Gun sales spark 123 federal investigations in Texas

[jpak]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Gun-sales-spark-123-federal-investigations-in-3510978.php

Federal agents in South Texas have opened 123 criminal investigations as a result of a new requirement that border-state gun stores report customers who buy two or more large caliber rifles in the same week, especially those preferred by Mexican drug cartels.

<snip>

Among the ongoing investigations are a reputed ring in Houston with at least 11 players, and another continuing case in San Antonio and Del Rio that involves as many as 30 rifles.

They come as Mexico demands that the U.S. do more to stop the flow of guns, particularly variants of the AK-47 and AR-15 rifles, from the United States into the hands of drug-cartel gangsters terrorizing that nation.

<more>

[Remmah2]

1. About time the feds got off their asses.

Too bad they helped create the problems they're now charged with solving.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Your obviously...

...not aware of the federal answer to job security.

[ileus]

2. so they're calling the 556 large caliber....LOL ID10TS

I bought two stripped lowers about a month back....they'd be barking up the wrong tree if this was nationwide.

[bongbong]

3. Where's the NRA when you need 'em???

We must preserve our "2nd Amendment rights" to buy as many guns as we want, even if we aren't in a militia and the 2nd Amendment we're "defending" is the NRA rewrite!

[DonP]

4. Don't feel bad. You can still buy as many as you want if you're a drug smuggler

All you have to do is drive from store to store and buy one at a time instead of 2 or 3. Or go up to Kansas or another non border state.

That's why this is such an effective measure against the drug cartels, it makes them use more expensive gas so they have to charge the stupid druggies extra for each lid. That BATFE, always thinking ahead.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Yeah, they got the stupid ones that were too lazy to drive. So it's a success!

And if they do it for eight more years, they'll just about equal the number they let slip via Fast and Furious....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. "We must preserve our "2nd Amendment rights" to buy as many guns as we want."

FTFY

[bongbong]

16. FTFY correctly

"We must preserve our "2nd Amendment rights", as re-defined by the NRA, to buy as many guns as we want."

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Not quite, as it was *all* of the Supremes that said so.

Then again, you lot never do let a concern about factual accuracy impede propogation of your "higher truths"...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. "higher truths"...

It's treated rather like a religion, wouldn't you say?

[bongbong]

21. Yeah

A conservative court, overturning decades of SCOTUS precedent affirming the collective nature of the 2nd Amendment.

Why do you think conservatives' overturning of decades of precedent is so great? This is, after all, DEMOCRATIC underground.

[gejohnston]

22. there is no SCOTUS precendent of collective nature

The usual cases are pre incorporation cases that basically said any state can use the entire bill of rights for toilet paper. Miller decided nothing.

[bongbong]

23. Wrong again

You'll have to prove that "Miller decided nothing".

Remember, proof doesn't mean "I read it in the NRA magazine!"

I've already responded to you on this in another thread. Are you a sockpuppet????

[gejohnston]

27. at least

"NRA magazine" would provide more than you have. The only thing the court said (remember, this was an uncontested case, meaning only one side filed a brief or made arguments) that basically said "short barreled shotguns did not have a military purpose".
If the case's ruling actually meant anything, how could both sides claim it as their victory? It was not well written or reasoned.
The court ruled if you will:

The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

What does it say about "no individual right"? What does it say about "well regulated militia"?

The larger issue, was kicked back to the lower court.

Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Clearly you don't...

...take correction well.

Good luck with that.

[bongbong]

20. Really?

If you like the NRA re-definition of the 2nd Amendment over the Founding Fathers', good luck with that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I am ONLY...

...aware of and agree with the founders intent. Your communal ideas are irrelevant. I don't know what the NRA says. I'm not a member.

[bongbong]

25. asdf

> are of and agree with the founders intent. Your communal ideas are irrelevant.

Since your ideas about the 2nd Amendment are straight from the "Orders to give to the flock" manual of the NRA, you aren't a follower of the Founding Fathers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. FYI

Repeating a lie does not make it true, but apparently you believe differently. Good luck with that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Ah, another believer in "The Protocols of The Elders of The National Rifle Association"

Of course, you have no evidence of any such "orders" from the NRA. Lack of any documention is the marker for a belief in "TPoTEoTNRA"

You're far from the first- we get a few people every year claiming the NRA wants and/or orders all manner of nefarious things. The usual claim is the
NRA wants everyone to have guns everywhere, or something to that effect. Of course, those claiming this are usually graduates of The College of
It Stands To Reason and tend to evade or go silent when asked for evidence.


BTW, what are you doing to overturn Heller and McDonald? If you're like most gun control advocates, your actions will be
limited to fighting as a keyboard commando on the intertubes. If one of you lot is really energetic, they'll get some appeal to emotion
posted at HuffPo or Salon. I've never seen a bigger bunch of slacktivists in all my born days...

[bongbong]

29. asdf

> BTW, what are you doing to overturn Heller and McDonald

Oh, sorry, I guess if I'm not marching on the picket lines, or whatever you imagine I should do, it's a big waste of time.

I just like seeing how far you gun-religionists bend over backwards to defend your poor, widdle guns! Very entertaining!

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Keyboard commando, got it...

[DanTex]

5. Wait, but the NRA said that multiple sales reporting laws are useless!

How is it that they led to 123 criminal investigations? The pro-gunners insisted that this was just an evil ploy to inconvenience all those law-abiding gun owners who routinely make multiple AR-15 and AK-47 purchases, and that if we let this happen, pretty soon Eric Holder would be confiscating all our guns and locking us in FEMA camps!

[gejohnston]

6. can you show where the NRA said that

or something close to it? IIRC, the NSSF's concern was more about it being a law passed in congress like the handgun reporting.
I'm more curious to see how many of these investigations turn in to convictions.

[bongbong]

7. Answer

Another fellow thoughtfully provided an answer to your question in post #4, above.

[CokeMachine]

8. I don't see the answer in post #4

Care to point it out? Maybe I'm missing something -- new computer glasses and all.

[bongbong]

12. LOL

Poster A: "Gun laws in border states are useless because it's easy to drive to another state to buy more guns!"

Poster B: "I hate tighter gun laws in border states because it isn't easy to drive to another state to buy more guns!"

[CokeMachine]

13. Still don't see it

Damn glasses -- just got them this morning and they are already faulty. Oh well, such is life!

[gejohnston]

9. that wasn't the NRA answer

and I think it would still violate federal law concerning interstate sales, unless you can get a Kansas pot head to make the sale and drive.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Ahem. *I'm* the one that said it- and I'm certainly not the NRA:

Let me be so churlish as to point out that much-touted "criminal investigations" by the ATF ofttimes don't actually result in convictions.
Google "Carter's Country" for a perfect example..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=8905

friendly_iconoclast
10. Do the words "Straw buyers will go on road trips" mean anything to you?

They should:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x435859

ATF announces new rules to encourage road trips by straw buyers

...One hopes that the straw buyers will get a nice mileage allowance as they make a circuit of multiple gun shops within their
home states, and that their bosses provide them with safe, fuel-efficient vehicles in which to do so.

Security theater at its finest....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x435675#435865

friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts)

Response to Reply #9
22. This "**sensible** policy" will encourage straw buyers to go on road trips...

in order to buy 1 (one) gun each at multiple gun shops within each state.
Which they can repeat after a suitable interval has passed...

This practice was known as "smurfing" in South Florida when used to launder money, and later multiple purchases of pseudoephdrine.
This is security theater promulgated by the cynical- and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the gullible.


I do see one positive in all this. This will stimulate the travel industry in those states affected...

I have a question for you: Do you think the ATF will have the same track record against this type of smuggling as the DEA does with drugs?