Looking for hard data on straw purchasers

[Dr Rockso]

Recently I find myself having more discussions with folks who aren't exactly anti, but are open to the idea of new gun laws as a means to try and reduce violent crime. My argument is usually along the lines of existing laws being sufficient to prosecute real criminals, and most "gun control" proposals generally are designed as a means for (mostly leftist) politicians to poke the other side in the eye while claiming to do something about crime.

A topic that I used to see around here was that the laws against straw purchases generally go unenforced, particularly in CA, and particularly among populations that are seen as "marginalized" (for example very poor young women in very poor areas who make extra cash by buying guns for their prohibited acquaintances).

If true that's a pretty compelling argument, IMO, for leaving law-abiding gunowners alone. After all, why spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars trying to ban the property of the law-abiding instead of spending that money to prosecute the people who are actually providing the guns used by murderers? The problem is that everything I've heard thus far has been pretty anecdotal, and so I'm hesitant to bring it up in conversation since I can't point to much in the way of concrete data. What I have found regarding straw purchases going unprosecuted often tends to have an anti-gun bent to it, often blaming the Tiahrt amendment (which is disingenuous IMO, I don't see how the Tiahrt amendment restricts LEOs from investigating actual crimes).

So, is there any way to find out the true extent to which straw purchases go unprosecuted, even when there is evidence against purchasers?

[Rosebud22]

See this URL

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-12/news/ct-met-guns-straw-purchasers-20130512_1_kenneth-lee-gun-violence-straw-purchasing

from above:

Experts say it is impossible to know how many straw purchases happen given the shadowy world in which they occur. The University of Chicago Crime Lab, which studies how to reduce violence, is seeking a grant to look into illicit gun pipelines in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Boston.

[sl0re10]

Recently I find myself having more discussions with folks who aren't exactly anti, but are open to the idea of new gun laws as a means to try and reduce violent crime. My argument is usually along the lines of existing laws being sufficient to prosecute real criminals, and most "gun control" proposals generally are designed as a means for (mostly leftist) politicians to poke the other side in the eye while claiming to do something about crime.

A topic that I used to see around here was that the laws against straw purchases generally go unenforced, particularly in CA, and particularly among populations that are seen as "marginalized" (for example very poor young women in very poor areas who make extra cash by buying guns for their prohibited acquaintances).

If true that's a pretty compelling argument, IMO, for leaving law-abiding gunowners alone. After all, why spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars trying to ban the property of the law-abiding instead of spending that money to prosecute the people who are actually providing the guns used by murderers? The problem is that everything I've heard thus far has been pretty anecdotal, and so I'm hesitant to bring it up in conversation since I can't point to much in the way of concrete data. What I have found regarding straw purchases going unprosecuted often tends to have an anti-gun bent to it, often blaming the Tiahrt amendment (which is disingenuous IMO, I don't see how the Tiahrt amendment restricts LEOs from investigating actual crimes).

So, is there any way to find out the true extent to which straw purchases go unprosecuted, even when there is evidence against purchasers?

I don't have the numbers; but I believe the first law involved is federal. You have to lie on a federal form to make a straw purchase. See what the ATF is doing about it. But that also shoots a hole in the argument the Feds need more laws to fix this... they've got it already and are perfectly capable of sending people away, if they want to, using this.

Selling stolen guns; yes... I am often semi surprised DAs go so easy on people for it. They'll nail us to the wall though for accidental AW violations... thats one to take up with the DAs though. They already have laws to charge under and they don't chose to use them to stop criminals with serious jail time.... just taxpayers who do technical violations of gun laws but were not committing crimes or putting guns on the street.

[Steve_In_29]

The beauty of the Anti's "Straw Purchase" argument is that it is TOTALLY unproveable. They are free to throw out any numbers they want because how can you quantify something that by its' very nature is almost untraceable.

[M1NM]

They keep making laws that only effect those who will obey them. ATF/DOJ will always go after the person who obeys laws rather than the crooks who may shoot at them - which is also why most of the existing gun laws go unenforced.