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.
How would someone know a gun was sold as a straw purchase then? What would this law say then?
You are asking for the government to be able to arrest and prosecute people without having to prove they commited a crime. I really hope you see why this is a bad idea.
How about if they buy a gun then sell it to Mexican cartel members?
They witnessed in during the F&F operation. Why does everyone gloss over that fact.
The ATF had cases against 30 straw purchasers for the Mexican cartel, yet prosecutors were only able to bring 1 of them to trial.
How many times do I have to repeat that in this thread before one of you guys acknowledges it?
Acknowledge how the ATF choose not to arrest people even when the dealers reported the straw purchasers to the ATF?
The tactic of letting guns walk, rather than interdicting them and arresting the buyers, led to controversy within the ATF.[5][46] As the case continued, several members of Group VII, including John Dodson and Olindo Casa, became increasingly upset at the tactic of allowing guns to walk. Their standard Project Gunrunner training was to follow the straw purchasers to the hand-off to the cartel buyers, then arrest both parties and seize the guns. But according to Dodson, they watched guns being bought illegally and stashed on a daily basis, while their supervisors, including David Voth and Hope MacAllister, prevented the agents from intervening.[3]
So they WITNESS them committing a CRIME.. Why is that complicated for you?
What you just wrote makes no sense.
Why is what complicated to me? Feds witnessing them commit a crime is not complicated to me. What's complicated to me is witnessing them commit a crime but that crime not being prosecutable EVER. Best case scenario, if the Feds get all their ducks in order, the NEXT time they do that exact same thing, it'll be prosecutable.
Actually, I'm done w/ you. You've repeatedly proven that you don't read posts, that you can't think logically, and you're partisan to the point where you turn your brain off when faced w/ facts. I don't have anyone else on ignore.
You're exactly the non-thinking partisan that causes the gridlock in this country b/c you can't get past the fact that otherside has the right idea. You'd rather be stupid & wrong, then bipartisan & moving the country forward.
Acknowledge how the ATF choose not to arrest people even when the dealers reported the straw purchasers to the ATF?
The tactic of letting guns walk, rather than interdicting them and arresting the buyers, led to controversy within the ATF.[5][46] As the case continued, several members of Group VII, including John Dodson and Olindo Casa, became increasingly upset at the tactic of allowing guns to walk. Their standard Project Gunrunner training was to follow the straw purchasers to the hand-off to the cartel buyers, then arrest both parties and seize the guns. But according to Dodson, they watched guns being bought illegally and stashed on a daily basis, while their supervisors, including David Voth and Hope MacAllister, prevented the agents from intervening.[3]
This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." ...
It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal.
And I need to make a correction. It wasn't 30 straw purchasers that they witnessed, it was 20.
Of if you don't feel like reading, the ATF was ready to arrest people, but prosecutors told them they didn't have a case against most of them.
Here's how this discussion ends up on CD. I give all the Conservatives on here these facts over & over again. They beat their heads against the wall trying to disprove, find a hole, explain it away, etc. They realize "Holy ch!t. This thing is effed up." And then they leave the thread, only to pop up again the next time F&F or straw purchasing gets brought up.
Why is what complicated to me? Feds witnessing them commit a crime is not complicated to me. What's complicated to me is witnessing them commit a crime but that crime not being prosecutable EVER. Best case scenario, if the Feds get all their ducks in order, the NEXT time they do that exact same thing, it'll be prosecutable.
Actually, I'm done w/ you. You've repeatedly proven that you don't read posts, that you can't think logically, and you're partisan to the point where you turn your brain off when faced w/ facts. I don't have anyone else on ignore.
You're exactly the non-thinking partisan that causes the gridlock in this country b/c you can't get past the fact that otherside has the right idea. You'd rather be stupid & wrong, then bipartisan & moving the country forward.
So it sounds like your complaint is with the Feds, not law abiding citizens, but stand here and whine and moan and cry to us regardless..
So here we have it from someone whose job it is to enforce gun laws that all those things that Conservatives have been saying about straw purchasing amounts to nothing.
And now knowing that we have an effective deterrent against criminals getting their hands on guns, the logical solution would be to strengthen that deterrent, right? Not if you're a Republican.
The "guy who's job it is to enforce gun laws" is the executive branch of the federal government. At it's head, the guy in the big white house in DC with the floppy ears. At a lower level, it's a function of the justice department, headed by Eric Holder. If you have a problem with people not doing their jobs, look no further.
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.
