you're helping criminals obtain guns. That's fine. But please concede the point.
For the wider, non-gun owning public, the argument that guns are the same thing as swimming pools and cars is absurd. It may make sense to people on a gun board or at an NRA meeting, but it's politically and rhetorically ineffective and only serves to paint certain members of the gun community as radicals.
If you're willing to get a background check at a gun shop - and most gun owners on this board, I'm sure, don't really have too big of a problem with a quick background check - why are you unwilling to submit to one for a private sale? This is a small concession that would put gun-rights advocates in a stronger position. Until then, the evidence and stats will pile up that guns get into the hands of criminals through totally unregulated privates sales.
Also, I am not advocating a ban on private sales. I'm advocating a background check for private sales THROUGH AN FFL. I think there's a difference.
rbernie
Contributing Member
This is a lie. Not only have you been sold a lie, it's a Big Fat Lie That Ought Not Be Tolerated <tm> by anyone claiming to have an affinity for guns or the gun community.
There have been many studies and statistics look at crime rates and gun usage in crimes both in the absence of restrictions and in the presence of restrictions. The DoJs own statistics, for example, demonstrate that there has been no discernible alteration in the use of guns in crimes since the GCA'68 first instituted the whole FFL and 'prohibited persons' nonsense, much less since the mandatory inclusion of Brady background checks.
Someone can tell me that they simply feel better with mandatory background checks, and I will believe that to be an honest (if misguided) statement. But the minute that somebody starts claiming any effectivity for those infringements, they better start defending that position with actual data.
Sadly, the data positively refutes the notion that background checks and FFL transfers have ANY impact upon gun crime.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=295276
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=444280
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=469844
HorseSoldier
Member
I know some vice cops who don't have any problems with their arrest/conviction rates for guys who just thought they were talking to a hooker or chatting up a 13 year old on line. The legal requirement of a significant step is probably pretty thoroughly covered by "and then he sold me the gun" . . .
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bear2000 said:
You speak of simple facts. Well, the truth is the simple fact of law as it currently stands releases proven-in-court violent criminals (and certain insane people) from prison (and institutions) before they can be trusted out in society. These criminals buying guns at gun shows (the number is negligible compared to violent criminals obtaining stolen guns) has nothing to do with any "gun show loophole" and everything to do with the failure of government to keep violent criminals off the streets - locked up or executed.
A background check will not reveal anyone who has not yet committed a crime, so that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the NICS is flawed. The NICS will not prevent a criminal who is listed in the system from obtaining a gun by other avenues such as the much more significant number of criminals obtaining stolen guns. That's another major flaw. To top it off, the NICS is unconstitutional.
Oh, and get this: Keeping violent criminals locked up will prevent those criminals from obtaining stolen guns as well as obtaining guns at gunshows!
And, get this too: Keeping violent criminals locked up until they can be trusted out in society, or executing them, is constitutional!!!
Now, let us all hear you concede the point.
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
And another thing: If the NICS was gone and violent criminals were kept locked up, all Bloomberg could do is argue for an amendment to the Constitution to achieve the "gun control"(disarming the people) he desires. That's where all this discussion belongs. Good luck with that, Bloomie, Ole Boy!
Woody
Woody
If the bloom crowd really wanted to stop sales to prohibited buyers anyone would be allowed to run a background check. Is any of the information to classify someone prohibited not part of the public record? Since the purpose is to stop sales to the less desirables [ie poor folk] a few extra bucks for a license to posess, a few more permission to buy the ammo, a few to the cousin that controls the transfer monopoly. Soon only the rich would be able to afford a gun, and they're the ones that give the really good campiagn contrabutions [bribes]. If you really want background checks for all gun deals then make them legal for all sellers to run. No ffl need be involved, but as is pointed out that is not the intention, a simple felon designation on the drivers license would sufice. show me your license, no felon tag on it no problem. There are many ways to stop gun sales to prohibited buyers, that the bloom crowd doesn't mind putting the cost on me is a problem. My property is mine, if I need permission to have it or sell it then it belongs to whoever controls that permission, not me. Now not only have we given up the 2 amendment we are now working on giving up the fifth as well [nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation] how is requiring to pay a dealer a fee to sell a gun not a taking. Just me but this is the camels nose, allow bans on private sales and soon there will be bans on buying.
azyogi:
You were getting close...
The reason the "close the loophole" crowd isn't interested in letting individual sellers make background checks is because the background check, in and of itself, doesn't matter to them.
What they want is a #4473 form filled out each and every time ANY gun is transfered, and making private sellers go through FFL dealers at gun shows, (the only ones authorized to make background checks, AFTER the #4473 form is filled out) is just the tip of the iceburg for what they ultimately want.
Once the #4473 form is filled out they can obtain just about any information about the buyer, and the details of the firearm in question they might want, as they move on to impose endless additional requirements and controls.
Meanwhile it should be obvious that criminals won't comply with any of it.
You were getting close...
The reason the "close the loophole" crowd isn't interested in letting individual sellers make background checks is because the background check, in and of itself, doesn't matter to them.
What they want is a #4473 form filled out each and every time ANY gun is transfered, and making private sellers go through FFL dealers at gun shows, (the only ones authorized to make background checks, AFTER the #4473 form is filled out) is just the tip of the iceburg for what they ultimately want.
Once the #4473 form is filled out they can obtain just about any information about the buyer, and the details of the firearm in question they might want, as they move on to impose endless additional requirements and controls.
Meanwhile it should be obvious that criminals won't comply with any of it.
It seems to me it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I like the idea of having to pass a background check when purchasing a new or used gun.
I don't like it that I could go down the street and sell a gun to the guy who wanted one but couldn't because he has a DV conviction. And yes, he probably would go some place else but he didn't get it from me.
I don't particularly like the Bloomberg strategy of using other states as examples but his own damn city is so screwed up he thinks he can take the pressure off himself by dumping on other states.
There's also all sorts of loopholes but the biggest one around here is straw purchases from the local gun stores.
A lot of problems I've run into at the range is gun show weekends when people bring in a gun they just bought and : 1. they don't have a clue on how it works, 2. they have absolutely know idea on how to load it, aim it, or fire it. And yes, a boat load of the shooters I see are "gangbangers" or wannabe's. I know, the boss knows, and just about everyone else knows they shouldn't even be able to own a gun, let alone shoot it.
I like the idea of having to pass a background check when purchasing a new or used gun.
I don't like it that I could go down the street and sell a gun to the guy who wanted one but couldn't because he has a DV conviction. And yes, he probably would go some place else but he didn't get it from me.
I don't particularly like the Bloomberg strategy of using other states as examples but his own damn city is so screwed up he thinks he can take the pressure off himself by dumping on other states.
There's also all sorts of loopholes but the biggest one around here is straw purchases from the local gun stores.
A lot of problems I've run into at the range is gun show weekends when people bring in a gun they just bought and : 1. they don't have a clue on how it works, 2. they have absolutely know idea on how to load it, aim it, or fire it. And yes, a boat load of the shooters I see are "gangbangers" or wannabe's. I know, the boss knows, and just about everyone else knows they shouldn't even be able to own a gun, let alone shoot it.
Bear2000 said:
I'm "willing" to do that only because it is currently legal for my 2A rights to be infringed upon. Is it really possible for something to be legal and unconstitutional at the same time? Just because I have to do something doesn't mean I like it, nor does it mean that I want to have to do it more often at more places. I don't want to trade freedom for temporary safety, and you deserve neither.
Constitution Cowboy seems to be one of the few that picked up on the difference between couldn’t and probably couldn’t. I’m sure King Michael’s jesters did not use couldn’t as they knew a lot of folks would not sell to them, and this was not their intent. Their intent was to entrap as many folks as possible-easier to do when you purposely deal in the gray areas. (This doesn't even cover whether the seller could hear what they actually said on the video I saw).
I do the majority of my buying from a local VA shop that got caught up in the original sting/fiasco, and was dropped from the suit. From the videos I’ve seen in the original operation, the PIs making the “straw purchases” did not make it clear that the person filling out the paperwork was not the person for whom the purchase was being made, just as they didn’t use the word couldn’t. (The shop wouldn't have sold to 'em if the KNEW the gun was not for the person filling out the forms-I've seen 'em send many folks away that didn't have thier act together).
Heck…no more time than I spend at gun shops I’ve seen husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend come in and the guy would do all the talking, then tell his significant other “this is the gun you need/want” (often local well-known customers). Bloomberg’s cronies no doubt know this, and mimicked this behavior as closely as possible in order to pepetrate as many entrapments as possible.
I also understand the PIs used the address of the agency they worked for on the forms-is it not against the law to use a business address? I’ve been told (and don’t doubt) that you have to use your residential address.
‘Course, this would simply be another lie on the form/law broken by the PIs when they filled out the forms.
Bloomberg also sent a couple of legal secretaries from out of town to spend a day going through the shop’s records, reportedly with a list of serial numbers of guns used in N.Y. crimes. Wasn’t long before the owner saw a red flag-one of the serial numbers was a gun the shop owner was pretty darn sure the owner would not part with, and he doubted seriously said owner would ever go to N.Y. He called him up, wanted to know who he sold the gun to, and the owner didn’t know what the heck he was talking about-told ‘em the gun was on his hip, and neither he or the gun had ever been (or had any desire) to go near N.Y.
The owner was at the shop in less than 30 minutes, “suspect” gun on hip.
Kinda makes you wonder how many of King Michael’s reported “out of state sales for guns involved in N.Y. crimes” are bogus, don’t it?
BTW...have you seen the NRA ad for Bob McDonnell?
(WARNING: Duct tape your head before you read some of those wacky Huffington Post comments!)
Fer those of you not familiar-Bob McDonnell was VA's Attorney General when King Michael pulled his original stunt. VA passed a law to prevent this from happening again (they already broke existing laws) and McDonnell sent a letter to King Michael letting him know if he and his cronies tried a stunt like that again, they'd be violating X laws/committing X felonies in VA.
You can imagine how The King received that!
I'm guessing that's why The King and his jesters bypassed VA with the gun show stunt this time?
I do the majority of my buying from a local VA shop that got caught up in the original sting/fiasco, and was dropped from the suit. From the videos I’ve seen in the original operation, the PIs making the “straw purchases” did not make it clear that the person filling out the paperwork was not the person for whom the purchase was being made, just as they didn’t use the word couldn’t. (The shop wouldn't have sold to 'em if the KNEW the gun was not for the person filling out the forms-I've seen 'em send many folks away that didn't have thier act together).
Heck…no more time than I spend at gun shops I’ve seen husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend come in and the guy would do all the talking, then tell his significant other “this is the gun you need/want” (often local well-known customers). Bloomberg’s cronies no doubt know this, and mimicked this behavior as closely as possible in order to pepetrate as many entrapments as possible.
I also understand the PIs used the address of the agency they worked for on the forms-is it not against the law to use a business address? I’ve been told (and don’t doubt) that you have to use your residential address.
‘Course, this would simply be another lie on the form/law broken by the PIs when they filled out the forms.
Bloomberg also sent a couple of legal secretaries from out of town to spend a day going through the shop’s records, reportedly with a list of serial numbers of guns used in N.Y. crimes. Wasn’t long before the owner saw a red flag-one of the serial numbers was a gun the shop owner was pretty darn sure the owner would not part with, and he doubted seriously said owner would ever go to N.Y. He called him up, wanted to know who he sold the gun to, and the owner didn’t know what the heck he was talking about-told ‘em the gun was on his hip, and neither he or the gun had ever been (or had any desire) to go near N.Y.
The owner was at the shop in less than 30 minutes, “suspect” gun on hip.
Kinda makes you wonder how many of King Michael’s reported “out of state sales for guns involved in N.Y. crimes” are bogus, don’t it?
BTW...have you seen the NRA ad for Bob McDonnell?
(WARNING: Duct tape your head before you read some of those wacky Huffington Post comments!)
Fer those of you not familiar-Bob McDonnell was VA's Attorney General when King Michael pulled his original stunt. VA passed a law to prevent this from happening again (they already broke existing laws) and McDonnell sent a letter to King Michael letting him know if he and his cronies tried a stunt like that again, they'd be violating X laws/committing X felonies in VA.
You can imagine how The King received that!
I'm guessing that's why The King and his jesters bypassed VA with the gun show stunt this time?
- Status
