New York City Investigates Arizona Gun Show-Bloomberg to show videos

[RamboLiberal]

PHOENIX — Weeks after a shooting left six dead and 13 injured in Tucson, New York City sent undercover investigators to an Arizona gun show and found instances in which private sellers sold semiautomatic pistols even after buyers said they probably could not pass background checks, city officials said.

The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on illegal gun sales nationwide, took place Jan. 23 at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix, officials said.

“The background check system failed in Arizona, it failed in Virginia and it fails in states around the country,” said John Feinblatt, an adviser to Mr. Bloomberg. “If we don’t fix it now, the question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when.”

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run federal background checks, but it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying. In the case of Jared L. Loughner, who is accused of opening fire on the crowd in Tucson on Jan. 8, the gun used in the shootings was bought at a licensed gun dealer, and he passed a background check, the authorities said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/31guns.html?_r=1&hp

The Tuscon massacre that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others did not stop Arizona gun dealers from selling high-powered semiautomatics last week to buyers who said they couldn't pass background checks.

The sales were captured on undercover video by private detectives working for Mayor Bloomberg's crusade against illegal guns. The detectives went to the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix on Jan. 23 to expose the deadly loopholes in America's gun background check system.

The investigators bought Sig Sauer and Smith & Wesson 9-mm semiautomatics with high-capacity magazines, even after telling the gun dealers they "probably couldn't pass" a background check. Gun shows are exempt from background checks, but vendors can't legally sell to anyone they think is prohibited from buying them.

Detectives also bought the same kind of Glock 9-mm semiautomatic with a 33-round extended magazine that psycho killer Jared Lee Loughner used in his Jan. 8 rampage, without any background check.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/30/2011-01-30_arizona_gun_dealers_still_selling_semiautomatic_weapons_to_buyers_without_backgr.html

I may be a minority in this forum on this but IMHO all gun sales should have to go through NICS. This is one issue I think could stand a chance of getting through congress.

[X_Digger]

1. No, gun shows aren't exempt from background checks.

Of course I wouldn't expect the dailysnooze to know that.

[Abq_Sarah]

4. They try to confuse the issue

By lumping private sales into the same category as sales by licensed vendors.

[RamboLiberal]

9. But the NYTimes got it right on this

Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run federal background checks, but it is a violation of federal law to sell guns to people if sellers suspect they are felons or mentally ill or are otherwise prohibited from buying.

So what would be the big problem about requiring all firearms sales to go through NICS? In states where it is required they setup a method where the private sellers have access to an FFL that does the NICS.

Isn't that one thing the NRA and gun owners could give up? The assurance that whomever is buying the gun can legally buy it??

[X_Digger]

10. If it were an 800#? Optionally.

If you're required to find an FFL? Nope.

I didn't set foot in a 'real' gun store until I was in my teens. There still isn't one in the town I grew up in.

[RamboLiberal]

13. Hasn't stopped people in my state from buying handguns

PA. We have lots of small towns. And now with the internet on forums I could find an FFL in just a couple of minutes and arrange a transfer.

I don't find that much of an excuse.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Why should you have to pay someone

Else to sell your firearms?

[X_Digger]

45. I don't find that much of a reason.

There wasn't an FFL within 45 minutes of the town I grew up in. (Heck there still isn't one- http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1420&bih=657&q=gun+store%2C+grundy%2C+va&btnG=Google+Search)

I don't see the benefits even matching the burden, much less outweighing it.

When I was 12, my granddad traded a pup from a litter of hunting dogs for an H&R 16ga shotgun for me. When I was 16, I traded an old dirt bike for a marlin 30-30 rifle. I remember trading shotguns for rifles, and vice-versa. I got my first revolver in trade for some work I did for a friend's dad (Over the course of a summer, I tore down a series of farm sheds on his property and bushhogged the area.)

I can't imagine such a rule affecting trade like that. There'd be two classes of firearms- those 'with papers' and those without. You'd still have that economy going on, but with existing, unregistered firearms. Such a system would be so easy to subvert as to be meaningless.

[one-eyed fat man]

39. How far are you going to stretch the Commerce Clause?

Congress gets to tell FFLs they will do background checks because they have a Federal license to do business. They are regulating "interstate commerce" which is a Constitutionally granted power of Congress.

Joe Bagadonuts selling a gun to his neighbor is 'intrastate commerce' which Congress has no authority to regulate. Even if you want to stretch that claim to say that Smith & Wesson revolver got to Arizona in 'interstate commerce' so Congress can meddle in what for any other legal commodity would be an intrastate transaction.

The Smith & Wesson factory is in Springfield, Massachusetts. If Joe's cousin, Josephine in Springfield sells her Smith and Wesson to a coworker, how has that gun moved in interstate commerce?

We have been down this road before with the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which made it illegal to posseess a gun within a half-mile of a school. The court found the law "in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."

United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

You and the New York Times may not like it, but this is a question for the states. There is nothing that keeps a state from requiring any or all gun sales within its borders go through an FFL and thus a NICS check. To argue otherwise, ignoring the Constitutional limits on a Federal statute, is just pandering to hysteria.

[Euromutt]

40. It's a bad idea to make concessions to someone who's acting in bad faith

Let me be blunt: the whole "gun show loophole" thing isn't really about closing the so-called "gun show loophole." There are plenty of ways the "gun show loophole" could be closed, e.g. by having the ATF run a stand at every gun show issuing one-day certificates to any private applicant who passes the NICS check, but the people agitating about "closing the gun show loophole" aren't interested in any approach other than de facto outlawing private sales by requiring them to go through an FFL with all the attendant paperwork.

And I for one am not prepared to give them that.

[one-eyed fat man]

46. Something sounds familiar.....

"Isn't that one thing the NRA and gun owners could give up?"

I have heard that every time a gun law or regulation has been proposed, without fail, for sixty years.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years..."
- Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

It is always by inches. Every time it is a LIE. Every time it is "...one little thing gun owners could give up."

It has never been enough and it will never be enough until all ownership of all guns is outlawed. You know it and you shamelessly hew to the agenda. Creeping destruction by increments has ALWAYS been part of the plan.

Tell us really, was Janet Reno lying when she said, ""Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Or are you lying now when you say, "Isn't that one thing the NRA and gun owners could give up?"

[YllwFvr]

98. quite easy to get around

with straw purchases. But thats illegal so it never happens

[virginia mountainman]

2. Bloomberg's roadshow..

He tried that same crap in Virginia, and ended up NEARLY getting his "investigators" arrested on Federal and state charges for make "false statements on Form 4473, and straw purchases".

Bloomberg like many repukes, like to "pretend" that they are above the law... Virginia, and a few other states nearly had his ass in a sling, now he is in Arizona pulling the same BS??

ROFLMAO!!!!

[sharesunited]

5. Virginians bear collective shame for being such a source of death, injury and disability.

[virginia mountainman]

6. LOL!!!!! Your funny!! nt

[Straw Man]

12. Ah, our old friend...

Virginians bear collective shame for being such a source of death, injury and disability.

Collective Guilt: the doctrine that justifies terror bombing, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. How progressive.

[sharesunited]

17. Arizona profiles Hispanics. Kansas hounds and persecutes abortion providers.

Arizonans and Kansans who disagree with those policies feel ashamed.

[virginia mountainman]

20. LOL yea...

Just think of what they will do to a elitist, rich, republican, New Yorker who is preaching the failed dogma of Gun Control, They will have a field day with Bloomy's Roadshow!!!

Evidently the "ashamed" residents don't vote.....

[sharesunited]

21. He is just trying to expose the problem and make you face it. Like Michael Moore does.

Just like MM did in Bowling for Combine.

[virginia mountainman]

22. Yea...Just because he "says it" does not make it so..

It's just some more of his Dogma...

[oneshooter]

41. SO, how are the talks with Mexico and Canada going?

Have you struck a deal yet for their army's to disarm American citizens?

We really are awaiting word from you on he date it begins.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[YllwFvr]

53. perhaps he could worry about his own state

he is just a Mayor, a small time player with big dreams. Not to mention the multiple felonies he is committing. But thats no biggie is it?

[sharesunited]

60. He IS worried about his own state and city.

The problem is guns easily gotten elsewhere and transported in.

Same problem Washington D.C. has with Virginia.

Same problem Chicago has with Indiana.

[YllwFvr]

64. He has an issue with Va

he is going a bit far afield when he is pointing his finger at Arizona, its 2100 miles away!

[rl6214]

23. ah isn't it great

that you've got everyone figured out.

[PavePusher]

34. Yep. 'Cause so many of the illegals coming over the southern border...

are from Scandinavia, China and Zimbabwe...

[Straw Man]

49. Why should people who oppose those policies feel ashamed?

They didn't do anything wrong. Being a citizen of a state does not make one "collectively" responsible for all that state's policies. Collective guilt is a repugnant concept.

Telling other people that they "bear collective shame" is just self-righteous moral grandstanding. You weren't empathizing; you were accusing.

[cleanhippie]

59. I feel ashamed...

that politically speaking, I consider you to be on the same team as I.

[PavePusher]

33. You must have loved the last few weeks of Laurence O'Donell.

P.S. That's not a compliment, though I am sure you will take it that way.

[sharesunited]

42. Larry unapologetically states his liberal views which I mostly share item for item.

But I thought he should have been more deferential to Rachel when she was in the captain's chair on SOTU night.

[one-eyed fat man]

43. Chicago has no fucking shame!

In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley, whose personal security detail comes from Special Services Section of the Chicago police department with a 4.8 MILLION dollar annual budget, wants patrol cops in the inner city to carry full-auto M4 carbines on the streets.



Otis McDonald wanted a handgun—a pistol to carry around the house and keep on his bedside table at night. Mayor Daley did not feel Mr. McDonald worthy and spent countless millions of the city taxpayers' dollars in a fruitless fight all the way to the Supreme Court to deny him his rights.

The only upside is that most of the money went to law firms owned by the Mayor's relatives.

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Could the system handle it?

If they opened up the NICS to every firearm owner in America?

Not to mention, there's absolutely no way to enforce it.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Yes, their is a way to enforce it..

Total gun registration....


A complete non-starter

[Abq_Sarah]

14. Compliance would be abysmal

I for one, wouldn't register a single firearm.

[RSillsbee]

18. I for two would be right there w/ you NT

[virginia mountainman]

19. Agree....nt

[Tesha]

26. Well, YOU aren't the one we're worried about...

You don't resell instant death from your trunk, or do you?

[mvccd1000]

27. Are you asking if he's...

... a drug dealer?

[Tesha]

29. You'd think...

with the vehemence some people show concerning their guns... perhaps its a good analogy.

[RSillsbee]

48. What makes you think

Someone who sells "instant death' (my wife's chili?) from their trunk would obey a law to do a background check?

[Tesha]

68. because he wouldn't have the guns...

because someone did a background check on him.

[shadowrider]

69. That's a fallacy

He wouldn't get guns LEGALLY. Nothing to stop him, or anyone else, from buying guns from an ILLEGAL source. Sure, they'd cost 3 - 4 times as much, and probably come from outside the country, but he'd get them nonetheless.

[Tesha]

74. so register sales of guns...

follow the gun through to the guy who sells out of his trunk

and prosecute the hell out of his ass!

[shadowrider]

75. Re-read my post

These ILLEGAL guns would be purchased ILLEGALLY by people who cannot LEGALLY buy them. These guns may be imported from foreign sources so the gov't wouldn't know they exist.

Law of supply and demand exists, whether or not the source of supply is legal or illegal.

Registration would do nothing to stop that.

[Tesha]

76. Most illegally obtained guns are from the US!

these things don't just appear by magic - at some point you can trace guns to the first source of illegal purchase.

[shadowrider]

78. You are incorrect beyond belief

"MOST" of the guns SUBMITTED for tracing (Less than 30%) is the source of your statement. The other 70% are NOT traceable to the states and therefore NOT submitted.

Also, MOST of the guns that are traced back are NOT broken down into weapons sold at gun stores OR originally sold by the U.S. Government to Mexico which were subsequently stolen by federales/police/corrupt politicians. Of course those are traced back, we sold them to them.

Your statement of "most" is ridiculous on its face.

[Tesha]

82. So 3 out of 10 these guns DO come from the US?

This would be a great start!

Could you please provide reference to your numbers?
I'd like to know what the emphasis on "submitted" means in this context.
If there was a database with registration numbers would this make the "trace" show something quite different?

[shadowrider]

83. Don't jump to conclusions

I said 3 in 10 are submitted to determine whether or not they came from the states.

The actual percentage is much lower than that. I'm looking for the source.

[Katya Mullethov]

88. It's supposed to be 3 in 10 guns siezed in Mexico

Came from Carter's Country Guns .

[Glassunion]

93. That would put the total number of recoverd guns in Mexico in the past two years at 345.

STOP THE MADNESS!!!

[Glassunion]

92. "Submitted"

Look at it like this... A little history on the myth of the 70%, 80% and 90% number the media tosses around from time to time.

The Mexican government recovers 29,000 guns from crime scenes. Out of all of those guns they only "submit" 11,000 guns to be traced. They only "submitted" less then half of the guns they recovered because the US BATFE would be unable to trace firearms that did not originate from the US. So if the Mexican government saw Russian, South Korean or Chinese markings and serial numbers, they did not submit them to the US for tracing because we would not have been able to trace them, as they would not have originated in the US.

So far if 29,000 firearms = 100% of all firearms recovered.
11,000 selected for tracing = 37.9% of all firearms recovered.

Out of those 11,000 firearms selected for tracing about to 6,000 were successfully traced and of those, 90% or 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover were found to have come from the U.S. This is where the 90% number mis-quoted in the media comes from.

So now we are down to 5,114 firearms that were recovered that have been traced to sources in the US.

So far if 29,000 firearms = 100% of all firearms recovered.
11,000 selected for tracing = 37.9% of all firearms recovered.
5,114 traced to US sources = 17.6% of all firearms recovered.

Now I would like to redirect you http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/12/AR2010121202663.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010121203267

In the article they discuss the originating sources in the US for "some" of the firearms that were traced. In the article they discuss the Top 12 retailers linked to firearms recovered in Mexico. The number #1 guy on the list with 4 stores had 115 firearm traces back to his 4 stores. According to the article the rest on the top 12 list had traces in the double digits... Not in the thousands.

You also need to keep in mind that a good portion of those 5,114 firearms did not come from the US civilian market. They were sold legitimately and shipped to the government of Mexico. These sales are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way. So all of the fully auto versions... They are not smuggled in across the river but wrapped up for sale legaly approved by the US Government.

What happens when more than Mexican 150,000 soldiers deserted in the past six years? What happens when many of them take their US manufactured firearms with them? How would this look on the trace data?

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101.pdf (See Page 1 "Background" footnote #7) But I do recommend reading the entire DOJ evaluation of the ATF. It will answer many questions.

[Euromutt]

73. That's where straw purchasers come in

Just as a refresher, a "straw purchase" is when someone with a clean criminal record and mental bill of health purchases a firearm on behalf of someone who does not. The NICS check doesn't turn up anything, because it's not the guy who's in the system on whom the check is being run.

Moreover, for a person to show up in the NICS database, he has to have been caught and convicted first. A guy could "resell instant death" from his car trunk across several states for years, but as long as none of his customers fingered him as the supplier of their firearm(s) (or the D.A. and/or ATF didn't manage to make the charges stick), he'd show up clean in a NICS check.

[YllwFvr]

55. neither would I

[Tejas]

8. FIFY

The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on
illegal gun sales nationwide




The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on
unregistered guns nationwide

[RamboLiberal]

11. Email the NY Times writer

[oneshooter]

80. There is no"nationwide regestration"

"The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on
unregistered guns nationwide"

Therefore there are no "unregistered guns" to crack down on.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Have *any* of Bloomie's "sting" purchases ever been by a DQ'd person?

Yes or no?

If yes: Bloomberg is engaged in a criminal conspiracy, as any such purchase made at his behest is a felony.

If no: So much security theater.

[rl6214]

24. who was making these purchases

Was it an Arizona resident, if not then they were breaking federal law by purchasing a handgun but not being a resident of that state. And as stated elsewhere, this is just a flat out lie "Gun shows are exempt from background checks".

[TPaine7]

25. Breaking the law in the cause of gun control is OK

At least if you're a big city mayor or one of his henchman.

[YllwFvr]

56. if I read the article correctly

he sent NYC PD officers down to do it

[Tesha]

28. The minute you bring up anything...

having to do with guns, immediately the same talking points are brought up.

We have enough laws.
This would only stop the good guys.
It infringes on my rights.
etc.

Not once - never - have I heard a gun owner even suggest that they might actually be the best group of people to restructure our laws. Who knows the issues better? WHo understands how things work? Who's striving to keep their... what? Their sport? Their tools?... whatever... to keep it working for everyone.

For instance... Require all gun shows to have an NICS checkpoint for everyone to use.


(edited for TV overload error)

[shadowrider]

30. I'm all for an NCIS checkpoint, provided Ziva is on station n/t

[Tesha]

31. hahaha... too early...too early

well, yes... you have a point!

[Euromutt]

37. It's not like some suggestions haven't been thrown out here

Somebody on this forum suggested having an ATF-run NICS booth (open to all comers, not just FFLs) in September or October 2009, I think.

I suggested in October 2009 that such a stand might issue prospective buyers a one-day certificate (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=263163&mesg_id=263281) stating that the individual in question passed a background check on that date.

There have been plenty of suggestions for closing the so-called "gun show loophole," but for some strange reason, the only approach the gun control lobby (and their various supporters on DU) seem to be interested in is requiring every transfer to through an FFL. One might, in fact, be forgiven for suspecting that the "gun show loophole" thing is simply a smokescreen for a campaign to outlaw transfers between private parties...

[Straw Man]

50. Here's another suggestion.

Private sales could be handled the way private handgun sales are handled in New York State: through the county sheriff's office. Go in and get checked out, take receipt to the seller, and everybody's happy.

Actually in NY State (in my county, at least), there is no NICS check for these sales: the sheriff's office just checks to see that your handgun permit is valid. This would have to be adapted to include NICS for long guns and non-CCW states.

[oneshooter]

58. Many states,including Texas, do not require a "permit to own" a handgun.

So your plan would not work here. Are you suggesting that a "permit to own" a handgun be federally imposed on them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

62. I don't think Straw Man was suggesting that

Rather, I think he meant just having the county sheriff's office run a NICS check on a prospective buyer, issue some paperwork to the effect that the prospective buyer passed the check, which he could then show to the seller.

His point re: New York state permits was more to illustrate that even that should, in certain cases, not even be necessary.

[Straw Man]

70. Yes, I just meant the sheriff would do the checking.

So in a state with permit requirements, you go in, show your permit, and get a date-stamped piece of paper clearing you to pick up the gun. (Actually, in NY we also have to provide make, model, and serial # of the handgun because we have registration, which I'm NOT advocating.) If your state has no permit requirement, you have a NICS check, get a slip, and you're on your way.

For convenience, the sheriff could have a booth at gunshows to provide this service, which I feel should be free, but which probably would have some administrative fee attached. In my county, it's $5.00 for a private transfer of handgun through the sheriff's office, no NICS necessary. (NICS is considered unnecessary because anything that would get you into the Fed database would also cause revocation of your NY handgun permit.) There might be a different fee scale depending on whether you need a NICS, but it would have to be less than the $35 and up that FFLs are charging for transfers.

Private long gun sales (except at gun shows) are still unregulated in NY. So this would be a huge concession, even for us. But it would close the "private-sale loophole," and in the spirit of compromise, I'd like to ask the gun-control side what they're offering in return.

[shadowrider]

71. What will the gun control side offer in return?

You outta do stand-up.

They'll take half now and the rest later.

[oneshooter]

81. With my Texas CHL there is no NICS check. Ain't that great! n/t

[Straw Man]

84. Used to be that way in NY too.

Then the Feds decided that New York's record-keeping wasn't up to snuff.

So Texas keeps better CHL records than New York. Imagine that!

[hack89]

61. They don't need to be restructured - that's the issue

guns sold at gun shows are not a problem. There are so few gun shows compared to all other private sales that you could eliminate gun shows entirely and have zero impact on public safety.

[Tesha]

67. How do you know?

People who can't pass a check are still sold guns... its a problem!
Our honeycomb of laws is outdated, spotty, and ignored - restructure them!
Why not? What's the problem? It might take a few minutes?


Here's a thought; the bartender who hands that drunk one too many is responsible if the car that drunk decides to drive kills someone - why do we let off gun sellers any more lightly?

[hack89]

77. It simple - how do you enforce it?

if I want to sell my gun to my neighbor to raise rent money who would ever know? We are talking private sales - if you shut down gun shows you still haven't stopped internet sales, newspaper classifieds, notes tacked to the community bulletin board, word of mouth, etc. People are allowed to sell their personal property - there is no way that you can keep track of it. More to the point, anyone likely to use a gun for criminal purposes is not going to submit to a background check - the law will not stop criminals.

Secondly, it is not Federal issue - it would require each state to pass a law. They would also have to pay for enforcement. Don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Tesha]

85. It should be a federal law...

and if you track every gun, and someone sells it to someone who commits a crime, and you didn't transfer the ownership on the tracking system - then you're an accomplice.

[hack89]

86. The Constitution says no

it is a state issue.

[Tesha]

91. One of the biggest problems

for some states - is other states who refuse to be responsible.

[hack89]

87. How do you plan to register and track

those 250 million guns already out there? I would never consider registering mine.

[Tesha]

90. Why?

really - why would you stand in the way of registration.
If your guns were stolen, you'd have an advantage.

[hack89]

94. It is none of the governments business if I have guns or not. nt

[Tesha]

97. I think we've been shown it is.

and consider this...

People register their cars.
Men register for the draft when they reach 18.
We register to vote.

[beevul]

99. People are not required to...

"People register their cars."


People are not required to register a car in most places in America UNLESS it will be used on public roads.

One can drive it to ones own hearts content on ones own property, without license, registration, insurance, seatbelts, glass, lights, yadda yadda yadda.


Beyond that, registration is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.

If you want registration, you'll have to repeal that first.

You'd probably be surprised how much support you'd get for that too, because doing so would also open the NFA registry.

[shadowrider]

32. Who the heck does Bloomy think he is? He's MAYOR of NY City

where does he get off investigating Arizona?

[DissedByBush]

96. I'm envisioning Bloomers in handcuffs

It'll never happen. Laws are for little people.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. Did New York private detectives break the law?

It is illegal for the resident of a state to buy a handgun across state lines except through an FFL.

Did they pose as Arizona residents to enable the sale. Last time out Bloombergs boys went out with their cameras seems the footage was cut and paste to make things look worse.

Anyone know what they really did here?

[Euromutt]

65. As far as I can tell, the private detectives were from Arizona

But it sounds so much more dramatic to say you "sent a team" than "we hired some private dicks out of the Greater Phoenix Yellow Pages."

[one-eyed fat man]

72. Maybe Bloomie learned a lesson

If he hired Arizona based private detectives that is a change from what he did in Virginia a few years ago. In that escapade he used New York private dicks to buy guns in Virgina. He got a pass from the Federal prosecutors who should have had several sets of nuts in their vises.

But as has been posted before, committing felonies furthering the gun control agenda is not only par for the course but apparently commendable.

[jeepnstein]

36. Blooomburg's a Republican.

He's a rich Republican politician who wants to limit the average citizen's right to keep and bear arms. He lacks for nothing. He has a 24/7 security detail, even when he's at his home in the Caribbean. Of course a guy like him would want everyone else disarmed.

[Euromutt]

38. Actually, he's an opportunist

I was perusing the archives looking for old posts in which I'd made certain arguments, and somebody (S_B_Jackson, does that sound right? Has an avatar pic of Truman, I think) pointed out that Bloomberg actually used to be a registered Democrat, but changed his party affiliation in 2001 so that he could run as a Republican (thereby bypassing the primaries as the Republicans weren't bothering to field a candidate), was notionally a Republican for two elections and now calls himself an "independent."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. More crimes by that repuke

He should have been charged as a conspirator for those illegal gun sales he funded. He has been more careful this time, but a conspiracy charge could still be filed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. He also wants to bring back patronage. Can this guy cloud minds, or what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x190992

Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system

Hannah Bell (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-13-11 04:55 AM
Original message
Bloomberg wants to return the civil service to the old patronage system
Edited on Thu Jan-13-11 04:57 AM by Hannah Bell


The self-proclaimed Emperor doesn't like the Civil Service System that was established in 1883 which was set up to eliminate favoritism, nepotism, and patronage when hiring, firing, and promoting government employees.

The Mayor4Life selected a hand-picked group of friends and executives to revamp the Civil Service System to bring back the very abuses that was the reason for the Civil Service System in the first place.

This elitist group was called the Workforce Reform Task Force and its mission was to reduce worker protections under the Civil Service system. Mayor Bloomberg did not see fit to include any union leaders in the group and made sure the unions were kept in the dark about the task force and did not know about the report until the New York Times brought attention to it. Predictably, the unions were very upset about not being involved in the process and have formed a united front to stop any of the Bloomberg proposals that require State approval to see the light of day.

One of the major reforms Mayor Bloomberg wants is to eliminate the "last in, first out" requirement for City teachers and changes to the Taylor Law making it easier for the City to use department seniority, rather than total seniority to determine layoffs. This would allow the City to eliminate whole departments rather than have bumping occur. Predictably the union leaders were very negative to the changes led by the Uniformed Firefighters Association President, Steve Cassidy who was disgusted with the secrecy of the task force and said had the union been included in the discussions, maybe common ground could have been found for the union to support some of the 23 recommendations.....

[MicaelS]

51. I'll split the difference....

I think all gun sales at gun shows should go through NICS. Period, no exceptions. As to the way it would be done for those not holding an FFL, I propose this: As a requirement for any FFL holder who rents a table at a show, they have to go onto a list of those who will run checks for those without an FFL. A check is needed, then first up runs a check, they go to the bottom of the list. If the FFL holder feels that is too much of a burden, then they do not have to sell at an organized show.

Private transfers between individuals not occurring at a show do not have to go through NICS.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

63. Well, that *would* close the so-called "gun show loophole"

But why do I have this sneaking suspicion it won't satisfy anyone currently harping on said purported "loophole"?

[gravity556]

66. Here's my take on it.

If Bloomberg hired AZ PIs to buy these guns, and the buyer showed the seller AZ ID and told him that he was a felon-not "I dunno if I'd pass a NICS check", but said "I'm a prohibited possesor", then the AZAG needs to file charges on the sellers. If, however, this is like the kid who drove state to state and bought firearms to show how "bad" gun shows are (he did things like lie about being a resident of the state he was purchasing in), then the AZAG needs to go after not only the sellers, but the buyers (who would be committing a felony) as well as whoever bankrolled the purchases.

Nearly all of my guns have been purchased in FTF sales. Not because I can't pass a NICS check, but because a used gun is quite often much cheaper than a new gun, and several of my acquisitions have been via trades. Or open the NICS system up for private checks. There are quite a few FFLs who won't do transfers for private parties at all (no profit in it for them), or charge 50-100 bucks to do the check.

Also, Bloomie needs to stay in his own fucking lane. You're a mayor, dude, not a governor, not the head of the FBI or Maxwell fucking Smart.

[Euromutt]

89. You're thinking of Colin Goddard, willingly harnessed to the Brady chariot

The fact that he managed to live through the Virginia Tech massacre has zero bearing on his little anti-gun show crusade, given that Cho didn't buy his guns at a gun show, but let's not point that out, shall we?

Seriously, though, I think he and his handlers were smart enough to avoid breaking the law too, and in Goddard's case, he used local residents to perform the actual buys while he himself just manipulated the camera. And I use the word "manipulated" deliberately.

[MicaelS]

79. You are probably correct. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. Why is a mayor

Using his armed agents outside his city and outside his state?

Only the feds can enforce laws between states.