- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is purely anecdotal and second hand but a client who kind of does the gun show circuit around the SW just informed me that the ATF has started something new. According to him the agents (undercover) are posing as private sellers and busting buyers who don't ask for ID from the seller. He mentioned that they are confiscating whatever is for sale at the table and searching the homes of the buyers. I don't know how much of this is just drama and how much is legit but as far as I know there is no requirement for a buyer to identify whether a seller is a prohibited person.
I'm assuming that this hinges on interstate transfers and if the seller says something like "I'm from New Jersey and want to sell this rifle" there might be some culpability on the buyer's part but it's an interesting tactic if it's happening as he says.
As a legal matter, direct sales between private individuals from different states are prohibited. It has to go through a licensed seller, and if it's a handgun that licensed seller must be from the buyer's state.
This is purely anecdotal and second hand but a client who kind of does the gun show circuit around the SW just informed me that the ATF has started something new. According to him the agents (undercover) are posing as private sellers and busting buyers who don't ask for ID from the seller. He mentioned that they are confiscating whatever is for sale at the table and searching the homes of the buyers. I don't know how much of this is just drama and how much is legit but as far as I know there is no requirement for a buyer to identify whether a seller is a prohibited person.
I'm assuming that this hinges on interstate transfers and if the seller says something like "I'm from New Jersey and want to sell this rifle" there might be some culpability on the buyer's part but it's an interesting tactic if it's happening as he says.
probably time for congress to cut their budget again. They tend to do this to try to get their arrest figures up without really going after the problem people (like Bike gangs running automatic weapons etc).
I'd be interested to see exactly what went down. The guy I got this from is a good source for "something happened" but he's also eccentric enough that the details are often not as originally stated.
What does an I.d. Get you?
It sounds like the governments "create a new criminal class" every month program.
ATF's history under Obama tells me it should be dissolved and rebuilt
I would be happy with them having a budget of absolute zero starting next fiscal year, and every year after.probably time for congress to cut their budget again. They tend to do this to try to get their arrest figures up without really going after the problem people (like Bike gangs running automatic weapons etc).
I would be happy with them having a budget of absolute zero starting next fiscal year, and every year after.
Why even rebuild them? Just dissolve the agency and incarcerate any agents that followed illegal executive orders, all the higher ups that engaged in inappropriate rules changes, then nail them again for every single unwarranted search and seizure operations and once more for any unwarranted sting operations. Make them serve consecutive sentences and let it be an example to every other agency. Then sue the **** out of them.What does an I.d. Get you?
It sounds like the governments "create a new criminal class" every month program.
ATF's history under Obama tells me it should be dissolved and rebuilt
They didn't get half of the people in that operation that they should have, and even the ones they got didn't get what they legally deserved.they should have been permanently eradicated after the WACO photo op debacle
the useful part of the ATF-the TTB-left with treasury while the LE component (the jack booted storm troopers according to long time DEMOCRAT rep John Dinged of Michigan) went to DOJ/ Homeland security IIRC
Right. But as a rule it's incumbent upon the SELLER to insure he's not making a transfer to a prohibited person. In this case they seem to be putting that responsibility on the buyer and, as far as I know, it's not illegal to purchase a firearm from a prohibited person.
Prohibited individuals are separate from interstate sales. Buying from out of state is punishable, no?
I don't approve of sting operations period, but that seems to be the reasoning here.
If you travel from CA to AZ to buy a gun from a private seller you are committing a crime but that isn't what happened here. In this case the buyer was presented with an opportunity to purchase a gun from a private seller and was apprehended because he didn't check the buyer's ID.
If you travel from CA to AZ to buy a gun from a private seller you are committing a crime but that isn't what happened here. In this case the buyer was presented with an opportunity to purchase a gun from a private seller and was apprehended because he didn't check the buyer's ID.
If someone in CA buys a gun from someone who traveled there from AZ, that's illegal, correct?
I don't think buying it is illegal though selling it in such a circumstance would be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?