Thank you.
A politician pushing for his, or her, law-enforcement officers to start investigating crimes that are out of their jurisdiction, and you really don’t see the comparison?
From the New York Times article linked in the op.
As misguided as I think Arizona is in regards to their efforts to control immigration they are at least limiting their actions to their own state. What the hell business does a mayor have in sending investigators undercover to another city let alone another state?
The authority of Bloomburg’s desire to run for President in 2012? Tell me he doesn’t poll well against the likely Republican nominees. (God help us all.)
I looked up the word “jurisdiction” before I used it in my post. It refers not just to physical boundaries, but also to areas of responsibility. As far as I know, it is not within Arizona’s responsibility to enforce federal immigration laws.
I think Phoenix should send some investigators to New York to see if they can score a nice bit of fish with a side of bacon at Katz’s Deli.
Wasn’t there a lawsuit about a decade ago in New York, where the families of victims of gun violence sued gun manufacturers? IIRC, some of the manufacturers were found not liable, but others were found guilty of… I’m not sure what… because the plaintiffs demonstrated quite clearly in court that those manufacturers were flooding states with weak transfer laws (like Louisiana), knowing full well that those weapons would be sold privately at gun shows, to be transported to states like New York? In effect, what was demonstrated was that the manufacturers were knowingly selling to the New York black market in guns via gun shows in the south.
INAL but Arizona law enforcement officers enforcing an Arizona law (SB1070 being passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the Arizona governor) within the Arizona boarders would seem to fall within Arizona’s jurisdiction.
Just a thought here, and I would need to do a tonne of research,
But what if, the gun show was doing a noticeable amount of A and P in New York, and for whatever reason someone going to Arizona to buy a gun circumvented or broke NY federal laws?
Wouldn’t it make sense for the police to then try to gather information to stop the PURCHASE rather than the sale (different things). Or wouldn’t it make sense to try to gather information on just how much of a problem it was?
Without wanting to go into a debate on gun laws, it sounds like a fairly legitimate use of resources to me…
The bottom line is that Bloomberg is out to stop private sales between individuals. The website linked to earlier says as much. These sales that they caught on camera could have happened anywhere in the US. There is a legal way to buy firearms from other states. There is also an illegal method. The investigators in this piece showed AZ IDs making the sale completely legal even after they mumbled once about not passing a background check.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m an Aussie and I really haven’t looked too far in to the gun laws over there and all that hoo ha.
But it seems that the point of the thread is that guns are being sold to people they shouldn’t be. Who cares who funded it, or whether it was legal or not in the first place for those people to even try to purchase those guns (or not?).
If you heard about a man selling cocaine to a 10 year old child at midday on a Wednesday, do you absolve the man of his wrong doing because the kid should have been in school?
I said that both these stunts were enacted by politicians, so the fact that [del]Ari[/del] Arizona’s legislature and governor are the driving forces makes the comparison more direct. If Mayor Bloomberg amended the bylaws of New York City (through whatever process is normally used) to say he could investigate gun shows in [del]Ari[/del] Arizona would that make it okay? No, because he doesn’t have the authority to pass that rule. By the same token, it’s not at all clear to me that the Constitution grants [del]Ari[/del] Arizona the authority to pass its own immigration laws.
How do you feel about a national firearm and ballistics registry?
I’ve been to the Virginia Gun Show and a non-dealer can sell me a gun without a background check and some of these non-dealers had a bunch of guns (new in box) for sale.
I don’t get the sniveling about Who paid the investigators. It’s irrelevant. If it shows the sellers breaking the law, then it shows the sellers breaking the law (the suggestions that Bloomberg is making it all up are too stupid to even deserve a response).
It’s not clear from the articles that the “investigators” hired for the sting were from New York or only hired in Arizona BY New York, but I suspect the latter because they apparently had AZ driver’s licences. At that point all the attempts to change the subject to whining aout Bloomberg are irrelevant. “I probably couldn’t pass a background check” gives the sellers “reason to believe” the buyer can’t legally possess a gun, which makes the sale arguably illegal (sniveling about NY trying to enforce the law is off point since nobody was arrested). At the very least, the sting exposed just how easy it is for criminals and psychopaths to buy guns from irresponsible redneck dealers who don’t give a shit who or what they sell to.
Of course he does. What rule is there that a city government cannot hire investigators in (or send investigators to) other locations?
His folks do not have any authority to arrest or detain anyone, beyond what a typical citizen has, but there is no law that states a NYC hired individual can’t go to a gun show and look around.
Bloomberg, rightly or wrongly, is sick of seeing guns purchased from across the country used in crimes within his city. So, for a number of years, he’s worked to try and get other states to pass laws that are more restrictive. This is just one more salvo from his administration, trying to make other places look like they’re lax in their rules regarding gun sales.
Arizona doesn’t enforce immigration laws or investigate illegal immigration activity in NYC. There is really no reason for the comparison. If NYC had sent their investigators to a gun show in Maine, the immigration topic would never even have come up.
I’ve always wondered, what happens when you buy a gun at a gunshow? How does it actually work? Do you have to show proof of citizenship, residency, driver’s license?
In many countries, the rights of individuals apply whether or not you’re a citizen. Is it the same for gun laws? Do you at least have to be a resident or not?
There are Federal and State laws. If you buy from a licensed (FFL) Federal Firearms dealer, you need to complete a background check or equivalency, complete a form 4473, show ID and be a resident of the state in which you are making the sale.
If buying a handgun and you are an out of state resident, the gun must be shipped to a FFL dealer in your home state. If buying a long arm, and you are a resident of a contiguous border state, you may take it with you at the time of the sale. State laws may vary and add several layers of complexity to the Federal rules. These rules apply if you are buying at a gun show or at a gun dealer’s place of business.
They don’t have any jurisdiction to enforce it in Arizona. either, though. That’s the point. And Bloomberg didn’t try to enforce any gun laws in Arizona.