HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Bloomburg strikes again

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:51 PM

Bloomburg strikes again

What I want to know is what state the sellers are in? Was the information turned over to the ATF.
I doubt that it is the "first ever", I picture the ATF doing this type of stings.

http://www.mayorsandcities.com/usa-canada/mayor-bloomberg-announces-results-of-first-ever-national-investigation-into-illegal-online-gun-sales

For those of you who are not familiar with federal gun control laws:
Interstate sales between individuals violates the Gun Control Act of 1968.
For the sale to be legal in any way, the gun would have to be shipped to a licensed dealer for the buyer to pick it up and go through the background check etc. In other words, it does not matter what the buyer said because he would be going through the background check anyway when he goes to pick it up from the dealer. Even in the first sale, not going through a FFL would be violating federal law. NYC knows this. MAIG knows this. The average reader of Huff and Business Week does not.

Policy questions are:
how do gun control advocates feel about their side (in this case a conservative plutocrat) using dishonesty to advance their goals?
should the ATF do similar stings on gunbroker etc to weed out those who do not use FFLs in interstate sales?

4 replies, 1797 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bloomburg strikes again (Original post)
gejohnston Dec 2011 OP
PavePusher Dec 2011 #1
DissedByBush Dec 2011 #2
one-eyed fat man Dec 2011 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #4

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:22 AM

1. If Bloomberg was actually interested in gun safety....

 

he'd have given up those vicious armed guards long ago. Q.E.D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:10 AM

2. I like this line

 

"Investigators arranged to meet five of the sellers who failed the integrity test in person and exchange the guns for cash. As a result, investigators purchased four handguns, including one assault-style pistol, and an assault rifle, which ranged in price from $300 $650."

Wow! First, somebody seriously violated the NFA by selling an assault rifle without doing the proper NFA paperwork. The agents were probably in violation of federal law for purchasing an automatic rifle without the permits, paperwork and tax stamp.

Second, $650 for an assault rifle, that's one hell of a deal!

Or, as usual they don't know what the hell they're talking about, or are purposely lying to confuse semi-automatics with real assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissedByBush (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:35 AM

3. It is a stretch

But an NFA firearm that is not already registered can never be registered except on a Form 10 where a law enforcement or government agency keeps a confiscated weapon for it's own use.

The reason a "real" AK you can buy all over the Third world for a hundred bucks costs $12,000 on the collector's market here is it comes on an ATF Form 4. National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms that can be transferred to private citizens on a tax paid Form 4 are the most desirable and therefore the most expensive ones to acquire.

You see similar cost breaks with NFA dealer samples. Machine guns imported after 1968 and prior to May 19, 1986, are transferable to Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealers (01) and manufacturers (07) and importers who have paid the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) for the current year. A dealer who acquires a "pre-May" dealer sample and then fails to pay the SOT in succeeding years may retain the gun in his private collection. It only can be transferred to someone holding a SOT or to an approved government agency, usually military or law enforcement. An exception is made sometimes if the gun is being inherited from the dealer's estate by a family member. Our same theoretical AK-47 would be worth about 5 or 6 thousand dollars in this market.

Any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19, 1986, can be transferred between Special Occupational Tax (SOT) payers only if they first provide a letter on agency letterhead showing that a legitimate government organization has requested to see it. This usually means a law enforcement agency or military unit. The gun can be retained by the dealer/manufacturer only so long as he pays his annual SOT. If he drops the SOT, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) expects him to first dispose of, surrender, or destroy the gun. It can be transferred only to another SOT payer or approved government agency, as previously described. Now we are down to a $1000 gun.

This category has led to some interesting fictions. Like an ad for a Type 97 7.7mm Japanese aircraft machine gun for sale, as a post-May dealer sample. What agency would seriously consider buying a armament for an airplane they don't have using a cartridge no one makes? Maybe the sheriff is the SOT's brother-in-law?

"Hey Earl, how'd ya like to see something neat?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:04 AM

4. MAIG, Blooming criminals, etc

How do gun control advocates feel about their side (in this case a conservative plutocrat) using dishonesty to advance their goals?
- Nothing is more evil and cowardly in a politician than one who lies to advance his agenda, but then I'm not a controller.


Should the ATF do similar stings on gunbroker etc to weed out those who do not use FFLs in interstate sales?
- I'm sure the interstate commerce of firearm sales without an FFL are covered in the title 27 of the CFR. The ATF, MAIG, Brady bunch... should read it and learn to live with it. Breaking the law should result in punishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread