« | »

Bloomberg Tries Gun Entrapment In AZ

From a cheering Associated Press:

NYC mayor conducts gun-sale sting in Arizona

By Samantha Gross, Associated Press Mon Jan 31, 2011

NEW YORK – Weeks after the shooting in Tucson, sellers at an Arizona gun show allowed undercover investigators hired by New York City to buy semiautomatic pistols even after they said they probably couldn’t pass a background check, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday.

"After Tucson, you would think that people, particularly at a gun show in Arizona, would have been much more careful in enforcing the law," he said. "That unfortunately in some cases wasn’t the case."

Mr. Bloomberg is a dangerous buffoon. Mr. Loughner broke no laws when he purchased a handgun and ammunition. He cleared the federal background check. (Details the AP will not bother to mention until the final paragraphs of this article.)

Bloomberg has authorized similar sting operations around the country as part of a push for tougher federal laws to help keep guns off the streets of New York

So city mayors have the power to authorize ‘sting operations’ around the country? Does Mr. Holder know about this? Can we have a patchwork of gun stings going on across the country?

The operators of the Phoenix gun show where the investigators made their buys on Jan. 23 issued a statement Monday saying all exhibitors at its shows are required to follow state and federal gun laws.

"Mayor Bloomberg and his ‘task force’ have no legal authority in the state of Arizona, or in any other place in America except New York City," said the statement from the Crossroads of the West Gun Shows.

"These forays into America’s heartland committing blatant acts to entrap otherwise innocent gun owners is an unlawful scheme that is created by Bloomberg’s task force."

Where is the ACLU? Isn’t the right to bear arms a ‘civil right’? Are some civil rights more equal than others? (Obviously these are rhetorical questions.)

The private investigators, wearing concealed video cameras, were sold the 9 mm guns even after telling two separate sellers they probably couldn’t pass background checks.

While many sellers at gun shows are not required under federal law to perform background checks, it is illegal for them to sell a weapon if they have reason to believe the buyer wouldn’t be able to pass one, the mayor said.

Observe the outrageous mendacity at work here. The operators of the gun show in question says that all of the dealers are required to do background checks. The Bloomberg stooges probably joked that they might not pass a background check. But there is no indication that anyone was sold a gun at the show without having gotten a background check.

In fact, you can be damn sure that if someone had been sold a gun without a background check, Mr. Bloomberg would be shouting it from the rooftops. And that news would have been featured in the headline and lead paragraph of this piece.

So we can assume that nobody bought any guns illegally, despite Mr. Bloomberg and the AP’s efforts to convey the opposite impression.

The mayor said that without mandatory background checks, gun shows had become "magnets for criminals," and called for federal action to close what he said were dangerous loopholes in the law. Last week, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., proposed federal legislation that would require background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows.

Again, there is no indication anywhere in this AP article that anyone at these gun shows was allowed to buy a firearm illegally or without getting a background check.

Jim Cavanaugh, a retired agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where he was in charge of the Nashville division, said he didn’t believe the sales described by the mayor were, in fact, illegal.

"It’s not a prosecutable offense" because the purchasers were not truly felons, minors or drug abusers and because they didn’t tell the sellers definitively that they were, Cavanaugh said. As for Bloomberg, he said, "ATF has asked him not to do it and to please coordinate with ATF if he thinks a violation is occurring."

In 2007, the U.S. Justice Department warned in a letter to [Bloomberg’s] City Hall that such civilian operations risk "legal liabilities" and can "unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations."

Will Mr. Obama’s Justice Department sue Mayor Bloomberg to make him cease and desist these operations? The DOJ has no problem suing states like Arizona when they are displeased.

The mayor conceded that most illegal guns in New York City are coming from states along the East Coast, but said the rampage in Tucson would bring national attention to the investigation.

The city-hired investigators also obtained a Glock gun and 33-round extended magazine similar to those authorities have said Jared Loughner used to open fire as Giffords met with constituents outside a supermarket.

Once again, Mr. Loughner purchase was perfectly legal. He passed the background check that Mr. Bloomberg is talking about. As even the AP is finally forced to admit, albeit at the bottom of their highly misleading piece:

Investigators have said Loughner legally purchased his ammunition the morning of the attack. He had cleared a federal background check and legally bought a Glock 19 at a big-box sporting goods store two months earlier

But speaking of gun laws, the elites in New York City can always find a way to get a concealed carry permit, despite the city’s 100 year old draconian gun laws.

It’s only the ‘little people’ who are denied their civil rights and left defenseless.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, February 1st, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Bloomberg Tries Gun Entrapment In AZ”

  1. mr_bill says:

    Tucson shooting: Undercover agents expose loophole in US gun laws New York mayor sent investigators to Phoenix
    Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk,
    Monday 31 January 2011 17.45 GMT

    …New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, sent a team of undercover agents to the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix, Arizona, just 120 miles away from the scene of the Tucson shooting. There, on 23 January, they bought a Glock 9mm pistol of the kind wielded by Jared Loughner when he killed six people and wounded 13, including the US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a public meeting in Tucson.

    Apparently there are no issues in New York City that require the attention of the Mayor. He has NYC running so well that he can spend time and money inventing problems to solve in other states. This is clearly an area of Federal jurisdiction, will Eric Holder be filing a lawsuit against Mayor Bloomberg for overstepping his authority?

    Under current federal law, that sale was legal because of the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows occasional gun sellers to trade weapons without carrying out a background check to ensure that the purchaser is not mentally ill, a criminal, or a drug abuser. Such “private” sales are responsible for 40% of all gun sales in the US.

    …The undercover operation was a repeat of a sting that New York carried out on gun shows in Nevada, Tennessee and Ohio in 2009. That exercise found that 63% of the gun sellers approached were in breach of federal law by willingly selling guns to people who admitted they probably wouldn’t pass a background check.

    In the case of the Tucson shooting, Loughner did pass background check before he bought the Glock 19. However, he only managed to do so because the US army, which rejected him because of his history of drug abuse, failed to pass on that information to the FBI’s national database.

    In the very last sentence of the last paragraph, we see an admission that there actually weren’t any laws broken when Mr. Laughner purchased his gun, rather that the Federal Government screwed up and didn’t follow the laws on the books. Further, I’ll bet there aren’t a lot of drug addicts, na’erdowells, or mentally incompetent folks showing up at gun shows. I’ll also wager that they find it hard to buy a gun at one, if they do show up. I think what the Mayor really despises is the fact that my neighbor can sell me a gun and the federal government has no way of knowing it. Ever seen Red Dawn?

    So what we have here is a mayor wasting municipal resources manufacturing outrage about something legal under federal law. The article does mention that during two sales, the undercover agents made comments to the extent that they might not be able to pass a background check, although they failed to elaborate. I think Mayor Bloomberg should tend to the problems plaguing his city and leave the folks in AZ alone. Of course, the whole purpose of this is to feed into nerobama’s new push for gun ownership restrictions. File this under “shameless muck-raking” or “people-who-live-in-glass-houses.”


  2. GetBackJack says:

    You know and I know what I want to type here, but neither Steve nor I need the kind of scrutiny and investigation that would follow, so use your best judgement on what I Really Meant.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    Nevermind some bed-bug or snow entrapment.

    Nevermind some deficit entrapment.

    Big Brother Mikey is a man in charge, a model for the future of the Republicans, once upon a time in a 2008 Ruling Class narrative.

  4. Georgfelis says:

    Just a clarification here, as I recall the law:

    Gun dealers are required to run a standardized background check on anybody who purchases a gun from them, with all the paperwork and possible waiting periods associated with the sale. Ammunition purchases do not require a background check, but you have to be at least (18 or 21 depending on the state). Gun accessories such as clips, magazines, lights, grips, holsters, laser sights, etc… are completely un-checked, and aside from a few restrictions on magazine size and something about lasers that I do not remember offhand, just about anybody can buy them.

    Non-dealers have no such restrictions. Bob wants to sell a gun to Fred, they can just simply trade gun for money and are done.

    Gun shows are simply areas where gun dealers and non-dealers gather. Each has exactly the same restrictions on selling and buying as if they were in their home location. So if Bob sells a gun to Fred at a gun show, he does not need a background check, paperwork, permits, waiting periods, fingerprints, retinal prints, blood samples, or a notarized statement of sanity. If George the Gun Dealer wants to sell the same gun to Fred at the show, he needs to abide by federal and state regulations on the sale in the state which the gun sale is conducted.

    What Bloomberg’s stooges attempted to do is to buy guns from private individuals, with choice words sprinkled about that would be blinking red flags to licensed gun dealers. And once the video they shot is “properly” edited, it will be released with the correct left-leaning context that implies the private individuals shown on camera were in fact fire-breathing right-wing gun dealers. When in actual fact, it is highly unlikely that the sellers are actually guilty of any crime in the State of Arizona.

    However if the buyers were not correctly operating as legal representatives of a law enforcement agency acting inside their area of jurisdiction (which is what it looks like), they may be subject to a bevy of criminal charges, from fraud, to making “straw man” purchases, to wiretapping. And they made the mistake of doing it inside Sheriff Joe’s jurisdiction.

    (sorry for the length)

  5. wardmama4 says:

    I am sorry – this is just such bs it is hard to contain myself –‘even after telling two separate sellers they probably couldn’t pass background checks’ – I can’t decide if this was just laugh off fodder for the ‘gun sellers’ or they knew (wink, wink) that this was a set up and wanted to play the NY idiots for every cent they were worth. Either way this ‘sting’ and this article are just such blatant propaganda and bs – I think I’ll sue the AP for all the time I wasted reading something I wouldn’t even want to line my kitty boxes with.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »