TexasCHLforum.com

mbw wrote:I still contend that if there really is a problem with arms smuggled from the US, some people are blowing it all out of proportion because of an anti gun agenda.

You are absolutely right.

However, they are doing it successfully. As some of you may have noticed, I do not jump to condemn the media; but they have been bamboozled by this propaganda and are helping to spread it.

Perhaps we can encourage our representatives in Congress (most of whom are on our side) to stay in this fight. We think about RKBA issues all the time. They don't, and can't.

- Jim

Thanks for the insights.

- Jim

ClarkLZeuss wrote:... I think what has to happen is to get real familiar with the common habits of straw purchasers. Cash purchases seems like one indicator. So what could be done from there? And what are some other habits?

BATFE has plenty of material on profiling straw purchasers. Some of the characteristics are

• buyer being coached by another person
• nervous, apprehensive buyer
• obviously unfamiliar with firearms
• not trying to negotiate the price
• not interested in details of the weapon
• not trying the action

The question is what to do when a straw buyer is suspected. BATFE can question him, and they sometimes do. The straw buyer might crack when the agent explains that straw purchases get a 10-year prison sentence, and prosecutors can offer him a break for turning in his contact or participating in a sting.

I don't what they can do beyond that, under current law.

- Jim

ClarkLZeuss wrote:I hate to even mention the dreaded word "registration," but I think that may be the first real concrete step in this process. Think of it this way: if they make a law that your name / DL / SSN will be recorded with the serial number of the gun, and that any crime committed with that gun lies at your feet (UNLESS you report the gun missing), ...

We're halfway there now.

When you buy a firearm from an FFL, your name, address, etc., and the serial number of the firearm are recorded on the Form 4473. That form stays in the dealer's hands until he goes out of business, at which time it goes to BATFE.

Under current law, that data should not go into any electronic database.

If a weapon is found in association with a crime, the police can request a trace. BATFE then manually tracks the weapon from the manufacturer to the first retail purchaser.

At that point, the police can contact the first retail purchaser and ask him what he knows about the weapon. He may say that it was stolen or he sold it to a private party whose name he did not record. Unless the police have some other evidence linking that person to the crime, that becomes a dead end.

What some lawmakers propose to fix that perceived problem is requiring all private purchases to go through an FFL, and make it an offense to fail to report the loss or theft of a weapon.

Those steps would make legitimately sold second-hand weapons traceable. If someone claims that a weapon was stolen and he didn't report it, prosecutors can then put pressure on him to see if he can remember selling it.

If someone reports a stolen weapon every month, there's obviously something fishy going on.

Some states have these measures already. There is no evidence that they reduce straw purchases or criminal use of firearms.

Part of the reason that they don't work is the huge number of firearms already in private hands in the U.S. -- hundreds of millions -- that have been bought and sold privately or inherited with no paper trail. There is no way to link those weapons to an owner.

Our side is rightfully concerned about misuse of gun registration. For example, if someone was shot with a .40-caliber bullet, does every owner of a .40-caliber pistol who could possibly have committed the crime become a suspect?

- Jim

tesla wrote:Are you certain that vigorously pointing out the cynical and illogical nature of their argument would really fail?

It has never worked before.

The 1994 AWB contained a provision that required the CDC to report on the effectiveness of the ban. They came to the conclusion that it had no demonstrable effect on crime.
I'm not sure if this is the study, but it contains similar conclusions: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence

(This is about as clear a statement as you will get from the CDC.)

This has not stopped anti-RKBA congressmen and other public officials from continuing to call for another AWB and other "gun control" measures. The resistance of those "blue dog" Democrats may be the only factor preventing it now.

I don't think an AWB is a foregone conclusion. I already stated what I think may happen.

We are also losing ground in the court of public opinion. As little as I watch TV, I keep hearing about "machine guns" going from the U.S. to Mexico. That is either a lie or a statement made out of ignorance. I don't see what we can do other than write letters to the editor and maybe call it to radio talk shows -- both of which we should be doing.

- Jim

I don't think anyone in this forum believes that Mexicans are getting machine guns and other weapons of war from the U.S. We all know how difficult and expensive it is for a non-LEO to acquire a machine gun here.

What is ending up in Mexico is a certain number of handguns and semi-auto rifles from the U.S.

The strategic problem that the supporters of the RKBA have is that we don't have the political means to stop something from being done at the federal level. It takes only a bare majority to pass legislation in the House, and the Republicans can barely sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

My question is how to relieve the political pressure for an "assault weapons ban" while limiting the damage.

IOW, if you were running the NRA-ILA, what would do?

- Jim

I agree entirely that no amount of "gun control" in the U.S. will fix Mexico's problems. But I don't think we have the option of just saying No this time.

- Jim

I'm inclined to agree with Jim Longley about the problems inherent with keeping track of how many guns a person buys.

If a bill affecting NICS gets to the House floor, there is no way to guarantee that it won't let the FBI keep complete NICS records indefinitely. That would mean the feds would have de facto registration, knowing who owns what, including the serial number, from the day that the program starts.

Then, what does BATFE do with someone who has bought $10,000 worth of guns in one month? They ask him where they are. He says he sold them to his 12 best friends. That is not illegal under current law.

If the guy is a straw buyer, it will probably scare him enough to stop doing it, but there are always more recruits.

Requiring private sales to go through an FFL would be an annoyance, to say the least. Many people do not have an FFL in easy driving range. The potential problems with fulfilling this requirement at gun shows have been explained thoroughly elsewhere.

- Jim

boomerang wrote:Maybe the Treasury Secretary can order the BATFE compliance guys to focus on this problem instead of minor violations like someone writing "TX" instead of "Texas" on a 4473.

That's a great idea. That kind of nitpicking does nothing except occasionally put a small-time FFL out of business.

Another idea occurred to me. Extend the "don't lie for the other guy" program to include a reward for information leading to the arrest of a straw buyer.

IOW, if someone who is a citizen with a clean record is approached by a guy offering him payment to buy a weapon, said citizen could drop a dime, maybe participate in a sting, and get several thousand dollars -- more than the straw buyer would have paid him.

- Jim

boomerang wrote:That may reduce straw purchases in America but it won't make much difference in Mexico. The Mexican drug gangs and the various rebel groups get most of their weapons from government sources through force or bribes or collaborators.

I agree. There are also governments in Latin America (which will remain unnamed) that have an interest in destabilizing the region. Governments can buy weapons of war on the world market and dispose of them as they wish. Perhaps the Secretary of State should look into that problem.

However, we have a political problem here and now that we need confront.

- Jim

Thanks, Oldgringo. I would much rather see the NRA and its supporters in Congress propose legislation than the usual suspects.

The problem with the one-gun-a-month rule is that someone has to keep track of purchases.

At present, NICS queries are supposed to be purged after three days. In order to enforce a one-gun-a-month rule, they would have to be preserved for at least a month. It's not a big stretch for them to be preserved indefinitely, creating a de facto registration system.

I haven't made my mind up one way or the other about these issues. I'm just thinking out loud here.

- Jim

A person is required to have an FFL if he is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. This area of federal law is vague and has never been clarified. That is why someone can buy a dozen rifles at a time and then later say that he resold them to people whose names he can't remember.

I have a feeling that this law is ripe for revision, leading to the one-gun-a-month rule that I have mentioned.

I am philosophically opposed to this kind of thing; but if it is the worst that will be done, I think it is an acceptable compromise. It would have to include an exception for sets of matched firearms and other collectors' items (which generally sell for much more than the market value of generic equivalents).

Criminals can still beat the system by recruiting more straw buyers and scheduling their purchases. However, the number of recruits increases the chance of their being detected by law enforcement.

I repeat, I do not like this. I do not want to see it happen, but the pressure is on for Somebody To Do Something. We need to figure out the least damaging Something to make the problem go away.

- Jim

These crimes are prosecuted with a high rate of conviction when the authorities can identify a violator. That person, regardless of how much time he spends in prison, can never again buy a firearm from an FFL.

The problem is that there are so many people who are desperate for money, there will always be fresh recruits.

- Jim

There is no doubt in my mind that some firearms purchased from gun stores in the U.S. are making their way to Mexico. BATFE has agents in Mexico who have traced the serial numbers of weapons confiscated from criminals there to U.S. gun stores. I believe that the U.S. agents are acting in good faith, in this matter.

This is not purely a Mexican problem. Mexican gangs are operating across the border and threatening U.S. Border Patrol agents and other innocent Americans.

I hardly need to repeat that the usual suspects in the federal government are going to use this issue to call for another "assault weapons ban" and other restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners in the U.S.

Of course, the original "assault weapons ban" of 1994 did nothing to reduce crime. Everyone who has looked at the history and statistics agrees on that.

A semi-auto rifle is a semi-auto rifle. It fires a round every time that the trigger is pulled. Its basic function is unaffected by whether it has a pistol grip, folding stock, flash hider, mounts for a grenade launcher, etc. Furthermore, these components are easily obtained and added after acquiring the weapon, whether doing so is legal or not.

Straw purchases are illegal, and AFIAK have been since 1968. Exporting firearms without a license is illegal. Transferring firearms across state lines without an FFL is illegal. Nevertheless, these activities continue.

Here is how I understand what is going on: Mexican criminals find a U.S. citizen or permanent resident who wants money and doesn't have much of a conscience. They give him cash to buy a weapon. He does so, and gives the weapon to them. They export it to Mexico through illegal channels made possible by corruption.

Every step of this process is a federal felony now.

It is difficult for U.S. authorities to investigate this activity. It is entirely legal to purchase a firearm with cash and sell it to someone else at any time afterward. No records of private sales are required in most states, including Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Those in government who do not respect the right to keep and bear arms are not stupid. They have a plan that they hope will limit such activities. Some of the proposals on the table are

• one purchase a month laws
• requiring all private sales to go through an FFL
• allowing BATFE or the FBI to question firearms purchasers about the location or disposition of the weapons that they purchased some time ago (as is already done with class III weapons)
• requiring the reporting of theft or loss of a firearm, with criminal penalties for failing to do so

None of us wants to see these measures enacted into law.

I am appealing for those who are smarter and more imaginative than I to come up with a better solution.

Singling out buyers who have an accent or "look Mexican" is not the solution. Aside from being a violation of basic human rights, criminals can easily find straw purchasers who don't fit the profile (Anglo drug addicts who do not have a criminal record, for example).

Closing the border is not an option. Tons of freight and thousands of people and vehicles move in each direction every day. This traffic is an essential component of the U.S. economy.

- Jim