billvon 3,132 #1 June 1, 2006 Bloomberg's gun play New York Newsday May 26, 2006 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running a new campaign, one that goes beyond the boundaries of the five boroughs and could make the streets a little safer for all of us. Since the start of his second term in January, Bloomberg has courageously stepped forward to fill a leadership void on gun control, a topic only a handful of politicians will target. First, he hosted a meeting of 15 big-city mayors, at which they signed a resolution asking Congress to rescind anti-gun-control laws and help cities crack down on out-of-state shops that sell weapons to criminals. Bloomberg followed that up with a federal lawsuit last week against the owners of 15 shops in five states that sold guns linked to 500 crimes in the city committed between 1994 and 2001. The lawsuit alleges that the stores knowingly participated in illegal "straw purchases" - when a shop allows a person with a clean record to fill out the federal background-check forms, but lets the bad guy with him walk out with the gun. Investigators hired by the city wore hidden cameras and taped transactions in 45 shops that had a link to city crimes. The good news is that 30 of them refused to participate in the attempted straw purchase. Those numbers support Bloomberg's point: Federal laws already on the books could work effectively if there were tougher enforcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco. This is not a debate about encroaching on the rights of gun owners. It is about enforcing existing laws, a position the National Rifle Association always trots out when it wants to stop any new laws. So is the NRA applauding Bloomberg and the other mayors, and encouraging a crack down on dealers? Of course not. Instead, it's putting the mayors and local police chiefs in the crosshairs by demanding they sign a pledge not to confiscate legally owned guns in the wake of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. ---------------------------------------------------------- An interesting approach, one that (at least) does not require yet another new law to address a problem that we already have laws for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 June 1, 2006 The NRA is already on the books as supporting sensible gun laws already written. Considering the bans and confiscations that have already happened (New Orleans, New York City (already), California, Illinois)... I'd say the NRA is trying to make sure there aren't any OTHER illegal confiscations...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 June 2, 2006 Quote Bloomberg followed that up with a federal lawsuit last week against the owners of 15 shops in five states that sold guns linked to 500 crimes in the city committed between 1994 and 2001. The lawsuit alleges that the stores knowingly participated in illegal "straw purchases" - when a shop allows a person with a clean record to fill out the federal background-check forms, but lets the bad guy with him walk out with the gun. Investigators hired by the city wore hidden cameras and taped transactions in 45 shops that had a link to city crimes. The good news is that 30 of them refused to participate in the attempted straw purchase. Those numbers support Bloomberg's point: Federal laws already on the books could work effectively if there were tougher enforcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco. I'm all for checking that gun stores sell only to the person that is doing the check. But statements commonly seen like "80% of guns found in crimes were sold by this small number of stores proves that they're selling to criminals" is a line of BS. If 5% of dealers make 90% of sales, of course they're going to figure prominently in such queries. The denominator is just as important as the numerator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #4 June 2, 2006 I missed the part where I took one to the head...please help.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #5 June 2, 2006 QuoteI missed the part where I took one to the head...please help. I have read it twice now and still dont get it.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 June 2, 2006 Nice try, but nothing is settled yet on this one. There is far more to the story than the anti-gun press releases reveal. The sting operations are all going to be proven to be invalid in court, because it is not illegal to purchase a gun for someone else, as long as that other person is lawfully allowed to own it. And nothing in the sting operation told the gun store clerk that the "strawman" was an unqualified gun owner. The hidden videotape will confirm the innocence of the gun stores. Furthermore, the BATF had some investigations of its own going on at some of those locations, and Bloomberg's political stunt destroyed those undercover operations. It's nothing but political posturing. And it's cute of you to claim some kind of victory against gun ownership, when nothing has even reached trial yet in court. Nice try, but this fails to live up to your headline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 June 2, 2006 Quote It's nothing but political posturing. That it is.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 June 2, 2006 QuoteNice try, but nothing is settled yet on this one. There is far more to the story than the anti-gun press releases reveal. The sting operations are all going to be proven to be invalid in court, because it is not illegal to purchase a gun for someone else, as long as that other person is lawfully allowed to own it. And nothing in the sting operation told the gun store clerk that the "strawman" was an unqualified gun owner. The hidden videotape will confirm the innocence of the gun stores. Furthermore, the BATF had some investigations of its own going on at some of those locations, and Bloomberg's political stunt destroyed those undercover operations. It's nothing but political posturing. And it's cute of you to claim some kind of victory against gun ownership, when nothing has even reached trial yet in court. Nice try, but this fails to live up to your headline. Just like King Daley, and Gov. Blojobabitch tried to do and failed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #9 June 2, 2006 I don't get it either. Aren't pro-gunners, like myself, all for the enforcement of existing gun laws, like cracking down on straw purchases? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #10 June 2, 2006 Quote I don't get it either. Aren't pro-gunners, like myself, all for the enforcement of existing gun laws, like cracking down on straw purchases? don't you read these threads? anti gunners just assume the pro-rights types are, by definition, anarchists (Even though, as you note, it's just the opposit). It makes it easier to put up straw man arguments and feel superior. But sometimes, the wratcheting/chipaway agenda of the anti gunners to outlaw everything, puts the pro-gunners into sometimes odd defensive positions. In this article, there is no indication that the NRA took a counter position to the investigation. I suspect they approve, but don't want to shed light on the existence of crooked dealers. So they just don't comment for PR reasons. cracking down on real straw purchases is exactly correct - identification of decent sellers is good to know also. But the anti-gunners would very well use those crooked sellers as an argument to try and also shut down honest dealers. That's the fear and the fear is warranted. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #11 June 2, 2006 QuoteInstead, it's putting the mayors and local police chiefs in the crosshairs by demanding they sign a pledge not to confiscate legally owned guns in the wake of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Funny, how this last bit doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the rest of the article. WHAT is the position of the NRA on the subject article (ie. 15 of 45 crooked dealers discovered). If the NRA insists on keeping them in business, then that's bad. But if they are silent or approve on it, then that's good right? So what's the complaint? Is there any? Seems the NRA approves of "LEGAL" ownership in this case and in the case of the disjointed comments by the author. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #12 June 2, 2006 QuoteThe hidden videotape will confirm the innocence of the gun stores. For those that are really innocent. As a gun owner and son of a gunsmith/dealer, I don't want any crooked dealer out there. Simple. If Bloomberg's effort finds true law breakers, we are all better off with the laws ont he books enforced. I understand your innocent until proven guilty position. But, this is not an assault on legal ownership provided evidence is reviewed without bias. I just hope no innocent dealers get railroaded just to appease an anti-gun segment of NY's population. I think that's a real worry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #13 June 2, 2006 >I missed the part where I took one to the head... It's about as silly as saying that gun-o-phobes are taking two to the chest. Empty rhetoric, using a literary device called sarcasm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #14 June 2, 2006 Quote literary device... Where can you buy these? Are there more than one type? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #15 June 2, 2006 Um, I'd just like to note that your title seems to be very violent in nature, the very nature which we are trying to eliminate from human-nature which desires to own and use guns. Horrible...horrible... I'm kidding for you guys that think I'm anti-gun. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #16 June 2, 2006 Quote>I missed the part where I took one to the head... It's about as silly as saying that gun-o-phobes are taking two to the chest. Empty rhetoric, using a literary device called sarcasm. OMG!!! Bill was being... (I can hardly bring myself to say it).... SARCASTIC I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #17 June 2, 2006 Haha...man, you usually have something sensible to say even though I disagree with you most of the time. I guess your post was just an excuse for you make a funny with the subject line, using your subtle "sarcasm". My bad for taking it so seriously...pfft.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #18 June 3, 2006 Bill, Bill, Bill................this one falls way way below your normal standards. Please tell us simple folks who read your post when they are out of coffee that you'll climb BACK to the top of your lofty standards. WeakKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markd_nscr986 0 #19 June 3, 2006 ***I'm kidding for you guys that think I'm anti-gun. ALL of us know better than thatMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #20 June 3, 2006 Quote Bill, Bill, Bill................this one falls way way below your normal standards. But, wait guys. Bill was using literary devices. I didn't even know those existed. Did you? Personally, I was impressed, once I found out it was a literary device. I'm still waiting to hear where you can buy them.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hairyjuan 0 #21 June 4, 2006 public law 87-297, as amended 1963: state department ducument 7277. where all gun-CONTROL laws come from. another one would be The BAR treaty of 1947we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 June 5, 2006 Quotepublic law 87-297, as amended 1963: state department ducument 7277. where all gun-CONTROL laws come from. another one would be The BAR treaty of 1947 How do you explain the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1948, then? If you have specific proof (of 18 USC 2551 being the grand-daddy of them all), I'd like to see it. Especially given 18 USC, 2573 (b) and (c): Quote (b) Prohibition No action shall be taken pursuant to this chapter or any other Act that would obligate the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in a militarily significant manner, except pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President set forth in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution or unless authorized by the enactment of further affirmative legislation by the Congress of the United States. (c) Statutory construction Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education, or training. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #23 June 7, 2006 Oops, New York Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun scheme is beginning to crumble around him:B'KLYN SHOP GETS CACHE BACK The NYPD last night returned hundreds of guns seized from a Brooklyn shop during the city's crackdown on illegal firearms, officials said. About 250 rifles and pistols were taken back to the DF Brothers Sport Center in Bensonhurst. In return, the store owners signed an agreement that restored gun licenses to three of four employees who had lost them as a result of the May 25 sting operation. The fourth employee, Jack Togati, 40, "still has his license suspended," according to Gabriel Taussig, a lawyer for the city who gave no further details about the agreement. Togati was arrested during the sting for allegedly selling a gun to an undercover investigator. "The city of New York is righting a wrong," said Joseph Benfante, an attorney representing DF Brothers. He maintained that Togati did nothing wrong...Source: New York Post You can bet that the national media won't give this story the same prominance that they gave the initial story about the raid and seizure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #24 June 7, 2006 Oh no does this mean that Bill post "takes one to the head" Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #25 June 7, 2006 Quoterestored gun licenses to three of four employees who had lost them as a result of the May 25 sting operation. see, here's the problem. One employee was likely doing something illegal. But likely, Bloomberg's initiative punished all the employees in the shop rather than just the one guy. So 3 people were unfairly accused to catch 1. At least they made it right after the fact. But the overreaction vs the correct reaction is the real concern. But, the crackdown did make some political hay. The apology and correction to the 3 innocent guys likely made some hay with the opposing side. So politically, it's likely a net win for Bloomberg for those that aren't watching the big picture. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
micro 0 #9 June 2, 2006 I don't get it either. Aren't pro-gunners, like myself, all for the enforcement of existing gun laws, like cracking down on straw purchases? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 June 2, 2006 Quote I don't get it either. Aren't pro-gunners, like myself, all for the enforcement of existing gun laws, like cracking down on straw purchases? don't you read these threads? anti gunners just assume the pro-rights types are, by definition, anarchists (Even though, as you note, it's just the opposit). It makes it easier to put up straw man arguments and feel superior. But sometimes, the wratcheting/chipaway agenda of the anti gunners to outlaw everything, puts the pro-gunners into sometimes odd defensive positions. In this article, there is no indication that the NRA took a counter position to the investigation. I suspect they approve, but don't want to shed light on the existence of crooked dealers. So they just don't comment for PR reasons. cracking down on real straw purchases is exactly correct - identification of decent sellers is good to know also. But the anti-gunners would very well use those crooked sellers as an argument to try and also shut down honest dealers. That's the fear and the fear is warranted. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 June 2, 2006 QuoteInstead, it's putting the mayors and local police chiefs in the crosshairs by demanding they sign a pledge not to confiscate legally owned guns in the wake of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Funny, how this last bit doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the rest of the article. WHAT is the position of the NRA on the subject article (ie. 15 of 45 crooked dealers discovered). If the NRA insists on keeping them in business, then that's bad. But if they are silent or approve on it, then that's good right? So what's the complaint? Is there any? Seems the NRA approves of "LEGAL" ownership in this case and in the case of the disjointed comments by the author. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 June 2, 2006 QuoteThe hidden videotape will confirm the innocence of the gun stores. For those that are really innocent. As a gun owner and son of a gunsmith/dealer, I don't want any crooked dealer out there. Simple. If Bloomberg's effort finds true law breakers, we are all better off with the laws ont he books enforced. I understand your innocent until proven guilty position. But, this is not an assault on legal ownership provided evidence is reviewed without bias. I just hope no innocent dealers get railroaded just to appease an anti-gun segment of NY's population. I think that's a real worry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #13 June 2, 2006 >I missed the part where I took one to the head... It's about as silly as saying that gun-o-phobes are taking two to the chest. Empty rhetoric, using a literary device called sarcasm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #14 June 2, 2006 Quote literary device... Where can you buy these? Are there more than one type? We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #15 June 2, 2006 Um, I'd just like to note that your title seems to be very violent in nature, the very nature which we are trying to eliminate from human-nature which desires to own and use guns. Horrible...horrible... I'm kidding for you guys that think I'm anti-gun. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #16 June 2, 2006 Quote>I missed the part where I took one to the head... It's about as silly as saying that gun-o-phobes are taking two to the chest. Empty rhetoric, using a literary device called sarcasm. OMG!!! Bill was being... (I can hardly bring myself to say it).... SARCASTIC I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #17 June 2, 2006 Haha...man, you usually have something sensible to say even though I disagree with you most of the time. I guess your post was just an excuse for you make a funny with the subject line, using your subtle "sarcasm". My bad for taking it so seriously...pfft.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #18 June 3, 2006 Bill, Bill, Bill................this one falls way way below your normal standards. Please tell us simple folks who read your post when they are out of coffee that you'll climb BACK to the top of your lofty standards. WeakKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #19 June 3, 2006 ***I'm kidding for you guys that think I'm anti-gun. ALL of us know better than thatMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 June 3, 2006 Quote Bill, Bill, Bill................this one falls way way below your normal standards. But, wait guys. Bill was using literary devices. I didn't even know those existed. Did you? Personally, I was impressed, once I found out it was a literary device. I'm still waiting to hear where you can buy them.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #21 June 4, 2006 public law 87-297, as amended 1963: state department ducument 7277. where all gun-CONTROL laws come from. another one would be The BAR treaty of 1947we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 June 5, 2006 Quotepublic law 87-297, as amended 1963: state department ducument 7277. where all gun-CONTROL laws come from. another one would be The BAR treaty of 1947 How do you explain the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1948, then? If you have specific proof (of 18 USC 2551 being the grand-daddy of them all), I'd like to see it. Especially given 18 USC, 2573 (b) and (c): Quote (b) Prohibition No action shall be taken pursuant to this chapter or any other Act that would obligate the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in a militarily significant manner, except pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President set forth in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution or unless authorized by the enactment of further affirmative legislation by the Congress of the United States. (c) Statutory construction Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any policy or action by any Government agency which would interfere with, restrict, or prohibit the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms by an individual for the lawful purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation, education, or training. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 June 7, 2006 Oops, New York Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun scheme is beginning to crumble around him:B'KLYN SHOP GETS CACHE BACK The NYPD last night returned hundreds of guns seized from a Brooklyn shop during the city's crackdown on illegal firearms, officials said. About 250 rifles and pistols were taken back to the DF Brothers Sport Center in Bensonhurst. In return, the store owners signed an agreement that restored gun licenses to three of four employees who had lost them as a result of the May 25 sting operation. The fourth employee, Jack Togati, 40, "still has his license suspended," according to Gabriel Taussig, a lawyer for the city who gave no further details about the agreement. Togati was arrested during the sting for allegedly selling a gun to an undercover investigator. "The city of New York is righting a wrong," said Joseph Benfante, an attorney representing DF Brothers. He maintained that Togati did nothing wrong...Source: New York Post You can bet that the national media won't give this story the same prominance that they gave the initial story about the raid and seizure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #24 June 7, 2006 Oh no does this mean that Bill post "takes one to the head" Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 June 7, 2006 Quoterestored gun licenses to three of four employees who had lost them as a result of the May 25 sting operation. see, here's the problem. One employee was likely doing something illegal. But likely, Bloomberg's initiative punished all the employees in the shop rather than just the one guy. So 3 people were unfairly accused to catch 1. At least they made it right after the fact. But the overreaction vs the correct reaction is the real concern. But, the crackdown did make some political hay. The apology and correction to the 3 innocent guys likely made some hay with the opposing side. So politically, it's likely a net win for Bloomberg for those that aren't watching the big picture. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)