Where Criminals Get Guns (solutions, companies, felons, cost)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That doesn't answer the question, why do 60 % of guns used in a crime come from only 1% of the dealers, seems to me that a straw puchaser could go to any dealer but they rather consistently chose 1%, why do you think that is the case.
Then go after the 1% of the dealers and see if they broke any law.
I don't understand you logic here. What's the difficulty? Put those dealers on surveillance after you show your probable cause and get a warrant from a judge.
By the way, you don't know how to do warrantless surveillance? Don't tell me that!
There's nothing impeding the "ability to trace guns used in crimes back to dealers" on an individual basis. When a gun is used in a crime, it is easily traced from manufacturer to dealer to buyer.
The fact that NCIS background check records are destroyed is not relevant.
The problem, from my understanding, and I haven't done all the research, is that it's difficult for the ATF to investigate certain patterns of behavior by dealers, which was related to one of the points in your previous post.
It's more than than just the destruction of the NCIS which makes no sense, it's the fact that the ATF does not have the manpower to investigate an dthe state and local LEO are barred from using trace data to take action against against a dealer. There are 65,000 FFL's and 30,000 guns lost a year, how does the ATF do inspections and investigations without LEO.
Quote:
While the FY 2010 appropriations language restores full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement, the Tiahrt Amendments continue to restrict what state and local law enforcement can do with trace data they have gathered. For example, state and local law enforcement are still prohibited from using trace data in civil proceedings to suspend or revoke the license of a gun dealer who was caught breaking the law
It's more than than just the destruction of the NCIS which makes no sense, it's the fact that the ATF does not have the manpower to investigate an dthe state and local LEO are barred from using trace data to take action against against a dealer. There are 65,000 FFL's and 30,000 guns lost a year, how does the ATF do inspections and investigations without LEO.
You got 4 lies in night tonight.
Why should state or local LEO take any action against a dealer if the dealer hasn't done anything wrong? Just because the dealer sold the gun?
Do you even understand the concepts of probable cause, innocent until proven guilty and the due process of the law that this country is build upon?
Then go after the 1% of the dealers and see if they broke any law.
I don't understand you logic here. What's the difficulty? Put those dealers on surveillance after you show your probable cause and get a warrant from a judge.
By the way, you don't know how to do warrantless surveillance? Don't tell me that!
The ATF has 5,000 employees, between the restrictions on inspections, number of dealers it's an impossible situation. You think you are going to get a warrant from a judge, please.
Why should state or local LEO take any action against a dealer if the dealer hasn't done anything wrong? Just because the dealer sold the gun?
Do you even understand the concepts of probable cause, innocent until proven guilty and the due process of the law that this country is build upon?
You mean the local LEO are not allowed to investigate a dealer that is a primary source for guns used in a crime, maybe that makes sense in your world. Tell me, is the dealer in the witness protection program or do you have any other examples of restrictions on local LEO to investigate crime, other than gun dealers.
The ATF has 5,000 employees, between the restrictions on inspections, number of dealers it's an impossible situation. You think you are going to get a warrant from a judge, please.
If you can't get a warrant from a judge, you aren't providing enough probable causes, then what you propose to do, be it wiretap, search or surveillance is not legal. Period.
If I take your number, saying 1% of the dealers are the problem. Then that's 500 dealers that you need to worry about. Please don't tell me with 5000 people, you can't deal with 500 dealers.
If it's really a manpower issue, go ask for more budget.
You mean the local LEO are not allowed to investigate a dealer that is a primary source for guns used in a crime, maybe that makes sense in your world. Tell me, is the dealer in the witness protection program or do you have any other examples of restrictions on local LEO to investigate crime, other than gun dealers.
If you don't have probable cause, you can't. Present your evidence and probable cause to a judge, get a warrant and investigate all you want.
Why do I feel the need to remind you of:
”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized。“
All you have been saying about ATF is in violation of these words. By the way, it's the 4th Amendment.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 02-10-2013 at 08:03 PM..
That doesn't answer the question, why do 60 % of guns used in a crime come from only 1% of the dealers, seems to me that a straw puchaser could go to any dealer but they rather consistently chose 1%, why do you think that is the case.
What? Why would a straw purchaser bother to go to a corrupt dealer?
The whole point of a straw purchase is that the purchaser can pass the scrutiny required by a non-corrupt dealer. It's entirely separate. So we're looking at well over 60% for the two combined.
What? Why would a straw purchaser bother to go to a corrupt dealer?
The whole point of a straw purchase is that the purchaser can pass the scrutiny required by a non-corrupt dealer. It's entirely separate. So we're looking at well over 60% for the two combined.
Fair point, but I have a feeling there is a reason many of these purchasers go back to specific dealers.
If you can't get a warrant from a judge, you aren't providing enough probable causes, then what you propose to do, be it wiretap, search or surveillance is not legal. Period.
If I take your number, saying 1% of the dealers are the problem. Then that's 500 dealers that you need to worry about. Please don't tell me with 5000 people, you can't deal with 500 dealers.
If it's really a manpower issue, go ask for more budget.
I would love to know who those 500 dealers are, where they are located.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
