Exclusive: Videos show gun-show vendors flouting the law
By David Neiwert Wednesday Oct 07, 2009 10:00am
Earlier today, we reported on a set of videos being released today by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that reveal vendors at gun shows selling weapons to people who tell them flat-out that they couldn't pass a background check -- something that is in fact against the law.
The videos are now available for public viewing. We've provided a couple of them here at C&L, but go see the full set of them -- along with the accompanying report -- visit the NYC.gov website Gun Show Undercover.
There seems to be some confusion, at least among our readers, whether they're watching something illegal. They are. As the mayor's office explained in its press release:
Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn’t pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale – but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.
The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained “I mean even as a private citizen, I’m kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can’t pass the background check], I’m kind of obligated not to….I think that’s what the rules are.”
The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently “engaged in the business” of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.
So when you see characters like this, you're seeing the kind of people who willingly, knowingly, and intentionally flout the law because there's no way -- outside of investigations like this -- they'll ever get caught:
"I don't need your address."
"No background check?"
"Nothing. Just show me that you're from Ohio."
"That's good about the background check because I probably couldn’t pass one."
"I don't care. All's I got to do is demand you show me your license."
"You don’t care about the background check, right?"
"Nope. Nope. I wouldn't pass either, bud." [grin]
The NRA likes to claim that "the gun show loophole is a myth." These videos -- and the broader results of the investigation -- pretty definitively demonstrate that it does indeed exist.
Americans For Gun Safety has a complete rundown on the gun-show loophole and why it needs to be closed.
The NRA and its enablers will claim this is a radical-left agenda item. But the legislation to close this loophole is sponsored by those radical leftists John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The office conducting this investigation is the Republican New York Mayor's. That's some radical left agenda indeed.
Login or Register to post comments.
.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constituti...
Well regulated means background checks!
.
not left to the perverse imagination of wing nuts.
Go here for something to think about: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m110.htm
This would only be news to the Wingnuts if they were selling the guns to ACORN without the background checks.
You are exactly right. If that same film maker who shot the acorn footage had covered a gun seller selling to an acorn member who admitted they could not pass a background check, BillO would be all over it.
Or if an acorn member was selling a gun to a person who admitted they couldn't pass a background check, BillO and Beck would go bananas.
these law-violating gun sellers are white.
which do you want? (setting up false choice...)
Black people who love prostitution?
or white people who love the 2nd amendment more than stupid laws about background checks (i don't remember background checks being in the 2nd amendment).
i just hope those American-loving arms dealers didn't sell any guns to black people.
/snark
... the only way this would be news to the wingnuts is if the people involved in the video were black and liberal. Then you'd see them go from being teabaggers into full blown coffee baristas.
Ah, you beat me to it. Well, I am hours late, after all.
Nothing wrong with responsible gun owners but to know if someone qualifies as responsible - - - Background Checks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show#ATF_Cri...
at the time of the constitution meant simply "functioning as intended" "working properly" ie a well regulated clock.
And that case you posted about the short barreled shotgun, I find it funny that someone who is for gun control would post that. Taken on the face of it, it means civilians should be allowed to own military weapons.
do you have a link for that definition?
Timmy needs to do some readin' up on stuff.
their opinion equals fact.
;)
;)
Oh meeeoowwww....
I have read that link. It refers to the powers of congress when they call up the militia. Not the regulation of a milita that has not been called up. Federal law describes the milita as every able bodied man 17-45 and women in the national guard, with some exceptions. My state constitution lists the militia as everyone age 17 and up.
And sorry miss kitty I don't happen to have a link to a 17th century dictionary.
Did you study Constitutional Law at University? Your obvious quick reading of the Constitution is lacking. Try again.
Or study constitutional law at a University?
But the Constitution and original amendments were written in common english at the time. It wasn't designed to need a law degree to understand it.
From your link.
"The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
"- 15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress."
What part of that is hard to understand? Try again.
When not in employment of the Federal Government active militias are in the employment of the States, under the legislation and executive.
Interesting how you glossed over, "...Reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress."
That's pools of candidates the state and the fed can draw from to build up a militia.
Read the second amendment, it says nothing about guns, just arms, and nothing about being able to carry them concealed, or that the state or federal government, as long as they have a valid interest, can't require licensing and other regulations.
If the NRA was so concerned about arms, why is it they have done so little to allow sword canes in Texas, which is illegal here? Why is it that there are regulations against mailing certain martial arts weapons, and again not a peep for the "2nd amendment people?"
The 9th and 10th Amendment both have to be considered as well, and to a certain extent even 1, with "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And what if one of the grievances was the uncontrolled proliferation of guns?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Federal law does not supersede the Constitution since judicial review can use the Constitution to overthrow federal law (despite the fact that judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, along with the legal presumption of Innocent until Proven Guilty, Executive Privilege and Congressional Oversight), so Article 6 still applies:
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...
What everyone is doing, but you in particular, is using secondary and tertiary sources to prove your opinion of the primary source. Primary sources prove other primary sources, whilst the other two only lend support if used correctly.
Another primary source of law in our country is the Common Law of Stare Decisis and in District of Columbia v Heller even as the activist conservative justices created a new Constitutional right and a new legal presumption, the "right" to privately own guns, unless presumably one loses that right because of criminal conviction(s),they also stated that the government had the right to regulate those rights under the same amendment with the usage of the well regulated part.
So in effect being totally against any government regulations of arms in principle makes one a non-supporter of Amendment II.
Nicely done.
I had to give my hands some exercise beyond the obvious.
According to federal law and my states constitution they are not pools from which a militia can be drawn, they are part of the militia. Before they are drawn they are the unorganized/sedentary militia, after they have been called up or enlisted they become part of the organized militia.
And I have read the Constitution and I agree it just says arms, which includes swords, clubs, bow and arrows and yes even firearms.
And I agree that it doesn't mention concealed, if open carry were allowed without a permit and you had to get one to carry concealed I would have no problem with that.
Perhaps because it is the National Rifle Assoc, rather than the National Sword Cane Assoc? And like I agreed with you above the 2nd amendment doesn't state concealed simply bear, a sword cane is concealed. And I'm not familiar with the regulations regarding mailing certain martial arts weapons, except firearms on a federal level, although I think there are three states that it is unlawful to have them shipped to you, because they are regulated under state law and having them mailed would prove de facto intent on possession.
What is your argument regarding the 9th? Which non-enumerated right are you referring to? The 10th states that all powers not granted to the Fed or barred to the states are the states or the people. Which on the face would make all federal firearm regulation unconstitutional along with the fact that they infringe on the 2nd. And for the 1st what if your grievance is the unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd amendment.
I also agree that fed law does not override the Constitution. But under stare decisis what precedent are you stating?
And to use only primary sources.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
The other 2 places in the bill of rights, the 1st and 4th amendments that the phrase 'the right of the people' appear and in the 9th where they use similar wording all refer to individual rights. Not collective rights, or rights that can only be exercised by participation in a government entity.
The phrase 'the people' appear 3 other times in the Constitution, and may be considered to apply to the people as a collective, but those deal with powers not rights, and in all 6 other usages of 'the people' it refers to all people of the political community, not a subset of the people.
Can you explain why they used the phrase "the people" if they meant for it to be used in a manner different that the rest of the usage in the Constitution? Using primary sources please. ;)
US v Miller
"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''"
"when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
"Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Full auto and semi auto firearms, handguns, and short barreled shotguns are all part of ordinary military equipment so under stare decisis should be allowed under the 2nd. And as a side note the justices must not have been up on recent military history if they didn't know that short barreled shotguns were common military weapons during trench warfare during WW1.
And does shall "not be infringed" really need an argument?
"And does shall "not be infringed" really need an argument?"
For trying to nitpick over the meaning of words, you forgot "well-regulated militia".
No I didn't forget it, that has been covered see the previous posts. Although since you asked I will expound on it a bit.
The militia at the time of the enactment of the Constitution was the whole body of citizens who were capable and willing to engage in martial action for the defense of the country or in the defense of people against a tyrannical government(see the revolutionary war). And who were hoped to bring their own arms if possible(see US v Miller) in the case of a foreign aggressor it is possible for the most part(in the US at least) for the government to arm the people for defense, but do you expect the gov to arm the people that are fighting the gov?
And would you care to address the rest of my argument as well? Specifically why the founders of our nation would use that wording if they meant something else.
And most of them were either unarmed or their arms didn't measure up to snuff, so guns would be issued to them to be returned later.
please?
http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
http://www.hydroponicsearch.com/spelling/simplesearch/query_term-men-at-arms/database-!/strategy-exact
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/men...
for the link, it seems to be an interesting site and I'll have to look into it further.
But I did not see anywhere on there that most of them came unarmed or that their arms they brought did not measure up to snuff.
Yes some did, I will agree, but they were expected to bring arms if they were able. In fact one of the first two militia acts in 1782 required it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_...
"And would you care to address the rest of my argument as well? Specifically why the founders of our nation would use that wording if they meant something else."
Do you have one that does not rely on fishing around secondary sources to create an argument that I missed?
I do, and you must of missed it. It is in the same post as the one you replied to. The part about the phrase the right of the people? And the US v Miller case?
Cite the law.
Again FEDERAL AND STATE LAW DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION.
One not only does it not define the right as you define it, it does not say Congress cannot regulate that right or any other, only not infringe it as a general right in principle.
And it only specifies Congress will not do the infringing, not state and city legislatures. To be technical the Founding Fathers saw them as having rights under the 10th amendment to the Police Powers of Health, Welfare and Safety of their communities.
Can you please explain your legal reasoning behind that? In regards to why the founders of the Constitution would use that phrase "the people" specifically "the right of the people" if they did not mean the people as opposed to a govt organized military force ie national guard?
And I think you have the 1st confused with the 2nd, the 1st amendment specifies Congress the others do not. And a bit of history why that may be, at the time of ratification of the Constitution several states had a State Religion, and prohibited elected officials from being other religions. In fact a couple of states still have restrictions in their Constitutions although they are unenforceable due to incorporation of the 1st through the 14th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_ch...
regarding militia members.
Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13 Sec 311
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And again I agree that Fed and State law does not supersede the constitution. But I do like how you included STATE law this time.
You notice that it is not the National Hand Gun Association Either, yet that's where so much of their attention is.
Basically, all you attempted was a dodge, when the amendment that were all citing (including the nra) refers to arms, not guns, than swords certainly qualify.
You are right it is not the Hand gun(or shotgun) Assoc. But they are mainly about firearms, although they have fought other things such as the recent attempt to list assisted opening knifes as switchblades.
And I agreed with you that swords qualify under the 2nd, along with things such as clubs, bows etc.
But for the most part those are not regulated anywhere near firearms.
Could it be because firearms are more lethal?
lethal? Sorry but dead is dead, it doesn't matter the cause. Club or bow and arrow or .50 caliber bmg, your going to be the same amount of dead.
Miller v US was essentially a moot decision, since the claimant, Miller was found shot to death before the decision was handed down to remand it to the lower court, and his the killer Layton essentially plea bargained a lesser prison sentence, leaving no further claimants to pursue the case in the lower court.
Essentially, the Founding Fathers left private gun ownership unaddressed either for or against it, and from the language of the 2nd amendment generally left it to the States to decide, although presumably a State couldn't ban all categories of arms outright.
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress [307 U.S. 174, 179]. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion...
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.'”
(United States v Miller).
In other words, the militias became a dodge against the requirement that only Congress can declare war during a period there was no standing army. This was in effect similar to the American Lend/Lease of Warships program before Congress declared war and involved the US into WWII.
I won't agree that US v Miller is a moot decision, since it is still used as precedent, including in the Heller decision.(Justice Stevens even mentioned that on the face of it, it invalidated the 1934 NFA) but the death of Miller did leave things unsettled.
Which reminds me I meant to bring up your comment about "conservative activist judges making new constitutional rights" They did not act in a activist manner, they decided the case on precedent and the Constitution, they did not legislate from the bench or go beyond the question asked. They found the act in question to be unconstitutional. In fact J Stevens even mentioned that there were thing outside the specific case that they would like to address but wouldn't because the suit did not bring it up for them to decide.
The founding Fathers left the question of private gun ownership unaddressed? Are you serious? This entire debate is about them addressing it, the 2nd amendment remember? And how did they leave it up to the states? Does it say Congress shall not infringe? Or just that the right shall not be infringed? The 1st limits Congress, not the 2nd or 3rd or 4th....(although the grand jury section of the 4th is not considered(improperly imo)to be incorporated.
The militias were not a "dodge" the states are forbidden by the Constitution from having a standing army/navy without the consent of Congress, and forbidden from declaring war in most cases. But the Constitution also differentiates between the militia and the army.
Art 1 sections 8 and 10.
All precedent was against their decision.
And even so, they still recognized the right of the government to regulate guns.
The Constitution recognized the militia and the army seperately, because one is state the other national, and the latter required Congress to authorize it.
And the 2nd Amendment only guarantees armed militias, not necessarily private ownership which I did specify, and those individuals that make up the militias, and confines itself to those points.
And it was the National government army that required Congressional authorization, the State only need state legislation to authorize their militias.
name the SCOTUS cases that show precedent?
I don't agree that the 2nd only guarantees armed militias, if it did why wouldn't the founding fathers phrase it "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" rather than the people? Again what is your reasoning for the founding fathers to use that phrase to mean something other than what it means every other place in the Constitution?
Art 1 Sec 10
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
That would require additional research and sheppardizing, which requires access to a legal library. However, according to Findlaw and Westlaw, District of Columbia v Heller was significant for finding a personal right to arms, for the first time in over 200 years of history where it was seen as the right of militia troops to exist, yet as stated before, the Court still saw a government power to regulate.
Additionally, a militia is a groups of militiamen, the terms are not interchangeable, so any reference to the militia is a reference in plural.
There were three strands of history the Founding Fathers were reacting to, the Crown's attempt to disarm colony militias, considering militia property their own as the government, and the second strand was British reliance on a professional class of soldiers as opposed to civilian, and the last strand was how some colonial governors would not send the number of troops requested, or refuse outright to send their troops. So Washington started arguing for a continental army, that was initially poorly discipline, with a high number of failure to show, and desertion, until the Prussian General Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von Steuben whip them into shape. In fact, when the Revolutionary Cause only had militias for support, they had a tendency to be kept on the run by the British with their Hessian soldiers.
And with Article I sec 10, you may've found another way Congress limited the powers of Militias.
But it also goes along with the federal government reserving the right to tax and coin money and set weight and measures, since previous to the Constitution, each state could set their own during the period of the Articles of Confederation.
First this is a very interesting(and civil)discussion. And I thank you for that. And I apologize for the long delay in answering your points but reading through half a dozen SCOTUS cases and reading 90+ pages of oral arguments on the Heller decision took a bit of time(along with the need for a few hours of sleep) and I've barely touched the 60+ amicus briefs. But now back to the actual discussion.
Regarding precedent, from the Heller decision "(f)None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes"
Heller was one of the very few (I can find only one other) that specifically addresses private ownership of firearms. I could and will argue that the right of private ownership of arms is so fundamental that there was no need for a legal interpretation of it before relatively recent times. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 guaranteed the right for (protestants) to own arms outside of the military for personal reasons. The only other SCOTUS case that I could find specifically regarding personal ownership of firearms is US v Cruikshank "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Also regarding precedent the term "right of the people" includes all people, US v Verdugo-Urquidez. Once again do you have a legal argument why they would of used that specific term if they did not mean all of the people?
Miller did not address personal ownership but what types can be personally owned. And Presser did not address ownership either, it addressed the state powers of regulating the militia. Specifically in regards to drills and parades.
And yes the militia is composed of militiamen in the plural, but you cannot have the militia without the singular militiaman just as you cannot have the right of the people without the person. Such as the right to assemble, you can't have a assembly without a group, but the group is composed of individuals who have the right to assemble.
You also failed to include a strand or two in your evaluation, The English BoR as mentioned above, and also you touched upon but did not fully explore the civilian armed men involved, yes some governors failed to send the men and they were not properly trained but that was addressed in art 1 sec 8 of the Constitution so no need for the 2nd amendment in that regard, but the civilians were the main fighting force. Another strand you didn't address was the civilians rising up against an oppressive Gov., why would the founding fathers restrict the right of keeping and bearing arms to the state when they just finished fighting a war of independence against the state?
And regarding art 1 sec 10, it was not a way for Congress to limit the powers of the militia, it was to limit the powers of the states to have a standing army. And if you read the preamble to the Bor it is to limit the powers of the Fed gov."The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"
And I dislike using the bandwidth of this site to carry on a discussion such as this, do you have any idea of how to exchange email addressees without posting them here? I guess I could email the site monitor with mine and ask them to forward it to you if you are in agreement to that.
BTW, I know that whole "well-regulated" clock is all the rage among you guys. Whoever, the term is related to the "regulator" of a clock. And "well-regulated" implies correct calibration of that mechanism. Technically you could have a badly regulated clock which functions properly, albeit giving the wrong time.
but I got distracted and you did a much better job than I would have done. BTW, what does "well regulated" mean to those people you referred to as "you guys?"
maybe it refers to the regularity of vowel movements. I heard activia works wonders for that.
Are you sure of that? If they meant the same thing could you explain why they choose to use the two terms seperately within a half a dozen sentences?
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; "
But I will agree that at the time the army was composed of the militia. But I disagree that the militia was the army, the militia is the pool from which the army is drawn.
don't you? I said "army" not "the army"
FYI:
mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]
Origin:
1580–90; < L mīlitia soldiery, equiv. to mīlit- (s. of mīles) soldier + -ia -ia
Word Origin & History
militia
1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
misread. But you do realize you made a point for the average civilian to be armed under the 2nd amendment? Compared to the people that say it only applies to the organized military such as the national guard.
The Supreme Court has agreed previously that the militia is the National Guard. However much the pro-gun crowd wishes to distort the Second Amendment for whatever reason is not really relevant anyway. There have been plenty of other cases and laws that make gun ownership by private citizens legal.
Where, oh where did I made such a point? Undiscriminated gun ownership using the 2nd amendment is your point, not mine.
Strawmen belong to the fields IMHO.
my point, but as you posted.
"Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777)."
"mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."
Shows that even with the militia interpretation of the 2nd that the most people fit into the description of militia
Pointing out that we have a civilian army as opposed to a professional class of soldiers is no such admission to general gun usage.
False, militias are state organizations, any description of the populace as militias is only as potential candidates to serve.
Otherwise, they would place all civilians between the ages of 17-45 under military law not civilian.
As someone over 35 and born in this country, and a resident of over 14 years in my area, I'm qualified to be President of the United States, but you'll notice I'm not President of the United States.
National Guard of modern times until Bush used them to avoid a draft that would have roused the old hippies into immediate action and screwed up all his administration's plans for robbing the taxpayers of all of their assets and bringing his thieving, bungling, greedy, and dishonest campaign to put corporations into absolute power crashing all around his clothy head. That's why. Just so you know, "clothy headed" is having fiberfill in one's head instead of brains.
And, if in your redneck doltdom, you think a militia is the pool the army is drawn from, I want to know who helps you get dressed every day, Timmy.
The National Guard has been used in foreign combat since WW1 the National Defense Act of 1916 allows for it.
And as far as it being a pool the army is drawn from, where do you think the legal basis of the draft is from? Currently service in the military is on a voluntary basis, but if need be it can become mandatory. And the unorganized militia is the pool from which it is drawn.
If you don't believe me ask YS we had this discussion a while ago.
So you might want to read a bit to get out of your uneducated doltdom before making false statements.
I wonder why there aren't any "shootings" at these guns shows?
It would be some kind of karma thing (perish the thought)
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1008/564688....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/...
There have been shootings at gun shows. One case a kid was firing an uzi and blew off his own head due to the recoil bringing it to his face.
It was a 9 year old. I think it was a "shoot" and not a gun show. Gun shows are for sales, this was a little different. Scarier!
It was a gun show and exhibition. A number of gun shows also have people shoot the guns off.
Typically, dealers are not allowed to sell ammunition at gun shows without a fingerprint.
Before my low tolerance of the tinfoil hat crowd made me avoid such places, I bought ammuntion over multiple years without fingerprints. To be honest, your comment is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing.
I know I've seen it before, although not sure which state. I remember some other show that had a limit on how many rounds.
today?
[So you recognize we have topics here? That's funny. I noticed a couple of VERY OFF TOPIC posts by you in a couple of other threads already today, after you said yesterday that it wouldn't happen again-Sitemonitor]
Video
later.
with guns and advocating their use (Ted Nugent, etc.), it's seriously the biggest reason I've stopped visiting friends and family in the U.S. The abundance of guns (and gun racks stacked with guns) also causes me to have little to no desire to go to the U.S. for any reason whatsoever... I'm thinking I'm not alone in this either.
In all fairness there are a bunch of good people who would never own a weapon.
It might depend more on where in the US you go.
Although I have to drive through Mount Vernon (home of that maroon Glenn Beck) to get to friends in Seattle... And I've seen those trucks with gun racks just driving that short distance. Pretty weird really...
I know of only 2 Mt. Vernons. One is in Virginia and the other is just north of New York City. Since you mention Glenn Beck, I have to believe you are referring to the Mt. Vernon in New York, although I can't believe any wealthy, Rethug. would live in Mt. Vernon, but that's my own biases showing. Anyway, my point is that one does not drive through Mt. Vernon to get to Seattle? However, perhaps, you were mentioning a Mt. Vernon in the Seattle area where Glenn Puke was born?
...Mt. Vernon, WA.
Here are all of the Mt. Vernon's in the US:
* Mount Vernon, Alabama
* Mount Vernon, Arkansas
* Mount Vernon, Georgia
* Mount Vernon, Illinois
* Mount Vernon, Indiana
* Mount Vernon, Iowa
* Mount Vernon, Kentucky
* Mount Vernon, Maine
* Mount Vernon, Maryland, in Somerset County
* Mount Vernon, Missouri
* Mont Vernon, New Hampshire
* Mount Vernon, New York
* Mount Vernon, Ohio
* Mount Vernon, Oregon
* Mount Vernon, South Dakota
* Mount Vernon, Texas
* Mount Vernon, Virginia
* Mount Vernon, Washington
* Mt. Vernon, West Virginia
* Mount Vernon, Wisconsin
Mt Vernon WA is where Edward R Murrow grew up.
So jimbojames, I guess you missed the big Mt Vernon WA gives Glen Beck the key to the
cityflyspeck of a town amid loads of protesting last week...I did mean the one closest to Seattle... :)
BTW, there are plenty of gun racks in use in Westchester County, which is where Mt. Vernon, New York is situated. Take it from me there are many rednecks living in Westchester County, New York.
is a farming community with a kick ass co op I like to visit when I'm up north. But it is close to the woods, and I see lots of gun racks up there too.
Mt Vernon WA
Stay in Bellingham. We like John Stewart.
I'll make it clear: I think he's an asshole.
But he's an avid hunter, and he feeds his family year-round on venison, wild turkey, and everything else edible that he shoots.
And, quite honestly, Michigan needs a few more hunters- deer hunters, anyway- because the deer herd in the state is growing so fast that the white-tail might outstrip their food source in the near future, causing some sort of Malthusian collapse.
Add to that the fact that bovine tuberculosis is spreading through the herd, and it's being spread to cattle in the state as the deer encroach on farms to forage.
.
Doesn't mean he doesn't come home for deer camp, though. And he still feeds his family on his kills, whether he's hunting in Texas or Michigan.
immediate family with road kill. He is still an a**hole.
I think it’s funny that hunters now use the term “harvesting” rather than killing. We always just said shooting. A little ironic to hear rednecks being P.C.
(Hey, I can say this. Here in FL, I’m considered one.)
Are you in the panhandle of Florida?
Well, that would definitely qualify me for redneck status.
Actually POP I went to PBG HS in your neck of the woods. Today I'm closer to the panhandle N of Tampa. My daughter is a SR at FSU.
Congratulations to your little Seminole. I lived in Tampa when I was a Jr. and Sr. in high school.
;-)
"War of the Worlds", organ harvesting, ovum harvesting. Life imitating art. Cowards too afraid to say what they are actually doing--killing.
"organ harvesting" is more related to carrion than killing ;-)
the victim waking up somewhere like a hotel room or a park bench with a surgical incision and a missing kidney. Urban legend? "Law and Order" ripped from the news story? Possibly true? Who knows.
then you are not dead, no? ;-)
I said "victim."
>
Harvest as a term has long been used by wildlife management agencies to describe the effectiveness of hunting on animal populations. Not many hunters use the term as a means of being politically correct.
I'm sure you're right. Still it sounds funny to me. "We's gunna harvast us some meet!"
Also an accurate description but kind of funny terminology when used by hunters.
Michigan needs more wolves and bears.
And fewer Wolverines, but I digress.
Go State!
Well this is totally different from whats going on with the liberals. I mean just look at what president obama has done to this country... ummm...... ACORN ACORN ACORN!!!!!!
Sad thing is, you probebly wont hear anything at all about this on the tube.
.
Dear Korso,
You want to talk ACORN...?
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=f...
p.s.
IT PASSED!!!
EAT SH!T!!!
Dear embittered,
Whats your point? Im happy it passed also.
I take it your not use to sarcasm?
Cheers!
Korso
"Pentagon loses $2.3 trillion dollars."
*the next day*
"WTC hit by planes."
And this is just one of the reasons we recently spent a whole lot of money putting in a security system in our home. Never before in my life have I ever felt afraid in my own home and I hate the feeling, but with all the bs going on and so many people trying to get money after they buy their gun, it was a necessity.
As long as the NRA carries the weight that it does, rules will be broken and maybe even weakened. In this area they have "Gun and Knife" shows. I don't want to even be in driving distance of one of those affairs.
I saw a great show, I think it was on cnn, about gun shows and people who live and breath by their guns. It was very telling and frightening as hell too. Parts of it made you feel a little sick inside as little kids bragged about their guns and the guns they have fired, while their parents looked on in great pride.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2062/214600010...
Some of those were likely "Jesus Camp" grads . .
*runs screaming*
wrong obviously.
plunk down $500 as a donation to our local food bank than know that a gun show piece was going to be in a drawer in my home.
Would be a treasure to a small food bank.
The weapon . . . not so much
looks a lot like a warehouse with fork lifts and trucks along with locals taking the #2 bus to their front door.
It broke my heart to see the Tucson Weekly do a piece about funding problems for them.
I could also have kept my 09 FJR Yamaha, bought a quad processor Dell notebook, gone to Fiji, Las Vegas but it's getting to the point where now, when someone carries a Churches Chicken meal onto the bus, I know that many other riders are going to get that "I'm hungrier than heck" look on their faces.
Just in case no one has told you yet today, nickjacket, you're a good person. :)
Give $500 to your unemployed family member. I'm sure you have one.
Then stop the grandstanding and arrest these offenders...
Main Entry: grandstand
Function: intransitive verb
Date: 1900
: to play or act so as to impress onlookers
— grand·stand·er noun
Quite clearly they are more interested in impressing their fellow gun haters then actually enforcing the law..
... you did not know what the term meant.
Quite clearly I do. Nowhere is there any indication that these felons were arrested or charged with the crimes they committed.
you provided for it afterwards. "Impressing" and "exposing" are not synonyms.
Just look at the comments here. If you don't think there's a lot of people impressed at New York catching these evil gun owners in the act then I don't know what to tell you..
or how to tell it for that matter.
It is the evil gun sellers being exposed here.
They are owners and sellers but I see y'all are reverting to the old internet standby of picking apart grammar when you have nothing else..
"all y'all"? ;)
unless followed by "git!"
of "y'all."
"all y'all git" is a plural command.
I was actually engaging in hyperbole, of course.
It is sometimes acceptable to follow "all y'all" with "hush up," but more common to hear "Y'all hush" or "hush up now, y'all."
It is equally acceptable when querying a large group. "All y'all want tater salad?" or "all y'all 21?"
is related to the selling of guns.
If someone at the DMV was allowing people to register cars without having insurance (in violation of the law) and I am happy when they are caught/exposed, does that somehow make me anti car owner?
You're kidding yourself if you think this site isn't anti-gun in general. My favorite posts are by the guy belonging to the "mayor's against illegal guns" where he then rants against legal guns..
I would also like to point out once again we're on the same page with this for the most part. The difference with this situation is NO one is getting arrested for this. I wouldn't have a problem with this if this was actually a video and press conference about busting a bunch of illegal dealers.
is largely irrelevant to the fact that exposing lawbreakers is something that should be commended. If you are vastly pro-gun, I can see an argument being made that the law is garbage and should be ignored. But for anyone else who is either more moderate or anti-gun, they should be happy to see that somebody is checking if the law is being followed (and yes, an investigation that leads to arrests and convictions would be ideal, but any investigation is better than no investigation)
I just think a whole lot more good could of been done if they had approached the ATF first rather then go for the publicity stunt that they seem to be pulling.
I'd agree for the most part (and in relation to this subject) but it isn't always true that any investigation is better then no investigation..
It gives you an easy cop out, though. Appeals to victim status are also an old internet meme when you have nothing to back your claims.
Yawn.
But I am pretty sure that investigators from NYC and/or the NYPD are not allowed to make arrests in Nevada, Ohio or Tennessee (where the gun shows took place)
.
Which this NYC report hopefully provides.
I hope so too but I fear that any ATF investigation will be severely hampered by this video and press conference giving the illegal sellers a heads up..
I am a cat person. We can wait a very long time before pouncing.
You mean that the dealers might *gasp* adhere to the law and do background checks?
I'd rather they get busted and permanently put out of the business for illegal selling then hold off on the illegal stuff for a few years (or more likely cut back on who they are willing to sell illegally too)..
type of exception written into the handgun laws there now, to enable the dealers to bring the merchandise into the City and for buyers to carry them out. How about cops inspecting people on their way out of the doors, like BJ"s Warehouse does?
I don't know about New York but there is a blanket ban in Chicago and they still have ridiculously high murder rates..
smotherers do.
... a**hole British pilgrims.
Now if the office of the mayor had already shown these videos to the ATF and were rebuked then I would acknowledge that the next logical step would be to publicly release the videos. Otherwise I stand by my assertions that this does more harm then good.
Then why are they even there? That fact just further reinforces my point about this being grandstanding bullshit. If they really cared about this problem they'd be fully enforcing the current laws rather then trying to impress the anti-gun lobby with videos of the evil gun owners..
Lets be clear here. I fully support federal investigations and convictions of these gun sellers as they are clearly breaking the law.
To prove that there is an actual problem at gun shows to counter the NRA (and others) claims that the gun show loophole is a myth. With that evidence, they may be able to convince the proper authorities to begin their own investigation which would lead to concrete actions (ie arrests)
So you're straight up saying you'd rather they grandstand and try to score political points then actually combat the problem effectively?
Now that this video is out there though there's a tremendously missed opportunity as the dealers like those in the video will temporarily begin following the law again until the "heat" passes over.
Login or Register to post comments.