• 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

But it IS the law, so again, thanks for making my point.

you really don't get it do you. the second amendment prevented federal interference
the tenth amendment recognized the power of the several states to regulate firearms. McDonald incorporated the second meaning the second can now prevent state action

later you are trying too hard and its not working
 
you really don't get it do you. the second amendment prevented federal interference
the tenth amendment recognized the power of the several states to regulate firearms. McDonald incorporated the second meaning the second can now prevent state action

later you are trying too hard and its not working

Yes, I get it perfectly, and thanks for making my point. If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to take away your 2d A. rights, then it's unconstitutional for states to do the same.
 
Yes, I get it perfectly, and thanks for making my point. If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to take away your 2d A. rights, then it's unconstitutional for states to do the same.

Apparently you were absent the day they taught the doctrine of incorporation.
 
Translation: I can't cite what doesn't exist.
Actually, the translation is I don't feel like looking up something that he should already know and that everyone else already takes as a given.
 
Apparently you were absent the day they taught the doctrine of incorporation.

Noooo, the doctrine of incorporation is exactly what poops all over TD's argument. Reload and fire again.
 
Actually, the translation is I don't feel like looking up something that he should already know and that everyone else already takes as a given.

Oh, okay -- I missed which claim he was asking you to cite. However, this wasn't a police operation, so it's irrelevant.
 
Noooo, the doctrine of incorporation is exactly what poops all over TD's argument. Reload and fire again.

Uh, no. He correctly pointed out that the 2A wasn't incorporated until McDonald.

Boy, you'd think, if you were going to attempt to speak on this stuff authoritatively, you'd at least have some notion that prior to McDonald, one of the chief arguments in favor of state gun control, as cited in opinion after opinion all over state and federal courts, was that the 2A was not incorporated.

But you plod forward not knowing that anyway.
 
Uh, no. He correctly pointed out that the 2A wasn't incorporated until McDonald.

Boy, you'd think, if you were going to attempt to speak on this stuff authoritatively, you'd at least have some notion that prior to McDonald, one of the chief arguments in favor of state gun control, as cited in opinion after opinion all over state and federal courts, was that the 2A was not incorporated.

But you plod forward not knowing that anyway.

And my point is that it is NOW INCORPORATED, so his argument is moot. WTF is wrong with you?
 
Oh, okay -- I missed which claim he was asking you to cite. However, this wasn't a police operation, so it's irrelevant.
Yes it was. It was conducted by undercover NYPD officers and involved "evidence gathering" that is quite illegal. If they were civilians looking to make an embarrasing video depending on Arizona's privacy laws they may or may not be subject to voyeurism charges because of the covert video. They were in the public domain but that does not matter because they were acting on behalf of NYC during a police action outside of jurisdiction, they didn't even inform AZ. authorities.
 
Yes it was. It was conducted by undercover NYPD officers and involved "evidence gathering" that is quite illegal. If they were civilians looking to make an embarrasing video depending on Arizona's privacy laws they may or may not be subject to voyeurism charges because of the covert video. They were in the public domain but that does not matter because they were acting on behalf of NYC during a police action outside of jurisdiction, they didn't even inform AZ. authorities.

According to the OP's article, the buys were done by "private investigators". This wasn't a NY police action by Bloomberg. He was gathering information in order to lobby for a change in federal gun laws that affect NYC.
 
According to the OP's article, the buys were done by "private investigators". This wasn't a NY police action by Bloomberg. He was gathering information in order to lobby for a change in federal gun laws that affect NYC.
Doesn't matter, if they weren't licensed in AZ they had no right to conduct anything. And as well Bloomberg had no right to commission action against another state. The guy is a statist scumbag and belongs in prison. From what I understand it was an NYPD action.
 
Doesn't matter, if they weren't licensed in AZ they had no right to conduct anything. And as well Bloomberg had no right to commission action against another state. The guy is a statist scumbag and belongs in prison. From what I understand it was an NYPD action.

He hasn't commenced any action against another state. He has the same rights that anyone else has to do this. Would it be illegal if, for example, James O'Keefe had conducted the investigation?
 
He hasn't commenced any action against another state. He has the same rights that anyone else has to do this. Would it be illegal if, for example, James O'Keefe had conducted the investigation?
Information gathering for use in criminal investigations or for lobbying is a jursidictional matter. He had no right to conduct the sting.
 
Information gathering for use in criminal investigations or for lobbying is a jursidictional matter. He had no right to conduct the sting.

Informational gathering for lobbying is a jurisdictional matter? Huh?
 
Information gathering for use in criminal investigations or for lobbying is a jursidictional matter. He had no right to conduct the sting.

"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."

That's the original statement from the original post. If the undercover investigators were hired by NYC, then they were acting as agents for the city. NYC probably has no right to act in this manner in a jurisdiction other than their own.

FWIW, I noticed that the sting operation in Ohio was apparently paid for by Bloomie himself. That may, or may not, make a difference.
 
Informational gathering for lobbying is a jurisdictional matter? Huh?
Bloomberg commissioned the "sting" for the purposes of lobbying for gun control matters that would effect other people outside of his state. If he were a private citizen who either A) Did the work himself(as long as he isn't violating voyeur law) or B) Commissioned a legally licensed investigator in the state of AZ. then it would have been legal. Bloomberg did this as an official within the jurisdiction of NYC, thus he had no right to commission an investigation under any circumstances. If he used NYS licensed investigators they have violated the laws of AZ. and Federal laws by using a false identity. If he used AZ licensed investigators he is still in violation of jurisdiction as an official and they are in violation of federal law by using false information. No matter which way you slice it this was an illegal police action.
 
"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."

That's the original statement from the original post. If the undercover investigators were hired by NYC, then they were acting as agents for the city. NYC probably has no right to act in this manner in a jurisdiction other than their own.

FWIW, I noticed that the sting operation in Ohio was apparently paid for by Bloomie himself. That may, or may not, make a difference.
It really doesn't matter where the funding came from. Bloomberg is an official so anything of this manner he conducts he does so as an official of NYC.
 
It really doesn't matter where the funding came from. Bloomberg is an official so anything of this manner he conducts he does so as an official of NYC.

I'm agreeing with you. Bloomberg had no authority to conduct a sting in Arizona.
 
Bloomberg commissioned the "sting" for the purposes of lobbying for gun control matters that would effect other people outside of his state. If he were a private citizen who either A) Did the work himself(as long as he isn't violating voyeur law) or B) Commissioned a legally licensed investigator in the state of AZ. then it would have been legal. Bloomberg did this as an official within the jurisdiction of NYC, thus he had no right to commission an investigation under any circumstances. If he used NYS licensed investigators they have violated the laws of AZ. and Federal laws by using a false identity. If he used AZ licensed investigators he is still in violation of jurisdiction as an official and they are in violation of federal law by using false information. No matter which way you slice it this was an illegal police action.

Again, you can say it's illegal all night long, but AFAIK he hasn't violated ANY laws. One doesn't have to be a licensed investigator to buy a gun at a gun show.
 
Last edited:
I'm agreeing with you. Bloomberg had no authority to conduct a sting in Arizona.

I agree, too. But he wasn't conducting a sting, as a sting operation implies arrest and prosecution. Basically he was doing the same thing that an investigative journalist would do. Maybe it's a waste of NYC taxpayer money, but that's for NYC voters to decide.
 
Again, you can say it's illegal all night long, but AFAIK he hasn't violated ANY laws. One doesn't have to be a licensed investigator to buy a gun at a gun show.
No, but they do have to be licensed to conduct any intelligence operations. As well unless they have cleared it with the ATF and local law enforcement they may not falsify information.
 
I agree, too. But he wasn't conducting a sting, as a sting operation implies arrest and prosecution. Basically he was doing the same thing that an investigative journalist would do. Maybe it's a waste of NYC taxpayer money, but that's for NYC voters to decide.
Semantics aside an official is not supposed to engage in these types of activities, the fact that he is an authority in NYC means that anything he commissions iin this area is a police action.
 
No, but they do have to be licensed to conduct any intelligence operations.

True, if they were paid they had to be licensed. Do we know that he didn't hire in-state PIs?

As well unless they have cleared it with the ATF and local law enforcement they may not falsify information.

You don't have to provide any information to a private seller. That's kind of the whole point of the exercise.
 
Back
Top Bottom