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.
The laxed oversight is by design. That's why the NRA and other lobbying groups pushed for the law saying the NRA can only inspect a dealer once every five years no matter how spotty their record. The gun manufacturers know that illegal weapons purchases through straw buyers is a significant portion of their total sales so they want to keep the illegal purchases flowing. Thus the restrictions to prevent the ATF from doing its job.
Except all of that isn't true.
I still don't understand how you can think one of the most regulated industries has lax oversight.
Straw purchaser make up a very very small portion of gun sales. Tens of millions of guns are sold every year.
It is already illegal for someone to straw purchase. Going over the books more often costing stores thousands of dollars of profits would not make a single difference. How would a legal transaction at the time of completion some how be determined to be illegal at the time of transaction a year later? Think
I would hope that anyone would think that 190,000 guns lost or stolen is a rather large problem, around 100 guns went missing in F&F and it was front page news for years. It's not just stolen guns it's guns that "went missing".
I would think that the owners including gun stores that can't account for inventory should be held accountable if they were negligent, hard to monitor when ATF can only inspect every 5 years. Very lax oversight.
Less than 1% of the population are terrorists should we be worried?
In terms of the total guns available it is a very small number.
190,000 guns is not a small number, particularly those that end up in a crime.
The people that knowingly sell or lose these gins are in many cases complicit.
We should have stringent regulation of these gun shops but politicians make sure there is no regulation.
What more do you want? They are already required to run a background check on the purchaser of every gun that they sell. They already have to document every gun they receive or sell in a bound book that must be kept for 20 years.
The VP doesn't even want to prosecute the people who fail the background check (felony).
Again, worry about the criminals, not the victims. I would wholly support heavy mandatory sentencing for being in possession of a stollen gun.
You are predetermining that this is a frivolous lawsuit, if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have determined was a strawman well then it's a valid lawsuit. Rather large problems at certain gun shops and a lack of regulation.
You run the check and wait for it to comeback clean. Unless they are already a CCL holder and you sell them the weapon. I am allowed to buy as many weapons as I wish. Who I sell them to, is no ones business. Not even the government.
Shall not be infringed, means don't even go poking your nose that direction one ioda.
You are predetermining that this is a frivolous lawsuit, if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have determined was a strawman well then it's a valid lawsuit. Rather large problems at certain gun shops and a lack of regulation.
you missed a very important word in your statement...
"if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have determined was a strawman"
should read
"if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have reasonably determined was a strawman
Clearly if the person buying these weapons has been determined to be a straw purchaser, then the FFL could have determined the buyer was a straw purchaser, that's not in question because if the police determined that fact it was indeed determinable.
However as the FFL is not the police, he is not held to the same levels of accountability, and is only expected to reasonably determine, he does not need to hire a private investigator, or become an amateur sleuth to try to figure it out. Just by the evidence he has been supplied with at the time of sale in doing his business could he have reasonably determined this buyer was a straw purchaser, that is quite difficult to prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
The laxed oversight is by design. That's why the NRA and other lobbying groups pushed for the law saying the NRA can only inspect a dealer once every five years no matter how spotty their record. The gun manufacturers know that illegal weapons purchases through straw buyers is a significant portion of their total sales so they want to keep the illegal purchases flowing. Thus the restrictions to prevent the ATF from doing its job.
With certain exceptions, the GCA allows ATF to conduct one warrantless, annual compliance inspection of a federal firearms licensee (FFL).
BATFE don't need to conduct an annual compliance inspection, but they're not limited to one every 5 year period, only to one every 12 month period (which is because they always cost the business money, and it prevents harassment). They can even conduct as many as they wish if they can get warrants for them.
If you're going to make a claim, it's always wise to actually know what the organization itself publishes.
I would hope that anyone would think that 190,000 guns lost or stolen is a rather large problem, around 100 guns went missing in F&F and it was front page news for years. It's not just stolen guns it's guns that "went missing".
I would think that the owners including gun stores that can't account for inventory should be held accountable if they were negligent, hard to monitor when ATF can only inspect every 5 years. Very lax oversight.
Less than 1% of the population are terrorists should we be worried?
So let me get this straight, you believe the ATF should be able to inspect private homes to ensure safe storage of guns? Really?
They would be in a gun fight before they got past the first house in my area, I would let them inspect my guns one round at a time. Now that is clear and to the point.
Want to stop guns being stolen, arrest and convict those stealing them and give them huge jail sentences for doing so. Stop punishing responsible private citizens and going after inanimate objects as if it acts on it's own and go after those committing crimes.
you missed a very important word in your statement...
"if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have determined was a strawman"
should read
"if the gun shop owner repeatedly sold to someone that he could have reasonably determined was a strawman
Clearly if the person buying these weapons has been determined to be a straw purchaser, then the FFL could have determined the buyer was a straw purchaser, that's not in question because if the police determined that fact it was indeed determinable.
However as the FFL is not the police, he is not held to the same levels of accountability, and is only expected to reasonably determine, he does not need to hire a private investigator, or become an amateur sleuth to try to figure it out. Just by the evidence he has been supplied with at the time of sale in doing his business could he have reasonably determined this buyer was a straw purchaser, that is quite difficult to prove.
BATFE don't need to conduct an annual compliance inspection, but they're not limited to one every 5 year period, only to one every 12 month period (which is because they always cost the business money, and it prevents harassment). They can even conduct as many as they wish if they can get warrants for them.
If you're going to make a claim, it's always wise to actually know what the organization itself publishes.
Was just about to post that link. I'm trying to get around my head where people come up with these conclusions with nothing to back it up from.
If this is won by the plaintiff it will set a TERRIBLE precedent.
Forget your view about guns for a minute, or forget that we're talking about this specific case.
Think about the basic concept behind the lawsuit. She's suing a retailer because a product that company sold was used to cause harm to someone. My God, can you imagine the flood after that gate is opened? Car dealers getting sued out of existence because someone bought a car and drove drunk. Hardware stores? LOL. Kiss Home Depot goodbye. Tools and ladders are far too dangerous to risk selling - someone could get hurt. Or maybe every time we buy a box cutter or screwdriver, we'll have to sign a waiver and swear an oath that we won't let anyone else handle the tool. That'll be fun.
I don't expect the case to go anywhere, but stranger things have happened. And anti-gun folks, don't let your bias taint your view of what's at stake here. I don't care one way or another about the gun store in this case, compared to how I feel about what a "win" would mean for all of us. This isn't a fight you want the plaintiff to win.
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.
.
