- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
NEW YORK – Weeks after the shooting in Tucson, sellers at an Arizona gun show allowed undercover investigators hired by New York City to buy semiautomatic pistols even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.
snip
"Mayor Bloomberg and his `task force' have no legal authority in the state of Arizona, or in any other place in America except New York City," said the statement from the Crossroads of the West Gun Shows. "These forays into America's heartland committing blatant acts to entrap otherwise innocent gun owners is an unlawful scheme that is created by Bloomberg's task force."
The private investigators, wearing concealed video cameras, were sold the 9 mm guns even after telling two separate sellers they probably couldn't pass background checks.
While many sellers at gun shows are not required under federal law to perform background checks, it is illegal for them to sell a weapon if they have reason to believe the buyer wouldn't be able to pass one, the mayor said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bloomberg_gun_control
WTF! Who in the hell does Bloomberg think he is? He, nor his police force has ANY jurisdiction in AZ what so ever, and these people he sent in to this gun show under false pretense should have been arrested.
When I first heard this reported it was reported that these were NYC police, and in fact the story states "task force", but they also say that they are private investigators....If these are NYC police, then AZ state troopers should be outraged at this.
I can't tell you how this boils my blood.
j-mac
Is it a jusrisdiction thing for you, or that it involves guns? Just curious.
Is it a jusrisdiction thing for you, or that it involves guns? Just curious.
It is both. Listen Joe, there are reasons that police as a professional courtesy inform other jurisdictions when they are present. Let me ask you, Do you think it is perfectly appropiate for another state's police to enter into say your state un announced to conduct a sting?
j-mac
I wished some of our more fervent right wingers around here would get this upset when O'Keefe releases doctored and edited videos that don't tell the truth as J-Mac is here about something that as far as I can tell, hasn't been falsely edited, didn't break any laws, etc.
I don't disagree with you concerning jurisdiction, and I wonder how it will play out legally. I also wonder if AZ wasn't in on it. If they were, would that change how you look at it?
Arizona’s attorney general Tom Horne is hurt that Bloomberg's office didn't notify local police about the probe. And he took the opportunity to do a little trash-talking about NYC:
Local law enforcement and the Arizona Department of Public Safety were never notified that Mayor Bloomberg’s operation was being undertaken. That is standard professional courtesy and is also designed to protect the general public. Arizona law enforcement should have been made aware that people posing as criminal elements were in fact undercover officers. The fact that no such notification was made indicates this so-called sting is nothing less than a public relations stunt.
Arizona Contemptuous of Bloomberg's Gun Show Sting: Gothamist
Didn't Holder get into a snit about AZ enforcing federal law? More than that, he filed suit to stop it.
And that was AZ acting in its own jurisdiction.
WTF! Who in the hell does Bloomberg think he is? He, nor his police force has ANY jurisdiction in AZ what so ever, and these people he sent in to this gun show under false pretense should have been arrested.
When I first heard this reported it was reported that these were NYC police, and in fact the story states "task force", but they also say that they are private investigators....If these are NYC police, then AZ state troopers should be outraged at this.
I can't tell you how this boils my blood.
j-mac
You can obtain firearms without a background check? :shock:
Yes, it would appear that he's reaching; but the ones to call it on him all reside in his home state. I hate gun shows. I think they should be outlawed. So given that, go Bloomberg.
WTF! Who in the hell does Bloomberg think he is? He, nor his police force has ANY jurisdiction in AZ what so ever, and these people he sent in to this gun show under false pretense should have been arrested.
When I first heard this reported it was reported that these were NYC police, and in fact the story states "task force", but they also say that they are private investigators....If these are NYC police, then AZ state troopers should be outraged at this.
I can't tell you how this boils my blood.
j-mac
Why should they be outlawed?
You can obtain firearms without a background check? :shock:
Because I don't think there's adequate oversight. A gun shop would not be selling firearms without appropriate background checks.
Federal law does not require private sellers to perform back ground checks. Gun shows have private sellers selling firearms,which is why they do not have to perform a back ground check.This is no different than buying a gun from a relative or some random stranger.Then states need stricter laws. In Illinois, the only legal way to sell a firearm is to sell it to someone with a current FOID and keep records of that gun and buyer for a minimum of ten years.
Responsibilities of Private Sellers: People who say they are hobbyists or collectors and claim to make only occasional sales can sell firearms without a license. Unlike licensed sellers, federal law does not require these private sellers to conduct background checks on buyers or retain sales records.
Again, states should grab onto this with both hands and change the laws. (In Illinois, as I said, whoever buys it must have a valid FOID.)
Isn't that up to the state that holds, or allows the gun show?
j-mac
Completely agree.
If guns are making their way into NYC from these gun shows then maybe the mayor is doing the right thing.
That doesn't mean the seller actually believes or has reason to believe the person couldn't pass a background check.A private seller has to have reason to believe someone is prohibited. I do not know about you but if I was a prohibited person I would not be stupid enough to tell a private seller that I am a prohibited person. I am pretty sure private sellers are aware of this fact and probably think the person is some anti-2nd amendment scumbag trying to play gotcha games instead of a real prohibited person. Judging by this statement this is what I suspect.In some instances the sellers are handing over guns to people who openly say they probably couldn't pass a background check which appears to be a violation of federal law.
No, they were not "in on it".... Here a statement from the AZ AG.
j-mac
Then states need stricter laws. In Illinois, the only legal way to sell a firearm is to sell it to someone with a current FOID and keep records of that gun and buyer for a minimum of ten years.
My state actually respects the 2nd amendment.So my state will not do that anytime soon.Again, states should grab onto this with both hands and change the laws. (In Illinois, as I said, whoever buys it must have a valid FOID.)
Seller: "The good thing is, though, if you don't like it you can just sell it later and its not in your name like when you buy a new one you have to worry where it's going to end up"
It becomes more obvious why some people feel the need to carry a gun, they seem to be the ones guaranteeing there are plenty of weapons available for criminals.
A fella that sells hundreds of guns a year is hardly a collector IMO.
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?