NYC undercover investigators buy guns at Arizona gun show without background checks

[appleciders]

Apparently New York City sent a small group of undercover investigators to a gun show in Arizona to attempt to buy guns while avoiding background checks at the gun show. One officer was sold a gun even after telling the seller that he “probably couldn’t pass one [a background check]”. On the one hand, I’m appalled that someone can buy a gun even after telling the seller that he’s probably prohibited from buying them* but what on earth are NYC officials doing in Arizona? It would seem like a stretch even if they were in New Jersey-- is inspecting gun shows in Arizona really the job of New York City’s government?

*As near as I can tell, it’s perfectly legal to sell a gun to someone who’s prohibited from having them at a gun as long as you don’t know that they are prohibited, which would mean that these sales were probably illegal. The fact that this is illegal isn’t much help since it’s apparently not a big deterrent to sales.

[JXJohns]

It is against federal law for a NY resident to attempt to buy a handgun in AZ unless using an FFL dealer.

[XT]

Private sellers? And yeah…no idea what NYC undercover investigators were doing in Arizona trying to do a gotcha type mission. Don’t they have better things to investigate in New York??

PHOENIX — Weeks after a shooting left six dead and 13 injured in Tucson, New York City sent undercover investigators to an Arizona gun show and found instances in which private sellers sold semiautomatic pistols even after buyers said they probably could not pass background checks, city officials said.

So…some guys at a gun show sold weapons to someone without a background check? I bet they couldn’t find some guy at a pharmaceutical show who would be willing to sell some drugs under the table…

The investigation, part of an effort by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration to crack down on illegal gun sales nationwide, took place Jan. 23 at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Phoenix, officials said.

What authority (and what godly reason) does NYC have to cracking down on illegal gun sales nationwide??

-XT

[Simplicio]

@JXJohns

It is against federal law for a NY resident to attempt to buy a handgun in AZ unless using an FFL dealer.

Here’s the report I think the private investigators were actually based in Arizona and hired by NYC. At least, according to the report they had AZ drivers licenses.

@xtisme

What authority (and what godly reason) does NYC have to cracking down on illegal gun sales nationwide??

The sales weren’t illegal. Thats the point.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Let me preface this by saying unless there is video of these sales happening as Bloomberg says they did, I do not believe him. He has an agenda, and it’s no coincidence that these things allegedly happened right in line with his agenda. If Bloomberg told me the sky was blue I would go outside and check. Now that that’s out of the way:

This is yet another push to eliminate the “gun show loophole”. Simply put, for those who will read this and do not understand what this means, the “gun show loophole” is a law, or absence thereof, that allows private citizens to sell firearms in a private sale without requiring the purchaser to undergo a background check. Different states have different requirements- for instance, Pennsylvania requires a background check on all handgun transfers but not on long arms (rifles and shotguns), although they DO require checks on all long arm sales from gun dealers AND at gun shows.

The trick is thus: the BATFE refuses to set a threshold number of weapons owned that would constitute a “dealer” rather than a private citizen selling his own weapons privately. That makes sense, if you think about it. If I have 100 weapons, a large but not unheard-of number, and i want to sell one, does that make me a dealer? Thus we have the problem.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the transfer of a long arm to your children or grandchildren is perfectly legal via gifting, but they are not able to purchase the weapons themselves by law. Families in some areas do this as a matter of course, as a rite of passage, whatever you want to call it.

In any event, what can be done about this, and what should be done about this?

I’m all in favor of requiring 100% background checks (at the purchaser’s expense) except when the transfer is between family members. Of course, that’s another “loophole”, but that’s still a way to facilitate gifting. Everything else, however, should require a check. It really is a simple process, it’s not expensive, and it keeps everybody safe, legal and honest. It’s how I have purchased all of my firearms, and it’s no big deal unless you shouldn’t be buying one to begin with.

However, keep in mind that this would not have (to the best of my knowledge) stopped the Tucson shootings. Jared Loughner did not have a mental health record or a criminal history so he could have gotten a weapon in any state in the union via the FFL process (the weapon is shipped to an FFL holder in Arizona and the transfer is completed there). That’s a separate issue.

[Chronos]

I’m all in favor of requiring 100% background checks (at the purchaser’s expense) except when the transfer is between family members. Of course, that’s another “loophole”, but that’s still a way to facilitate gifting.

Or, of course, you could just require them for purchases but not for gifts, regardless of relationship. I don’t think it’s very common for Granpap to sell his hunting rifle to his favorite grandson when he gets old enough to go hunting with him, or whatever. It seems to me that all of the situations where the private-transfer no-check rule seems important are situations where the gun is a gift, so let’s just make that the criterion.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Chronos

Or, of course, you could just require them for purchases but not for gifts, regardless of relationship. I don’t think it’s very common for Granpap to sell his hunting rifle to his favorite grandson when he gets old enough to go hunting with him, or whatever. It seems to me that all of the situations where the private-transfer no-check rule seems important are situations where the gun is a gift, so let’s just make that the criterion.

Not an expert on these things, but I would tend to imagine the loophole then would be the “free gift” problem - hey, come buy this $500 bar of soap, with free handgun!

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

That’s also dangerous territory, because now you’re into “straw purchases”, which is buying a weapon and passing the checks for a weapon you have no intention of keeping and on someone else’s behalf. Say I buy a weapon and “gift” it to Joe Postal. It was always my intention to give it to him via the private sale exception, but now I have legal cover via your proposal. See the problem?

[JXJohns]

So were the sellers prosecuted for breaking the law? I didn’t see anything about that.

If not, why not?

[Kevbo]

New York City?

Get a rope.

[Lumpy]

At least in Minnesota it’s illegal to sell, give, or otherwise transfer firearms to anyone who is legally forbidden to possess them (convicted felons, etc.). But only licensed gun dealers are required to actively do a background check beforehand.

[Kozmik]

@appleciders

Apparently New York City sent a small group of undercover investigators to a gun show in Arizona to attempt to buy guns while avoiding background checks at the gun show. One officer was sold a gun even after telling the seller that he “probably couldn’t pass one [a background check]”.

What if the officer told the seller, “I passed a background check but I’m probably the last person in the world that should pass one.”

[2ply]

@JXJohns

So were the sellers prosecuted for breaking the law? I didn’t see anything about that.

If not, why not?

Nothing the sellers did was actually illegal.

[Argent_Towers]

Unfortunately, the idea that New York is the center of the country and everyone else in America is just a backwards hick in need of enlightenment is not uncommon. Especially among the people responsible for New York’s gun policies - they want the whole country to have the same policies. And they love the idea of sticking it to the “unenlightened” places like Arizona, which is what this stunt obviously was all about.

I wonder, though, does Mike Bloomberg have armed guards? If so, maybe he should consider asking them to give up their arms as well. Or at least make them use single-shot, .22-caliber target pistols.

[appleciders]

@2ply

Nothing the sellers did was actually illegal.

According to the NYT article, it’s illegal to sell a gun to someone that you suspect may be prohibited from buying them, even it’s a private sale. Surely telling a vendor at a gun show that you probably wouldn’t pass a background check would qualify as “suspicion”. Now, a New York cop* probably can’t arrest an Arizona resident in Arizona for something done in Arizona, but it’s still an illegal act.

*I can’t get a good grip on what these guys were-- PIs hired in Arizona by the Mayor’s office?

[Kozmik]

@appleciders

Surely telling a vendor at a gun show that you probably wouldn’t pass a background check would qualify as “suspicion”.

Would telling the vendor that you’re probably the last person that should pass a background check qualify as “suspicion”?

[appleciders]

@Kozmik

What if the officer told the seller, “I passed a background check but I’m probably the last person in the world that should pass one.”

It’s iffy. There’s a lot of grey area here. Airman Doors proposes a pretty good way to fix it.

[Robot_Arm]

@Argent_Towers

Unfortunately, the idea that New York is the center of the country and everyone else in America is just a backwards hick in need of enlightenment is not uncommon. Especially among the people responsible for New York’s gun policies - they want the whole country to have the same policies. And they love the idea of sticking it to the “unenlightened” places like Arizona, which is what this stunt obviously was all about.

Is it any less of a stunt than Arizona state officials trying to enforce federal immigration laws?

[Kozmik]

@Argent_Towers

Unfortunately, the idea that New York is the center of the country and everyone else in America is just a backwards hick in need of enlightenment is not uncommon. Especially among the people responsible for New York’s gun policies - they want the whole country to have the same policies. And they love the idea of sticking it to the “unenlightened” places like Arizona, which is what this stunt obviously was all about.

Weeks after a shooting left six dead and 13 injured in Tucson, New York City sent undercover investigators to an Arizona gun show and found instances in which private sellers sold semiautomatic pistols even after buyers said they probably could not pass background checks, city officials said.

Wouldn’t it make more sense if the undercover investigators were sent by The New York Times, especially since The New York Times did the reporting?

[Argent_Towers]

@Robot_Arm

Is it any less of a stunt than Arizona state officials trying to enforce federal immigration laws?

I don’t see how these situations are comparable.