TexasCHLforum.com

This ought to be worth a couple of comments. I can hear them now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/us/31 ... odayspaper" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

b322da wrote:This ought to be worth a couple of comments. I can hear them now.
Elmo

He must be running for president.

I wonder how NYC residents feel about their tax dollars being spent investigating alleged crimes in a place they have zero jurisdiction?

If this is true.....

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.

.... the sellers should be hit with appropriate charges.
Not only does that Sellers behavior make us ALL look bad, it's just plain wrong... dishonorable.

i8godzilla wrote:I wonder how NYC residents feel about their tax dollars being spent investigating alleged crimes in a place they have zero jurisdiction?

I wonder how AZ residents feel about the fact that it's so easy for prohibited individuals in their local area to buy a gun?

I wonder how the folks behind this expensive bit of theater would react if AZ sent investigators to NYC to video some of what goes on there.

RoyGBiv wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:I wonder how NYC residents feel about their tax dollars being spent investigating alleged crimes in a place they have zero jurisdiction?

I wonder how AZ residents feel about the fact that it's so easy for prohibited individuals in their local area to buy a gun?

I didn't realize undercover police officers from out of state where prohibited from making private firearms purchases

psijac wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:I wonder how NYC residents feel about their tax dollars being spent investigating alleged crimes in a place they have zero jurisdiction?

I wonder how AZ residents feel about the fact that it's so easy for prohibited individuals in their local area to buy a gun?

I didn't realize undercover police officers from out of state where prohibited from making private firearms purchases

It's really easy to deflect the discussion off point like that... too bad
It would have been a lot more interesting to read your well considered thoughts on whether it's a good thing or not that a prohibited person can so easily obtain a gun in AZ... TX shows are no different, so, let's not pretend this same conversation doesn't apply to us.

Did anyone notice the slight change in terminology?

For years the media, the Brady Bunch, Bloomberg, and other anti-gun nuts have said that the loophole they claim exists allows "unlicensed dealers" to sell at gun shows. And for as many years we have countered with "There is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer, there is a strict definition of dealer under the law, and all dealers must be licensed, etc, etc, etc."

As was the case some time back when the same anti-gun nuts were trying to get bans on guns that merely looked like something the military would use, the terminology "assault rifle" didn't fit, because there was an existing definition which included full auto capability, and they invented a new term - "Assault Weapon" which, having no definition, could be applied to almost anything, now they are beginning to use "UNLICENSED SELLER" which will now be applied to any and all persons who sell a firearm to someone else under any and all circumstances.

Of course Bloomberg sees himself as king of the world and NY City as the capital, so it almost goes without saying that he would conduct such an "investigation."

And I think the investigators, being in violation of Federal law by their own admission, and Bloomberg, should all be arrested.

RoyGBiv wrote:If this is true.....

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.

.... the sellers should be hit with appropriate charges.
Not only does that Sellers behavior make us ALL look bad, it's just plain wrong... dishonorable.

What makes you believe this was said, or that it was said before the purchase? NYC COPS have no authority to investigate as officers in other states nor can they purchase handguns outside of NY State. They committed felonies and should be prosecuted. Arrest warrants should be issued immediately for them and for Bloomberg who clearly conspired to violate federal law. Bloomberg pulled this in Georgia a few years ago and the BATFE Director sent a letter to NYC telling them it was a violation of federal law and to stop immediately.

I guess Bloomberg feels he and his local COPS don't have to worry about being prosecuted for violating federal law as long as Obama is in the White House.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

psijac wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:I wonder how NYC residents feel about their tax dollars being spent investigating alleged crimes in a place they have zero jurisdiction?

I wonder how AZ residents feel about the fact that it's so easy for prohibited individuals in their local area to buy a gun?

I didn't realize undercover police officers from out of state where prohibited from making private firearms purchases

It's really easy to deflect the discussion off point like that... too bad
It would have been a lot more interesting to read your well considered thoughts on whether it's a good thing or not that a prohibited person can so easily obtain a gun in AZ... TX shows are no different, so, let's not pretend this same conversation doesn't apply to us.

What deflection? Do you not have a problem with NYC COPS committing federal felonies? Do you not have a problem with Bloomberg conspiring with NYC COPS to violate federal law?

What prohibited persons purchased handguns from the Arizona private citizen? The COPS were not prohibited persons nor did they say they were prohibited. They didn't even say they couldn't pass a background check. The only law violated was the Gun Control Act of 1968 and only by the NYC COPS and co-conspirator Bloomberg. There's no deflection of the topic going on here, except by you. The real story is Bloomberg's and the NYC PD's continuing attitude that federal law doesn't apply to them; the same attitude behind their routinely ignoring LEOSA.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:If this is true.....

In two instances, the New York undercover officers specifically said before buying a gun, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check,” but were still sold guns, city officials said.

.... the sellers should be hit with appropriate charges.
Not only does that Sellers behavior make us ALL look bad, it's just plain wrong... dishonorable.

What makes you believe this was said, or that it was said before the purchase? Bloomberg pulled this in Georgia a few years ago and the BATFE Director sent a letter to NYC telling them it was a violation of federal law and to stop immediately.

I guess Bloomberg feels he and his local COPS don't have to worry about being prosecuted for violating federal law as long as Obama is in the White House.

Chas.

I did preface my comments with "if this is true"... Believe me, I don't take Bloomberg at his word..

Whether or not NYC continues to violate Fed law is certainly an issue to be discussed... but that still doesn't obviate the portion of this issue I was hoping to focus on ... the fact that this behavior does exist and guns are being sold to persons who are prohibited.....

Should an ex-spouse on a restraining order, or a convicted felon, rapist, child molester, etc. have such an easy time purchasing a gun? It's a joke how easy it is for prohibited persons to purchase a gun... Take a shower, shave, put on some clean clothes, look respectable, and go to the gun show... ... It's just as easy to for them to buy a gun through a local "gun trader" type web site... I had a half dozen full-price buyers for a recent sale "change their mind" when I told them I would require ID and bill of sale..

I read all the time on this forum that tougher laws only make it harder for the law abiding, and I agree... And folks here will certainly argue that it's none of anyone's business when they are legally buying a gun... but.. how do we begin to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not possess them? Or do we just give up and assume that it's an impossible task?

Inquiring minds..

RoyGBiv wrote:I did preface my comments with "if this is true"... Believe me, I don't take Bloomberg at his word..

Whether or not NYC continues to violate Fed law is certainly an issue to be discussed... but that still doesn't obviate the portion of this issue I was hoping to focus on ... the fact that this behavior does exist and guns are being sold to persons who are prohibited.....

Should an ex-spouse on a restraining order, or a convicted felon, rapist, child molester, etc. have such an easy time purchasing a gun? It's a joke how easy it is for prohibited persons to purchase a gun... Take a shower, shave, put on some clean clothes, look respectable, and go to the gun show... ... It's just as easy to for them to buy a gun through a local "gun trader" type web site... I had a half dozen full-price buyers for a recent sale "change their mind" when I told them I would require ID and bill of sale..

I read all the time on this forum that tougher laws only make it harder for the law abiding, and I agree... And folks here will certainly argue that it's none of anyone's business when they are legally buying a gun... but.. how do we begin to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not possess them? Or do we just give up and assume that it's an impossible task?

Inquiring minds..

How does "requiring" an ID and bill of sale insure that the buyer is eligible under federal law to purchase a handgun? Are felons and/or those under a restraining order not allowed to have an ID? Or is this requirement more or less just to make one feel good about the sale?

Did anyone catch that the seller said the buyer needed to show him Arizona ID?

Did the NY cop have fake AZ ID? The article was strangely silent on that point.

pt145ss wrote: How does "requiring" an ID and bill of sale insure that the buyer is eligible under federal law to purchase a handgun? Are felons and/or those under a restraining order not allowed to have an ID? Or is this requirement more or less just to make one feel good about the sale?

I guess it really is me that's off topic here... Sorry folks..
Maybe I'll start another thread..

Regarding the question above... No, it's not a feel good thing... and yes.. I would say that an ID (a CHL especially) at the time of sale is just a half step, but a half step in the right direction.... As a seller, I would like to have a more concrete way of determining whether the person buying my gun is prohibited. I wound up selling out of state via an FFL, but, think that this is overkill for local sales.. There must be a better way..

[/hijack]