Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Bloomberg's at it again

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Bloomberg's at it again

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_816296.html

    The seller screwed up when the (planted) buyer told him he prob'ly couldn't pass a background check. I won't sell a firearm to anyone that I haven't personally known for a long time... that's just me. I've not sold a gun in AZ to a person... (sold one to an FFL dealer in DE... but that's it.) I see this as a legitimate concern tho... and one that could impact all of us sooner or later. What say you?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    333
    I hear you, I don't sell guns to anyone I don't know, especially if they "probably wouldn't pass a background check anyhow".

    I am not a big fan of gunshows to begin with, and knuckleheaded dealers are not doing our gun rights any favors.

    Steve
    Steve


    "Life is hard, its even harder when you are stupid!"

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Any mention of not being able to pass NICS is a Black Ball for me.

    I've only sold guns to family.

    Personally, I don't see why Felons in general shouldn't have a gun. Perpetually violent people, yes, understandable. But I know people who have felony convictions for things they didn't even know were a crime, and certainly not violent.

    People who are labeled sex offenders (Felons) by the lies of a 15 year old girl who wanted something she couldn't have... Its asinine how easy it is to become a Felon through no action of your own.

    The law is no measure of morality.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Did this investigator clearly and overtly say he could probably not pass a background check or did he try to mumble or whisper it to the point it was picked up on his recording equipoment but not clearly communicated to the seller? We've got to be vigilant for any and every possible trick the antis might try in their quest to smear and ultimately shut down license ddealers, private sellers at gun shows, and private sellers in other venues.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  5. #5
    Regular Member lykwidtepp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oro Valley, Arizona
    Posts
    28
    http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...VR5&FORM=LKVR8

    That shows some investigators testing sellers. Not sure if it's from the same investigators here in Arizona though.
    Last edited by lykwidtepp; 01-31-2011 at 04:02 PM.
    "It's better to be the worst of the best than the best of the worst"

    "If problems persist, you'll need to install Tannerite in your computer, and then we can troubleshoot it"

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    NYPD?

    Their jurisdiction covers Arizona?

    BTW: I know Arizona is a one party consent state as far as recording devices. Does this also apply to the gov't when it records citizen activity?

    What I'm getting at is: Did they have a warrant? Did they need one?

    Someone should videotape a purchase of a firearm in NYC and then send it to CNN asking why Bloomberg is so worried about Arizona when he can't even control his own city.

  7. #7
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Talking Another perspective

    It really shows the sad state of affairs in NY, when NY police investigators must come to AZ to buy their guns. Must be a lot of red tape up there in NY. Also disturbing is the fact that the NY investigators don't think the can pass a background check! Is that why they could not get their guns in NY?

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Flipper View Post
    I just posted this in response.

    In my opinion... the seller did not apply due dilligence in his continuance of the sale when the straw buyer indicated he 'Prob'ly couldn't pass the background check'. The law requires that the sale be intra-state and the buyer produced an AZ drivers license for proof of that. No private seller has any means to verify any other qualifications other than (forinstance) the buyer produced a valid AZ CWP permit which would indicate that a background check had been completed. An AZ CWP is not required intra-state any longer but is advisable for certain situations/areas that still require the bearer to have them. OK... I can live with that even tho I don't agree with it.

    Not just to complain... but I do recognize and will offer a solution to the so-called 'gun show loop-hole' as applicable to AZ. Private sales would be contingent upon proof of state residency AND possession of a valid AZ CWP. That would satisfy the 'background investigation' that the Bloombergers get their panties inna wad about.

    Bloomburg is a control freak, attention ***** plain and simple. He has no legitimate authority past NYC limits.


    For all you 'Zonies... what say you 'bout a potential buyer (that you don't know) presenting an AZ CWP and AZ DL during a private sale/transfer? 'Covers both of your asses w/o any doubts.

  10. #10
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    I have no objections to background checks. I also think private sellers should show more diligence in selling firearms to people they don't know - especially if they say they probably won't pass a background check. What stinks to high heaven is the Mayor of NYC sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. I don't like the laws of NYS or NYC, so I just won't give them my business. What right or jurisdiction does he and his cronies have in Arizona? He should clean up his own house before telling us Zonies how to fix ours.

  11. #11
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Wouldn't it make more sense rather than complaining to make sure states prosecute any seller who violates the existing law? Not just AZ but every state that allows FTF private sales. The state law is fine, it's the sellers who need to be prosecuted don't you think?

  12. #12
    Regular Member lykwidtepp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oro Valley, Arizona
    Posts
    28
    Sonora Rebel has a good idea there. Showing the CCW permit easily takes that problem out of there, knowing they couldn't get one without a background check. Only problem with that though is anyone over 18 wouldn't be able to even buy a rifle via private sale if that were the case, unless they can issue CCW's to those under 21.
    "It's better to be the worst of the best than the best of the worst"

    "If problems persist, you'll need to install Tannerite in your computer, and then we can troubleshoot it"

  13. #13
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    As for Bloomberg. Did he or did he not front the money for the strawman purchase? Did he or did he not contrive the utterance of "I don't know if I could pass a background check' by the strawman buyer and was such utterance audible to the seller? Was the strawman buyer in fact vetted by Bloomburg himself beyond the fact that the strawmen was an AZ resident by virtue of an AZ drivers license?

    Bloomberg, in this instance was acting of his own violition beyond his authority as Mayor of NYC. In other words... he was acting as a private citizen. His authority as mayor of NYC doesn't carry any legal weight in Phoenix. OK... so what became of the weapons and who took physical possession? If the strawman buyer gave them to Bloomberg... or one of Bloomberg's operatives (not a resident of AZ) w/o that transfer being handled by a licensed FFL in the State of New York (first) or state of residence of the recipient, he committed a felony. Bloomburg would be an accessory to that felony.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566
    What appears to be missing from either the Puffington article or our discussion is the complete study, if such report even exists. In particular, how many sellers were approached before they found this one? Was he the only one? Out of how many attempts?

    If you try hard enough, you can make just about point. When my father was in college (circa 1920) he and other students got 10,000 signatures on a petition to pay benefits to the widow of the unknown soldier. The timing is off, or I would suspect Mayor Bloombutt of running this activity as well.

    MD

  15. #15
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    That creates 2 classes of people.Haves and have nots. That's infringement IMO . I think the law says you ask them the listed questions and if they perjure themselves, the seller is still complying wth the law and the buyer has committed the crime. If you create more rules, Bloomberg and his ilk have won IMO. Enforce the law as written, not change them for a bunch of interlopers. If AZ caves, the other states will as well.Congress doesn't need to smell blood in the water.AZ is one of the few states that have constitutional carry. Why should a law infringe on that? To me they are mutually exclusive.

    Mayor Bloomberg can't get the trash picked up in his own town and can't remove snow either? But he has time to put his nose in AZ's business?.It's a AZ issue, not a NYC issue. I wouldn't change the law now based on his behavior alone. Pond scum.

    He's a hack and poser and has presidential ambitions to boot.
    Last edited by swinokur; 02-01-2011 at 04:16 PM.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    It's easy to prove how stupid this is.

    Go to New York. Ask a few shady fellows where you can buy a gun. Buy it.

    Problem is, since doing that is a crime in so many ways, doing it to prove a point will land you in Prison.

    Thus, Bloomberg and the Feds suppress evidence of the problem by imprisoning those who would expose the truth. How convenient.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by lykwidtepp View Post
    Sonora Rebel has a good idea there. Showing the CCW permit easily takes that problem out of there, knowing they couldn't get one without a background check. Only problem with that though is anyone over 18 wouldn't be able to even buy a rifle via private sale if that were the case, unless they can issue CCW's to those under 21.
    Rifles/Shotguns are not concealed weapons and not (generally) applicable to a CWP. Bloomturd, et al have a major Jones about handguns, altho 'assault rifles' get their drawers wet 'n wadded as well. I don't like permits... I don't like the idea of permits, altho I have an AZ CWP for all those 'gray' areas it applies to and weather such as now prior to the passage of SB1108. The point of contention among the anti's is eligibility (at present). None of us want to see the prohibited types with guns... any kind'a guns. I dunno what the percentage is of people who do private sales to persons unknown. Nobody does. Neither do I know the percentage of otherwise eligible 18 yr olds who (would) purchase handguns in such a manner. OK... so ya gotta be 21 to carry concealed (permit or not) in AZ. Would prohibiting anyone under 21 from buying a handgun in private sale be that onerous? Restrict all handgun sales under 21 to an FFL dealer? It's not like they couldn't buy 'em at all... 'just not thru the back door. The AZ CWP IS the background check on a punch card for a private sale. I'm tryin' to come up with a reasonable solution to an obvious problem. This is all I can think of... other than do nothing and continue to be targeted by the VPC, Bloomturnd 'n the rest of the 'fraidy Brady's'.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    It's not enuff to complain on a forum...

    From: me
    To: rpearce@azleg.gov
    Subject: Private sale of firearms (so-called gun show loophole) possible solution (?)
    Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:35:32 -0700

    Sir:

    I'm a gun owner... open carrier normally but I have an AZ CWP. Of late... the national media attention to Mayor Bloomburg's grandstanding at the recent Phoenix gunshow puts Arizona in a bad light. Hiring someone to make a straw purchase of a firearm (for whatever reason) is a felony. That however is not the gist of my possible solution.

    The AZ CWP is no longer required intra-state, but certain situations may require the bearer to possess one. As you are aware, anyone not otherwise prohibited (GCA68 44 ~ 18USC / ARS 13-3101) at age 18 may do the following:

    'Handgun 18 years of age to possess or purchase via private party transaction, 21 years of age to purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer.'

    'Rifle or Shotgun 18 years of age to possess or purchase via private party transaction, 21 years of age to purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer.'

    My suggested solution(s) are:

    1. Eliminate the age limit of 21 to purchase from an FFL dealer.

    2. Require that a valid AZ CWP be presented in all private sales as well as a valid AZ drivers license. The CWP satisfys the continual contention of 'backgound check' during a private sale.

    3. Reduce the age limit for the AZ CWP to 18.

    None of us who carry firearms want prohibited persons to obtain or own them (for the common good and public safety). While I personally find 'permits' in the free exercise of a right to be onerous, I recognize certain problems in verification of eligibility not satisfied in the absence of a BATF Form 4473 insta-check via an FFL dealer.

    It's not enough to do nothing... Please accept this suggestion in good faith.

    Me
    Address/phone

  19. #19
    Regular Member billv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Houston now, Asheville soon
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    As for Bloomberg. Did he or did he not front the money for the strawman purchase? Did he or did he not contrive the utterance of "I don't know if I could pass a background check' by the strawman buyer and was such utterance audible to the seller? Was the strawman buyer in fact vetted by Bloomburg himself beyond the fact that the strawmen was an AZ resident by virtue of an AZ drivers license?

    Bloomberg, in this instance was acting of his own violition beyond his authority as Mayor of NYC. In other words... he was acting as a private citizen. His authority as mayor of NYC doesn't carry any legal weight in Phoenix. OK... so what became of the weapons and who took physical possession? If the strawman buyer gave them to Bloomberg... or one of Bloomberg's operatives (not a resident of AZ) w/o that transfer being handled by a licensed FFL in the State of New York (first) or state of residence of the recipient, he committed a felony. Bloomburg would be an accessory to that felony.
    And if Bloomberg orchestrated this, wouldn't that be conspiracy to commit a felony? Racketeering? Isn't there also charge of committing a felony across state lines?

    Geez the charges just keep piling up. Seem he might be spending a longer time in prison than the person (that might have been illegally) selling the firearms.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do *they* not understand?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Quote Originally Posted by billv View Post
    And if Bloomberg orchestrated this, wouldn't that be conspiracy to commit a felony? Racketeering? Isn't there also charge of committing a felony across state lines?

    Geez the charges just keep piling up. Seem he might be spending a longer time in prison than the person (that might have been illegally) selling the firearms.
    Which begs the question... what happened to the guns afterward?

  21. #21
    Regular Member rickc1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Battle Mountain, NV.
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    I just posted this in response.

    In my opinion... the seller did not apply due dilligence in his continuance of the sale when the straw buyer indicated he 'Prob'ly couldn't pass the background check'. The law requires that the sale be intra-state and the buyer produced an AZ drivers license for proof of that. No private seller has any means to verify any other qualifications other than (forinstance) the buyer produced a valid AZ CWP permit which would indicate that a background check had been completed. An AZ CWP is not required intra-state any longer but is advisable for certain situations/areas that still require the bearer to have them. OK... I can live with that even tho I don't agree with it.

    Not just to complain... but I do recognize and will offer a solution to the so-called 'gun show loop-hole' as applicable to AZ. Private sales would be contingent upon proof of state residency AND possession of a valid AZ CWP. That would satisfy the 'background investigation' that the Bloombergers get their panties inna wad about.

    Bloomburg is a control freak, attention ***** plain and simple. He has no legitimate authority past NYC limits.


    For all you 'Zonies... what say you 'bout a potential buyer (that you don't know) presenting an AZ CWP and AZ DL during a private sale/transfer? 'Covers both of your asses w/o any doubts.
    I`m sorry Sonora Rebel, but I`ve got to disagree with you on this. I don`t have a CWP and don`t plan on gettin` one anytime soon. Bloomberg broke existing laws, if the seller knew the buyer couldn't pass a background check, then he broke the law, and if he didn`t hear the buyer say this, and sold the weapon in good faith, the buyer should have known he was braking the law. Before you say " he should have known ", I understand the bad guys don`t care if they brake laws, that's what makes them bad guys, so lets try enforcing the laws we already have, and not put more restrictions on the law abiding, we here in Az. are making some real good steps toward absolute 2nd Amendment freedoms, lets` not stop now. Lets put Bloomberg and his gang of vermen where they belong, behind tall walls, where they can spend the next 20 years, having people with guns watch them make big rocks, into little rocks. If that don`t work, then I will jump on your bandwagon.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424
    Like Rick, I have no intention of obtaining a CCW. I can't agree with SR's suggestion, either.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Therein lies the conundrum... Damned if you do 'n damned if you don't. Ok... the only thing it would impact is private sales, nothing else. The CWP satisfy's the background question. There's no other option for doing that. 18-20 yr olds can't buy from an FFL, yet they can buy from a private dealer. Lowering the age for a CWP would remedy that. Lowering the age to conceal would be another plus if in that age group and choose to do that. Due diligence on the part of the seller would be satisfied (legally) when the buyer presents their AZ drivers license and CWP, just as due dilligence is satisfied by the BATF Form 4473 when purchasing from an FFL.

    The anti's keep screaming about the 'gunshow loophole'. If they keep screaming loud 'n long enough... it could result in a national ban ALL private sales/xfers of firearms. That's what they want. Is that what you want to risk? 'Can't have your cake 'n eat it.

  24. #24
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266
    I suspect the endgame will be a federal law which makes selling to a prohibited possessor illegal and punishable by some ridiculous amount of jailtime. There will be no "knowingly" involved in the statute.

    They will probably be able to sell this to the public. It will result in a nationwide chill on gun sales overall. Alternately an exception might be made for those who go through NICS (that will probably be the compromise necessary to pass such legislation). Something like:

    "Except for sellers who have submitted a backround check request through NICS, any person who sells or transfers a firearm to a prohibited possessor shall be imprisoned for..."

    The effect will be that inheritance will be protected (even if the inheritors are prohibited possessors, the person doing the transfer will be dead and not care), and you'll see an overall reduction in private gunshow sales.

    I *hope not*, but there's no good option here. My preference would be to end government databases altogether because I don't think government has any legitimate power to limit gun sales in this way, and secondarily from a more utilitarian standpoint, I really don't think NICS has any impact on the number of criminals owning weapons.

    But of course, abolishing NICS is probably not politically feasible. I think it gives people the illusion that there are effective checks in place, much like security theater at airports.

    Some interesting NICS stats here for anyone who is interested:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Backgr...ransfers,_2005

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Weasel.... OMG... change your avitar... I just blew Chucky chunks. Blaaahhh!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •