PDA

View Full Version : Gun show sting story on Fox News


BigDogatPlay
10-07-2009, 12:32 PM
Potential FUD alert.

They just teased a story on Studio B coming up within the next half hour. Supposedly undercover video of illegal transactions at gun shows.

bbq_ribs
10-07-2009, 12:37 PM
They're already all over it.

Print Version of the article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100702261_pf.html)

"The investigation tested private, unlicensed dealers at the shows in Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee to see whether they would sell weapons to someone who said he or she could not pass a background check. It also tested licensed dealers at the same shows to see if they would sell a gun to a person who was buying the weapon for someone else, or what is called a "straw purchase." Combined, 74 percent of the sellers failed the integrity tests, the mayor's office said. "

professionalcoyotehunter
10-07-2009, 12:38 PM
They should all go to jail. I hate when this happens and makes us who are legal and have the right to own a firearm look bad.

jdberger
10-07-2009, 12:39 PM
Who is the mayor. Is the mayor a member of MAIG?

wildhawker
10-07-2009, 12:40 PM
NICS, I think, is a foregone conclusion for all firearm purchases soon- free states included. Might as well leverage it for something we want, while we can.

SteveH
10-07-2009, 12:43 PM
The private investigators should go to jail for buying 36 handguns outside their state of residence.

760practicalshooter
10-07-2009, 12:44 PM
Waiting on the segment.

AJAX22
10-07-2009, 12:50 PM
Soooooooo, The mayors goons all went to jail for violating the 68 GCA right?

They lied on a 4473, they crossed state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where they were a non resident (when they were prohibited from purchasing the items in their state of residence)

And they engaged in straw purchases (using funds that were not theirs to buy guns for other parties)

Sounds like they committed a bunch of felonies to me.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 12:52 PM
IIRC, Bloomberg's bunch got a slap on the wrist from the ATF for committing those straw sales and were told "don't do that again".

dantodd
10-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Soooooooo, The mayors goons all went to jail for violating the 68 GCA right?

They lied on a 4473, they crossed state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where they were a non resident (when they were prohibited from purchasing the items in their state of residence)

And they engaged in straw purchases (using funds that were not theirs to buy guns for other parties)

Sounds like they committed a bunch of felonies to me.

A purchase is only a straw purchase if the person for whom the weapon was bought is a prohibited individual. I don't know that this is the case. The rest of what you said would seem to apply.

BigDogatPlay
10-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Who is the mayor. Is the mayor a member of MAIG?

Michael Bloomberg.... mayor of NYC and the founder / champion of MAIG.

Story just aired and apparently Bloomberg has gotten tired of getting his butt kicked by BATFE and others for sending out private investigators in the employ of MAIG to try and do stings.

Now he is sending out the NYPD.

Sorry, but last time I checked unless they are actually pursuing a criminal investigation, NYPD's peace officer authority would not extend outside the state of New York, no?

If dealers are being caught doing something wrong, then they should be sanctioned / prosecuted by BATFE. But it is not the NYPDs job to advance the mayor's political agenda.... which is exactly what this is.

AJAX22
10-07-2009, 12:54 PM
IIRC, Bloomberg's bunch got a slap on the wrist from the ATF for committing those straw sales and were told "don't do that again".

Yes.... but they just did it again.... and admitted to it publicly.

it would seem they are acting substantially outside of their jurisdiction.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 12:56 PM
Yes.... but they just did it again.... and admitted to it publicly.

it would seem they are acting substantially outside of their jurisdiction.

Private investigators, to the best of my knowledge, don't have any jurisdiction in which they can break the law in order to catch a "bad guy."

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 1:00 PM
Yes.... but they just did it again.... and admitted to it publicly.

it would seem they are acting substantially outside of their jurisdiction.

I thought this report was finally released from the earlier sting. I didn't realize they did it again.

Hopefully that puts BATF in a spot where they can't overlook the violations that bloomberg's bunch did again, after being warned before not to do it agin.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 1:07 PM
Story just aired and apparently Bloomberg has gotten tired of getting his butt kicked by BATFE and others for sending out private investigators in the employ of MAIG to try and do stings.

Now he is sending out the NYPD.


Page 14 of the report says that the investigators this time around were still PIs.

BigDogatPlay
10-07-2009, 1:28 PM
Page 14 of the report says that the investigators this time around were still PIs.

Fox News and the sting video presented identified the investigators as NYPD, FWIW.

Hoping that Fox will web post the story so everyone can see the video.

Mitch
10-07-2009, 1:38 PM
They lied on a 4473, they crossed state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where they were a non resident (when they were prohibited from purchasing the items in their state of residence)

There are no 4473s with private sales in most states.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 1:44 PM
Hopefully that puts BATF in a spot where they can't overlook the violations that bloomberg's bunch did again, after being warned before not to do it agin.

With a different administration in charge of the executive branch this might be possible but not with the current occupant of the White House.

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 1:45 PM
I really wish they would prosecute Bloomberg's stooges.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 1:51 PM
I really wish they would prosecute Bloomberg's stooges.

Since Bloomberg hired them specifically to violate federal firearms law it would seem that he is guilty of conspiracy at the least.

GP3
10-07-2009, 1:51 PM
Is this it?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f05_1254944759

BigDogatPlay
10-07-2009, 2:01 PM
That's the video put out by the Mayor, also available at http://www.gunshowundercover.org/.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 2:08 PM
they crossed state lines to purchase a firearm in a state where they were a non resident (when they were prohibited from purchasing the items in their state of residence)
I don't think it is actually a crime for a person to purchase a firearm while out-of-state. Yes, it is a crime for the seller to sell it to the out-of-state buyer, but the buyer does not violate the law until he takes it back to his home state. Now, there is probably some conspiracy law that the buyer violates by getting the seller to initially break the law.

cmonk518
10-07-2009, 2:12 PM
This is actually kind of funny to me....there are more people in here upset that the city of new york did a sting operation on illegal sellers who sell hundreds and thousands of firearms that end up missing and will most likely be used in a commission of a crime than actually being upset that there are stupid idiots who ruin more gun rights for anybody in here than what several PIs could ever do to harm my gun rights.

If these sellers are willing to sell just once to PIs, can you imagine how many more they've sold in the past.

Even if you were the most pro-gun mayor of a city, if more than a third of all your firearm crimes are committed with guns registered out of state and when the numbers jump drastically higher when they are traced back to gun show private sales, im more than sure you'd personally do something to protect the citizens of your state. Even as anti-gun as Bloomberg is, peoples distaste should lie within the shady private vendors, not the PIs or the mayors office. I swear those stupid vendors are whats going to cause the next round of ATF anti-gun show bills which nobody likes, but will most undoubtedly be from their stupid illegal transactions.

pdq_wizzard
10-07-2009, 2:18 PM
I think it is more of two wrongs don't make one right.

This is actually kind of funny to me....there are more people in here upset that the city of new york did a sting operation on illegal sellers who sell hundreds and thousands of firearms that end up missing and will most likely be used in a commission of a crime than actually being upset that there are stupid idiots who ruin more gun rights for anybody in here than what several PIs could ever do to harm my gun rights.

If these sellers are willing to sell just once to PIs, can you imagine how many more they've sold in the past.

Even if you were the most pro-gun mayor of a city, if more than a third of all your firearm crimes are committed with guns registered out of state and when the numbers jump drastically higher when they are traced back to gun show private sales, im more than sure you'd personally do something to protect the citizens of your state. Even as anti-gun as Bloomberg is, peoples distaste should lie within the shady private vendors, not the PIs or the mayors office. I swear those stupid vendors are whats going to cause the next round of ATF anti-gun show bills which nobody likes, but will most undoubtedly be from their stupid illegal transactions.

Crazed_SS
10-07-2009, 2:29 PM
This is actually kind of funny to me....there are more people in here upset that the city of new york did a sting operation on illegal sellers who sell hundreds and thousands of firearms that end up missing and will most likely be used in a commission of a crime than actually being upset that there are stupid idiots who ruin more gun rights for anybody in here than what several PIs could ever do to harm my gun rights.

If these sellers are willing to sell just once to PIs, can you imagine how many more they've sold in the past.

Even if you were the most pro-gun mayor of a city, if more than a third of all your firearm crimes are committed with guns registered out of state and when the numbers jump drastically higher when they are traced back to gun show private sales, im more than sure you'd personally do something to protect the citizens of your state. Even as anti-gun as Bloomberg is, peoples distaste should lie within the shady private vendors, not the PIs or the mayors office. I swear those stupid vendors are whats going to cause the next round of ATF anti-gun show bills which nobody likes, but will most undoubtedly be from their stupid illegal transactions.

Agreed. Shady dealers arent helping the cause out AT ALL. No one is really gonna care if Bloomberg's goons are breaking the law to expose people illegally selling guns.

EDIT: I saw the videos on Fox today but wasnt paying attention to the report.. Did the undercover guys actually go through with the illegal purchases or did they simply pose as prohibited persons to see if the dealers would sell to them or not?

jdberger
10-07-2009, 2:34 PM
Private investigators, to the best of my knowledge, don't have any jurisdiction in which they can break the law in order to catch a "bad guy."

Yes, but can they illegally videotape someone without their consent?

California has a law that says they can't. How about TN, NV etc?

yellowfin
10-07-2009, 2:38 PM
Somehow I missed in all this that Sting was at gun shows. I'd expect Ted Nugent to be there, or maybe James Hetfield, but not him.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 2:47 PM
Yes, but can they illegally videotape someone without their consent?

California has a law that says they can't. How about TN, NV etc?I think you are talking about the wiretapping laws. But it is usually legal to record anybody in a public place, with or without consent.

Dr. Peter Venkman
10-07-2009, 2:50 PM
Somehow I missed in all this that Sting was at gun shows. I'd expect Ted Nugent to be there, or maybe James Hetfield, but not him.

He wanted to check a few Armalite barrels.

Uriah02
10-07-2009, 2:52 PM
The private investigators should go to jail for buying 36 handguns outside their state of residence.

Unless they lied about anything on the background checks, why?

jdberger
10-07-2009, 2:54 PM
I think you are talking about the wiretapping laws. But it is usually legal to record anybody in a public place, with or without consent.


Nope. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/attorney-vows-holds-barred-probe-acorn/)

Uriah02
10-07-2009, 2:59 PM
I don't think it is actually a crime for a person to purchase a firearm while out-of-state. Yes, it is a crime for the seller to sell it to the out-of-state buyer, but the buyer does not violate the law until he takes it back to his home state. Now, there is probably some conspiracy law that the buyer violates by getting the seller to initially break the law.

If the weapon is legal in his home state, and the buyer is not a prohibited individual I don't see how it is illegal to bring the gun home.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 3:03 PM
If the weapon is legal in his home state, and the buyer is not a prohibited individual I don't see how it is illegal to bring the gun home.

here's the law that prohibits it.


Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State:
Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by
bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of
residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that
State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such
firearm in that State,
(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or
shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the
transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at
the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of
Sec. 478.96(c) and
(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm
obtained in conformity with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 478.30 and
478.97.

kermit315
10-07-2009, 3:08 PM
you cant buy a handgun over state lines, period. Long guns, depending on location, you can.

ETA: ke6guj beat me to it.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 3:10 PM
Nope. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/attorney-vows-holds-barred-probe-acorn/)


Here's why hidden video is normally legal in CA, http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/california-recording-law

I'd doubht that that transaction, happening in the middle of a gun show, could be considered a conversation where there was the expectation of privacy. Any words spoken could be expected to be overheard by other people present at the gun shw.

Some of the Acorn videos could be viewed differently because they were filmed in a closed office, where one might not expect to be overheard. Now, I don't know what MD law is in this case, but my post still stands that in CA, you can videotape someone, without their consent, if you are in a place without the expectation of privacy.

Mitch
10-07-2009, 3:27 PM
Agreed. Shady dealers arent helping the cause out AT ALL. No one is really gonna care if Bloomberg's goons are breaking the law to expose people illegally selling guns.

I suspect the problem isn't so much shady dealers (who would be risking their FFLs with any hanky panky) as it is unscrupulous private sellers.

We here in California forget that in the rest of the country gun shows are full of private sellers.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 4:53 PM
The problem is that you are asking gun sellers to enforce laws. The parts that I've read of the report do not anywhere say that the PI's said they were prohibited nor did they say they were planning on violating the law. How would you like it if some yahoo dealer at a gun show refused to sell you a firearm because he thought you might be a prohibited person even though he has no right to check your status and you never said you were not allowed to own firearms? You know, you just looked bad or said something to your friend that he didn't like?

Now, if the dealers are breaking the law that is a different thing.


This is actually kind of funny to me....there are more people in here upset that the city of new york did a sting operation on illegal sellers who sell hundreds and thousands of firearms that end up missing and will most likely be used in a commission of a crime than actually being upset that there are stupid idiots who ruin more gun rights for anybody in here than what several PIs could ever do to harm my gun rights.

If these sellers are willing to sell just once to PIs, can you imagine how many more they've sold in the past.

Even if you were the most pro-gun mayor of a city, if more than a third of all your firearm crimes are committed with guns registered out of state and when the numbers jump drastically higher when they are traced back to gun show private sales, im more than sure you'd personally do something to protect the citizens of your state. Even as anti-gun as Bloomberg is, peoples distaste should lie within the shady private vendors, not the PIs or the mayors office. I swear those stupid vendors are whats going to cause the next round of ATF anti-gun show bills which nobody likes, but will most undoubtedly be from their stupid illegal transactions.

mmartin
10-07-2009, 5:10 PM
A purchase is only a straw purchase if the person for whom the weapon was bought is a prohibited individual. I don't know that this is the case. The rest of what you said would seem to apply.

are you sure? I thought it was a straw purchase any time you use someone else's money to buy a gun in your name which you then turn over to them without changing the registration.
I can't buy a gun for my brother and use his money to do it if it remains in my name. on the other hand, I can buy it with my money and give it to him as a gift with proper transfer. (all applying to those things that require tranfer such as handguns and AWs.)
megan

Super Spy
10-07-2009, 5:21 PM
Years ago I found some guy on AOL who claimed to have all kinds of fun stuff available and told me to meet him at some gun show in upstate New York......I have no real need for LAWS rockets and Stinger Missiles with the improved seeker heads....however they were supposedly available to anyone with the funds...

RRangel
10-07-2009, 6:21 PM
This is actually kind of funny to me....there are more people in here upset that the city of new york did a sting operation on illegal sellers who sell hundreds and thousands of firearms that end up missing and will most likely be used in a commission of a crime than actually being upset that there are stupid idiots who ruin more gun rights for anybody in here than what several PIs could ever do to harm my gun rights.

If these sellers are willing to sell just once to PIs, can you imagine how many more they've sold in the past.

Even if you were the most pro-gun mayor of a city, if more than a third of all your firearm crimes are committed with guns registered out of state and when the numbers jump drastically higher when they are traced back to gun show private sales, im more than sure you'd personally do something to protect the citizens of your state. Even as anti-gun as Bloomberg is, peoples distaste should lie within the shady private vendors, not the PIs or the mayors office. I swear those stupid vendors are whats going to cause the next round of ATF anti-gun show bills which nobody likes, but will most undoubtedly be from their stupid illegal transactions.

It's not funny to me. When a shady corrupt elitist mayor will go to any lengths and spend an untold amount of funding to remove my Constitutional rights. I am not amused. This is not about safety, or the public good, but the arrogance of a liberty hating shill masquerading as a champion of public good who wants to change the very face of our Constitutional republic.

That he would send hired investigators across state lines is an testament to how far he will go in order to create a story. To attempt to remove the Constitutional rights of citizens because criminals conduct crime is outright lunacy. Try as he may his methods and accusations are suspect. Everyone can see that New York has a high crime rate because the inmates are running the asylum.

dantodd
10-07-2009, 6:36 PM
are you sure? I thought it was a straw purchase any time you use someone else's money to buy a gun in your name which you then turn over to them without changing the registration.
I can't buy a gun for my brother and use his money to do it if it remains in my name. on the other hand, I can buy it with my money and give it to him as a gift with proper transfer. (all applying to those things that require tranfer such as handguns and AWs.)
megan

No, that would simply be an illegal transfer. A straw purchase is a term of art which specifically means purchasing for a prohibited person.

As you noted, the only real differences in the two scenarios you proposed was the "changing registration" you could use your husband's money (if you have separate bank accounts) to buy him a gun and then gift it to him with no problem. He could even ask you to make the purchase for him, maybe he's out of town and can't go himself.

Of course, most times someone buys a gun for a friend using the friend's money they do so because the friend is a prohibited person and can't do a legal transfer later.

truthseeker
10-07-2009, 6:42 PM
Wait a second!

Did any of these so called "prohibited" people purchase firearms?

If so, the PI's should be arrested.

If they were NOT "by law" prohibited from purchasing firearms, then I don't see how this "investigation" holds any water because none of the private investigators were really prohibited persons!

Therefore ALL the purchases were LEGAL!

jdberger
10-07-2009, 7:37 PM
Here's why hidden video is normally legal in CA, http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/california-recording-law

I'd doubht that that transaction, happening in the middle of a gun show, could be considered a conversation where there was the expectation of privacy. Any words spoken could be expected to be overheard by other people present at the gun shw.

Some of the Acorn videos could be viewed differently because they were filmed in a closed office, where one might not expect to be overheard. Now, I don't know what MD law is in this case, but my post still stands that in CA, you can videotape someone, without their consent, if you are in a place without the expectation of privacy.

Sorry if my previous post was short. I didn't intend for it to be abrupt.

What I meant is that in the same way that ACORN is suing the filmmakers who surreptitiously "set them up", the gunshows and the specific dealers that were highlighted in the report could sue MAIG.

They may not win, but lawsuits are expensive - and it might be beneficial to make an example of MAIG.

This wasn't a law enforcement operation, it was a publicity stunt.

CenterX
10-07-2009, 8:17 PM
Straw purchase is knowingly buying for a prohibited person.

I can not transfer any of my guns to my spouse using the intra-familial form. I would need to go through an FFL, and the spouse would need to get a background check and wait 10 days. If they don't pass then I get a lawyer and bing, the spouse is gone.

You should always do a background check on anyone you date for more than a night. Doubly important before marriage.

If I transfer to my child on an intra-familial form. My child can then transfer to their mother.

My children can not transfer between each other.

I buy a cool gun locally through an FFL. By buddy drops on by and wants it, then we go to his FFL and transfer to him.

My uncle dies in another state. I'm executor, the gun comes to me unless it is Class 3 and I don't have a license, and I bring it to CA. If it is a listed AW then I'm in deep kimshe if I bring it to CA.

If I go to a gun show in another state and buy a rifle FTF that is 50 years or older no FFL needed, if that state upholds the FTF antique firearm law. If it is a 1898 double action revolver, then I can't buy it cause I'm from CA. If it is single action only revolver then I'm good to go. If it is a nice 1908 colt 45ACP no can do - I'm from CA.

Do you agree?

The mayor and his goons should be charged for trying to commit a crime. I would be if I tried that monkey business.

jdberger
10-07-2009, 8:38 PM
Straw purchase is knowingly buying for a prohibited person.

I can not transfer any of my guns to my spouse using the intra-familial form. I would need to go through an FFL, and the spouse would need to get a background check and wait 10 days. If they don't pass then I get a lawyer and bing, the spouse is gone. Wrong

You should always do a background check on anyone you date for more than a night. Doubly important before marriage.

If I transfer to my child on an intra-familial form. My child can then transfer to their mother. Nope
My children can not transfer between each other.

I buy a cool gun locally through an FFL. By buddy drops on by and wants it, then we go to his FFL and transfer to him.

My uncle dies in another state. I'm executor, the gun comes to me unless it is Class 3 and I don't have a license, and I bring it to CA. If it is a listed AW then I'm in deep kimshe if I bring it to CA. The gun would need to be transferred through an FFL IIRC. No AWs.

If I go to a gun show in another state and buy a rifle FTF that is 50 years or older no FFL needed, if that state upholds the FTF antique firearm law. Antiques are IIRC 100 years old, not 50.


If it is a 1898 double action revolver, then I can't buy it cause I'm from CA. You can if you have an 03.

If it is single action only revolver then I'm good to go. Still needs to go through an FFL if it's not C&R

If it is a nice 1908 colt 45ACP no can do - I'm from CA. That's because there's ONE in the world and it was manufactured last year. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8304763431051983162#) You'd need an FFL.

Do you agree? err...no.

The mayor and his goons should be charged for trying to commit a crime. I would be if I tried that monkey business.

There's an awful lot about this post that's incorrect. I'll try a little but I'm gonna let ke6guj straighten you out. He's much better at this.

ke6guj
10-07-2009, 8:51 PM
Straw purchase is knowingly buying for a prohibited person.

I can not transfer any of my guns to my spouse using the intra-familial form. I would need to go through an FFL, and the spouse would need to get a background check and wait 10 days. If they don't pass then I get a lawyer and bing, the spouse is gone. Incorrect.

Can I give a firearm to my spouse or registered domestic partner? Can he/she give it back to me later?
Yes, as long as the person receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category [PDF 10 kb / 1 pg] and the firearm is not an assault weapon, the transfer of a firearm between a husband and wife or registered domestic partners is exempt from the requirement to use a licensed dealer to perform the transfer. However, if the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must submit an Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction [PDF 481 kb / 2 pg] and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days.

(PC sections 12076(f), 12078(i))



If I transfer to my child on an intra-familial form. My child can then transfer to their mother.
you could, but there is no need, since you can op-law it directly to your wife.


My children can not transfer between each other.correct.

I buy a cool gun locally through an FFL. By buddy drops on by and wants it, then we go to his FFL and transfer to him.correct.

My uncle dies in another state. I'm executor, the gun comes to me unless it is Class 3 and I don't have a license, and I bring it to CA. If it is a listed AW then I'm in deep kimshe if I bring it to CA.federally, you're fine. But, IIRC, CA would require you, as the executor to jump through some hoops for CA-legal guns. I'm not totally up on the nuances on how guns transfer after death. And yes, Title 2 and AW firearms definitely would be on the no-no list, with some very rare exemptions.

If I go to a gun show in another state and buy a rifle FTF that is 50 years or older no FFL needed, if that state upholds the FTF antique firearm law.
If buying from a licensee at his licensed premises, (or at a gun show, IIRC), it would be allowable for a CA-resident to purchase a 50+ year-old long gun.


If it is a 1898 double action revolver, then I can't buy it cause I'm from CA. If it was made in 1898, then you could buy it since it is an antique, and its purchase/transfer is exempt from federal or state laws.

If it is single action only revolver then I'm good to go.depeding on the year, if 1898 or earlier, yes, good to go. If 1899 or later, nope.

If it is a nice 1908 colt 45ACP no can do - I'm from CA.correct.


There's an awful lot about this post that's incorrect. I'll try a little but I'm gonna let ke6guj straighten you out. He's much better at this.LOL

Timberline
10-07-2009, 8:51 PM
The so-called "Gunshow Loophole" is that whereas dealers have to run a background check on a prospective gun buyer, private sellers do not need to do this, at gun shows. But if they have reason to "suspect" that the purchaser would not pass a background check, they are prohibited, by Federal law, from selling to that person.

And so, in the videos, 35 out of 47 private sellers, after being informed that the buyers would not pass a background check, went ahead and sold firearms anyway? :mad:

Off to jail for them, right now, and lock them up for a very long time, please. These bashturds threaten the existence of gunshows, and are putting guns in the hands of criminals.

SJgunguy24
10-07-2009, 8:56 PM
There's an awful lot about this post that's incorrect. I'll try a little but I'm gonna let ke6guj straighten you out. He's much better at this.

Damn JD, can't you just say Fail?

I think these douche bags need to be thrown in federal prison, with Bloomberg leading the pack. If there was even a penny of taxpayer funds involved, public flogging is in order.

CenterX
10-07-2009, 9:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ FAQ
Can I give a firearm to my spouse or registered domestic partner? Can he/she give it back to me later?
Yes, as long as the person receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category [PDF 10 kb / 1 pg] and the firearm is not an assault weapon, the transfer of a firearm between a husband and wife or registered domestic partners is exempt from the requirement to use a licensed dealer to perform the transfer. However, if the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must submit an Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction [PDF 481 kb / 2 pg] and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days.

(PC sections 12076(f), 12078(i))

I called DOJ about this in February this year and was told NO I could not transfer to my spouse without an FFL.

Quote:
If it is a 1898 double action revolver, then I can't buy it cause I'm from CA.

A local FFL told me this recently when I was looking to get one from out of state. Humm. Thanks for the input.

And I did forget to add that the transfer from the deceased uncle to me needs to go through an FFL if the courts are involved with a property list of inheritance.

Thank you for the clarifications.

So why aren't these guy's off to jail? It is the Ivy League brotherhood on the east coast. They make up their own rules and slam the fly over states any way the want. Just an opinion.

jdberger
10-07-2009, 9:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CADOJ FAQ
Can I give a firearm to my spouse or registered domestic partner? Can he/she give it back to me later?
Yes, as long as the person receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category [PDF 10 kb / 1 pg] and the firearm is not an assault weapon, the transfer of a firearm between a husband and wife or registered domestic partners is exempt from the requirement to use a licensed dealer to perform the transfer. However, if the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must submit an Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction [PDF 481 kb / 2 pg] and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days.

(PC sections 12076(f), 12078(i))

I called DOJ about this in February this year and was told NO I could not transfer to my spouse without an FFL.

Quote:
If it is a 1898 double action revolver, then I can't buy it cause I'm from CA.

A local FFL told me this recently when I was looking to get one from out of state. Humm. Thanks for the input.

And I did forget to add that the transfer from the deceased uncle to me needs to go through an FFL if the courts are involved with a property list of inheritance.

Thank you for the clarifications.

So why aren't these guy's off to jail? It is the Ivy League brotherhood on the east coast. They make up their own rules and slam the fly over states any way the want. Just an opinion.

Take it as a learning experience. The DOJ has NO F'n clue what the laws are.

That's what Calguns is for.

Just ask Alison....:cool:

Mitch
10-08-2009, 7:08 AM
And so, in the videos, 35 out of 47 private sellers, after being informed that the buyers would not pass a background check, went ahead and sold firearms anyway?

Yeah, that should make us more upset than a bunch of PIs attempting sting operations. After all, if you scrupulously follow the law like you should, you can't get stung.

But the fact is, there are a hell of a lot of sleazeballs in the collecting and shooting community. If a few more of these guys were arrested, tried and sentenced, the rest of them would clean up their act pretty quickly.

Timberline
10-08-2009, 7:39 AM
Yeah, that should make us more upset than a bunch of PIs attempting sting operations. After all, if you scrupulously follow the law like you should, you can't get stung.

But the fact is, there are a hell of a lot of sleazeballs in the collecting and shooting community. If a few more of these guys were arrested, tried and sentenced, the rest of them would clean up their act pretty quickly.

Sounds good to me. Let the purge begin. Seriously, these sellers are undermining and sabotaging the rest of us, their acts will lead to harsher laws and more restrictions and a more difficult civil atmosphere. There should be zero tolerance for the private sellers who flout the law, and the sooner they're excised from the gun shows, the better.

SmokinMr2
10-08-2009, 11:44 AM
I have been a believer in "no more gun laws ever" for reasons like they don't enforce the ones already on the books, and they will not stop with just one law, etc. but I'm still having a hard time with this.
Make them all run an instant check and that would solve the issue. It doesn't seem to cause to many issues out here and we are stuck with it...

Bigballaizm
10-08-2009, 11:49 AM
I agree, this makes us law abiding gun purchasers look bad!

Mitch
10-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Make them all run an instant check and that would solve the issue. It doesn't seem to cause to many issues out here and we are stuck with it...

That's what Bloomberg wants! California PPT to go national. Prepare to be tarred and feathered for proposing such a thing anywhere outside the Golden State.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a few unscrupulous sellers get nailed. I think a few well publicized examples would change some attitudes.

RRangel
10-08-2009, 5:08 PM
I have been a believer in "no more gun laws ever" for reasons like they don't enforce the ones already on the books, and they will not stop with just one law, etc. but I'm still having a hard time with this.
Make them all run an instant check and that would solve the issue. It doesn't seem to cause to many issues out here and we are stuck with it...

Please remember the United States is still a free country. Can you imagine a background check required for any other constitutional right? The gun ban proponents already have a terrible record and they should not be allowed to further control any narrative on the matter. Their credibility is done.

What kind of mayor would spend funds and resources in other states while his city is in dire need of said resources? If he were my mayor I would be livid. That goes especially in this economy.

The gun grabbers like Bloomberg would love to implement any law no matter how innocuous looking because it's a starting point in where they can later insert new legislation. This is what has taken place with California's bogus SB 15 "not unsafe" handgun roster.

Now we see very little new handguns if any brought into our state because of requirements that were later added. If the gun banners manage to pass a "gunshow loophole" bill do not expect them to stop there. It's a precursor to registration.

dwtt
10-08-2009, 9:36 PM
No, that would simply be an illegal transfer. A straw purchase is a term of art which specifically means purchasing for a prohibited person.

As you noted, the only real differences in the two scenarios you proposed was the "changing registration" you could use your husband's money (if you have separate bank accounts) to buy him a gun and then gift it to him with no problem. He could even ask you to make the purchase for him, maybe he's out of town and can't go himself.

Of course, most times someone buys a gun for a friend using the friend's money they do so because the friend is a prohibited person and can't do a legal transfer later.

In CA that transfer between 2 private individuals without going through a FFL is an illegal transfer. In other states it's not. A straw sale doesn't necessarily have to be for someone who is prohibited. The purchase is done by someone who is not the intended owner to allow a second person to avoid getting his name associated with the purchase. That's a straw sale, and the second person doesn't have to be a prohibited person. You assume that only a convicted felon or someone who won't pass a background check would do a straw sale. People associated with organized crime who have no criminal records may want to acquire a handgun and not get their name connected to the gun, even though they can easily pass the background check. These folks would do a straw purchase, even though they are not a prohibited person.
look on page 2 of this ATF flyer, you may have seen is already at your local gun store.
http://www.atf.gov/field/dontlie_post-card.pdf

Ground Loop
10-08-2009, 9:51 PM
Since we're on the topic, I'd like to learn something about this:


If buying from a licensee at his licensed premises, (or at a gun show, IIRC), it would be allowable for a CA-resident to purchase a 50+ year-old long gun.


As a California resident, can I visit a licensed dealer in NV, buy a non-AW long-gun (Rem 700, say) at his premises, and bring it back to CA?

Is this only permitted for C&R guns, or any long gun?

ke6guj
10-08-2009, 10:10 PM
As a California resident, can I visit a licensed dealer in NV, buy a non-AW long-gun (Rem 700, say) at his premises, and bring it back to CA?

Is this only permitted for C&R guns, or any long gun?only permitted for 50+ year-old C&R long guns. CA normally requires CA-residents to do all purchases/transfers of firearms at a CA-dealer. No out-of-state purchases allowed. But since they exempt 50+ year-old C&R long guns from needing to go through a dealer, that would allow a CA-resident to purchase a 50+ year old C&R long gun through a dealer (assuming that dealer is willing to do the transfer).