·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 10/22/2009 10:28:25 AM PDT by neverdem
| Newspapers Gush Over Bloomberg's Latest Gun Control Escapade |
| Friday, October 09, 2009 |
|
Bathed in camera flashes during a "news conference" on October 7, 2009, New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg was in his element in announcing "a wide-ranging undercover investigation by the City of New York into illegal gun sales" that revealed "a willful disregard of the law" by "74% of gun show sellers." Or, so he claimed. The ego-driven multi-billionaire's publicity stunt was neither "wide-ranging" nor representative of what occurs at gun shows, nor was it intended to be. And it determined nothing about "74%" of all gun show sellers. Instead, as Bloomberg's report on the stunt openly admits, his "investigators" attended gun shows only "in states . . . that supply crime guns trafficked across state lines at the highest rates," only in neighborhoods with the highest incidence of "federal prosecutions for straw buying and trafficking, and proximity to urban areas experiencing gang violence," and ultimately focused their attention on only 47 individuals who, based upon their comments and actions, seemed the most likely to violate a gun sale law. Even that amount of deliberate skewing of Bloomberg's sample of the nation's "gun show sellers" did not work as he expected. Only 35 of the 47 (hence, the fraudulent "74%" claim) ultimately exercised poor judgment with respect to a gun sale law or, in perhaps some of the cases, may have been willing to break a law, and thus be subject to prosecution. Anti-gun groups and politicians immediately heralded Bloomberg's effort as definitive proof of the need for more restrictions on guns. "Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Police Department, the public can see firsthand what goes on at these weapons markets," said the Brady Campaign. "This investigation reveals how easy it is for criminals and even terrorists to purchase firearms at gun shows," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). And, since the day of fair, hard and objective reporting has apparently passed into journalism's history, newspapers went along with Bloomberg's charade like shills at a carnival game of chance, reminding us why public confidence in "the press" has dropped to 15% in annual polls. "[I]n almost three out of four instances, undercover investigators were able to purchase guns illegally," the New York Times dutifully reported. Bloomberg's investigators "repeatedly bought guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows even though they disclosed they probably couldn't pass a background check," said the Washington Post. "Bloomberg's sting documented that these transient marketplaces for guns, ammunition and accessories are a multibillion-dollar business that is funneling weapons directly into criminals' hands, in plain sight," said the New York Daily News. "Any doubt that stricter regulation would be helpful was removed last week when the results of an undercover investigation of gun show sales in Tennessee and two other states was released by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg," the (Memphis) Commercial Appeal editorialized. Bloomberg's bottom line? You guessed it. Congress should adopt S. 843 and H.R. 2324 to "close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows." Bloomberg and his media friends failed to mention, of course, that both bills also propose that gun show promoters be registered, be required to pay unspecific fees, and be required to maintain ledgers of all non-dealers who bring firearms to shows (even if they bring them to sell only to dealers). H.R. 2324 further proposes that promoters be required to provide such ledgers to the Attorney General. For more information about anti-gun show legislation, see our facts sheets on S. 843 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=229&issue=014) and H.R. 2324 (www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=252&issue=014). Reporters worthy of the name would have pointed out that buying a gun for a family member or friend as a gift is not a straw purchase. It's a violation of the law only to buy a gun for a prohibited person. And competent reporters would have also noticed that Bloomberg's "investigation" actually undercuts his call for requiring background checks on non-dealer sales at gun shows. The most common gun sale violation, Bloomberg says, is that straw purchasers defeat the background check. Requiring more sales to be run through checks would not alleviate the straw purchase problem one whit. Individuals—dealers and non-dealers alike—who knowingly break the law should, of course, be prosecuted, as NRA has long advocated. Obtaining and providing a gun for a prohibited person are both federal felonies, each punishable by 10 years in prison. However, enforcing gun sale laws is the responsibility of the BATFE, and state and local agencies. Bloomberg has no jurisdiction in other cities, let alone outside New York State. His periodic interstate escapades, of which "Gun Show" is but the latest, are not only possibly illegal (in that they may violate firearm sales laws), but risk compromising federal, state and local law enforcement agencies' investigations. At the bottom line, Bloomberg's effort shows that even when you work very hard to find law-breakers at gun shows, you find that such individuals are few and far between. Once again, Hizzoner demonstrates his true priority—media grandstanding. |
Anyone who is a left winger is anti-Amwerican, against the Constitution and should be in jail for treason.
I like a short rope & a tall tree much better!
If the RNC had any sense, they would sue the clown for putting an (R) behind his name.
This is absolutely dead wrong, and I am surprised it originated from N.R.A. Anyone who accepts the transfer (not just purchase) of a firearm from an FFL commits a straw purchase if he does it on behalf of another person. There is no exception for family members, nor does it matter whether the third party is eligible to own the thing or not.
See page 4 of the instructions on form 4473.
Bloomberg ought to get his head out of his @$$ on the gun issue. NYC is a shooting gallery. It’s not law-abiding citizens doing the shooting, it’s street thugs. Just yesterday a 92 year old woman in the Bronx was gunned down by a stray bullet. If “do-gooder Bloomberg had the onions, he’d reinstitute the street crime unit and order them to go after the armed thugs (like they used to). Of course he’d have to get Sharpton’s permission.
"Reporters worthy of the name would have pointed out that buying a gun for a family member or friend as a gift is not a straw purchase. It's a violation of the law only to buy a gun for a prohibited person."
This is absolutely dead wrong, and I am surprised it originated from N.R.A. Anyone who accepts the transfer (not just purchase) of a firearm from an FFL commits a straw purchase if he does it on behalf of another person. There is no exception for family members, nor does it matter whether the third party is eligible to own the thing or not.
What's wrong with a gift to someone who isn't prohibited?
The statement by the NRA is correct. Question 11.a allows that.
The statement by the N.R.A. is 100% wrong. Read the information at the link.
A gift is fine - the original purpose of the transaction was for the transferee to buy it and then give it as a gift. The objection is when the other person doesn’t want to complete the form, for whatever reason, so you fill it out.
There are a lot of gun shows in the City of New York?
No they are right.
Question 11.aq Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourselrf (e.g. redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitamately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.
Read the last sentence.
That's not the gift exception.
“Reporters worthy of the name would have pointed out that buying a gun for a family member or friend as a gift is not a straw purchase. It’s a violation of the law only to buy a gun for a prohibited person. “
It covered the gift exception and prohibited persons.
I have to answer that “prohibited person’ bit almost every day. The sentence is not clear, and makes it sound like they’re saying you can buy guns for anyone you like as long as that person is not a prohibited person. This is not the case. “My friend Ralph didn’t want to fill out the form,” is not a gift.
They said gift, not he did not want to fill out the paper work. You are reading into it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.