• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

ReverendHellh0und said:
It would be like AZ sending it's cops to brooklyn to operate a strawman sting... do you think king bloomberg would stand for that?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that it was a good move, or politically correct. I'm just sayin' that I can't find anything illegal about it.
 
A few observations after watching the actual undercover videos that were made in AZ:

1. The sellers asked to see the buyer's ID to confirm that he was an Arizona resident;

2. These "non-dealer" sellers each had what appears to be a minimum of a dozen guns for sale.
 
AdamT said:
Apples <-> Oranges. Bloomberg's people didn't mail order the guns from Arizona. They had people in Arizona buy the guns in Arizona.
Click to expand...



Who lied on federal forms, a felony. It is not "apples oranges" as much as you like to think, there is a legal way to purchase a gun out of state, and there is the way douchebag bloomberg did it.
 
Further more "counselor"


"It is lawful for NY residents to purchase or obtain rifles or shotguns in a contiguous state and to receive and transport said rifle and shotguns into the state, provided the person is otherwise eligible to possess a rifle or shotgun under NY law."


NRA-ILA | New York



So, there are two laws I found right there, and The Good Reverend has no Law License..... :pimpdaddy:
 
I'll say it again...Bloomberg going to other states (like Arizona) to attack the 'source' of illegal gun usage is just comical. The BATF report shows that New York State is the single largest provider of illegal firearms recovered in NYC...420 of 2,981 traces. Arizona is one of the 36 states that averaged just 13 weapons traced to illegal gun usage in NYC. Gun Show sales are not the 'problem' and it is simply inconceivable that anyone is actually stupid enough to continue to believe that mandatory background checks will prevent criminals from gaining access to illegal firearms. Those that are actually stupid enough to believe that do what most fools of that ilk always do...yay...look at us...we 'did' something. No...you didnt. You spent all your time and resources attacking legal law abiding citizens and ignored the criminals. You didnt solve anything...you didnt accomplish anything. At BEST you created a minor annoyance for law abiding citizens.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Who lied on federal forms, a felony. It is not "apples oranges" as much as you like to think, there is a legal way to purchase a gun out of state, and there is the way douchebag bloomberg did it.
Click to expand...

What federal forms? You seem to miss the entire point of this exercise. The guns were purchased from private sellers. As the sellers themselves states, "no forms to fill out."

One thing you should understand, my non-counseler friend, is that you should not assume facts not in evidence. In this case, for example, there is no evidence that:

1. The purchasers were not Arizona residents;

2. The guns were ever transported out of Arizona.

I move for a directed verdict.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Further more "counselor"


"It is lawful for NY residents to purchase or obtain rifles or shotguns in a contiguous state and to receive and transport said rifle and shotguns into the state, provided the person is otherwise eligible to possess a rifle or shotgun under NY law."


NRA-ILA | New York



So, there are two laws I found right there, and The Good Reverend has no Law License..... :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Awesome. Now all you have to do is establish that, (1) the buyer was a NY resident (despite the fact that he showed an ID establishing AZ residence), and (2) that the guns were transported to New York.

I shall await your evidence.

:popcorn2:
 
Harshaw said:
That's what I figured.
Click to expand...

Instead of figuring you should have just read the preceding pages instead of jumping in at the end and assuming you knew what came before. :shrug:
 
AdamT said:
Instead of figuring you should have just read the preceding pages instead of jumping in at the end and assuming you knew what came before. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Oh, but I did.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Further more "counselor"


"It is lawful for NY residents to purchase or obtain rifles or shotguns in a contiguous state and to receive and transport said rifle and shotguns into the state, provided the person is otherwise eligible to possess a rifle or shotgun under NY law."


NRA-ILA | New York



So, there are two laws I found right there, and The Good Reverend has no Law License..... :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

i gotta look this one up.

ok, I looked it up.

ok, Im gonna ask TD about this.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Awesome. Now all you have to do is establish that, (1) the buyer was a NY resident (despite the fact that he showed an ID establishing AZ residence), and (2) that the guns were transported to New York.

I shall await your evidence.

:popcorn2:
Click to expand...





NYC performs sting at Ariz. gun show - Boston.com


The private investigators, wearing concealed cameras, were sold 9mm guns even after telling two separate sellers they probably could not pass background checks


So either they lied on that form I linked to, or they passed the nics check. If that is your evidence, counselor, what law did whom break? FAIL.


If the guns were not being transported back to NY, WTF was that douchebag doing in AZ trying to prove?
 
Last edited:
Here is the private party law.


Private firearms transfers (i.e., transfers by non-firearms dealers) are not subject to a background check requirement in Arizona, although federal and state purchaser prohibitions still apply. No person may knowingly sell or transfer a deadly weapon to a prohibited possessor (defined under § 13-3101(A)(6)). Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3102(A)(5). See the Arizona Background Checks section for further information.

A person is criminally liable for the crime of “misconduct involving weapons” if he or she knowingly supplies, sells or gives possession or control of a firearm to another person, if the seller or transferor knows or has reason to know that the other person would use the firearm in the commission of any felony. Section 13-3102(A)(14).

Arizona prohibits any person from selling or giving a firearm or ammunition or a toy pistol from which dangerous and explosive substances may be discharged to a minor (defined as a person under age 18; see § 1-215(22)), without written consent of the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Section 13-3109(A).

This prohibition does not apply to the temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by firearms safety instructors, hunter safety instructors, competition coaches or their assistants, if the minor’s parent or guardian has given consent for the minor to participate in activities such as firearms or hunting safety courses, firearms competition, or training. Section 13-3109(C). With the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian, the temporary transfer of firearms and ammunition by an adult accompanying minors engaged in hunting or formal or informal target shooting activities shall be allowed for those purposes.



What law did this gun dealer break?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
NYC performs sting at Ariz. gun show - Boston.com


The private investigators, wearing concealed cameras, were sold 9mm guns even after telling two separate sellers they probably could not pass background checks


So either they lied on that form I linked to, or they passed the nics check. If that is your evidence, counselor, what law did whom break? FAIL.


If the guns were not being transported back to NY, WTF was that douchebag doing in AZ trying to prove?
Click to expand...

Wow, can you not understand that THERE WERE NO FORMS?! Private seller = no forms. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate how a felon could take advantage of this loophole to buy a gun. Thus, the buyer implied that he could not pass a background check. While no BG check is required in a private sale, it is still illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to someone whom he reasonably believes may be a felon. Accordingly, the sellers probably violated federal law, but the buyer did not (assuming he was just lying about not being able to pass a BG check). That was the point -- not to transfer the guns to NYC.
 
Here is the applicable federal law:

18 U.S.C. § 922

...

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such
person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging
in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except
that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to
participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.
 
Last edited:
anyone who has a legitimate reason to believe someone is a felon or for some other reason is now allowed to buy a gun, sells a gun to such person, has committed a crime.

if I go to a gun show, ask to a buy a gun, ask about BG checks and tell you I probably would not pass one, and you still sell me the gun...you have committed a crime.

why the **** would you sell a gun to someone who admits they probably would not pass a BG check???? just to make a ****ing buck???
 
AdamT said:
Wow, can you not understand that THERE WERE NO FORMS?! Private seller = no forms. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate how a felon could take advantage of this loophole to buy a gun. Thus, the buyer implied that he could not pass a background check. While no BG check is required in a private sale, it is still illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to someone whom he reasonably believes may be a felon. Accordingly, the sellers probably violated federal law, but the buyer did not (assuming he was just lying about not being able to pass a BG check). That was the point -- not to transfer the guns to NYC.
Click to expand...



"probably wouldn't pass a background check" means nothing to the seller, it is not his responsibility to do a background check. It was entrapment, and you seem quite happy with the laws broken that support your agenda.....

If I was an AZ da, I'd have warrants out for Bloomberg, and the thugs at the Kroll agency....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"probably wouldn't pass a background check" means nothing to the seller, it is not his responsibility to do a background check. It was entrapment, and you seem quite happy with the laws broken that support your agenda.....

If I was an AZ da, I'd have warrants out for Bloomberg, and the thugs at the Kroll agency....
Click to expand...

I already quoted the federal law, chapter and verse. It is a federal crime to sell to somone if you have reasonable cause to believe that they could not pass a background check. If the buyer tells you that he probably could not pass a background check then you have reasonable cause to believe that what they are telling you is true.
 
AdamT said:
I already quoted the federal law, chapter and verse. It is a federal crime to sell to somone if you have reasonable cause to believe that they could not pass a background check. If the buyer tells you that he probably could not pass a background check then you have reasonable cause to believe that what they are telling you is true.
Click to expand...



"probably"?


It's ****ing entrapment from an interstate felon named bloomberg, selective with the law counselor?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
"probably"?

It's ****ing entrapment from an interstate felon named bloomberg, selective with the law counselor?
Click to expand...

entrapment? the guy gave him the opportunity to refuse the sale.

instead, he chose to go through with the sale, knowning full well the guy might be a felon.

its called personal responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom