NYC sends undercover offices to infiltrate Phoenix Crossroads Gun Show

[mes227]

According to The Week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent a group of undercover officers to the Gun Show in Pheonix where they shot a video that "shows just how easy it is to buy powerful semiautomatic weapons." Other comments include:

"The background check system failed in Arizona, it failed in Virginia, and it fails in states around the country."

"The question is not whether another massacre will occur, but when."

A counter point: "Bloomberg's investigation into another state's practices is unseemly. He should keep his undercover officers dedicated to preventing crime in his own city." ~~Amen to that!

Full story at: http://theweek.com/article/index/211...gun-show-sting

[Brian Pfleuger]

My first thought was that those "officers" should be arrested, as should Bloomburg.

None of them have any authority outside NY city and what they did was a criminal act... and Bloomburg is an accessory.

[silentargus]

When is somebody going to step on this idiot and stuff him back inside his own jurisdiction? This is corruption and abuse of power and the arrogant prick isn't even trying to hide it- he's acting as if he's the head of BATFE.

*edited and corrected.

[Musketeer]

Bloomberg is a petty dictator who considers himself king of NYC. He has a personal axe to grind against legal firearm ownership and is wasting NYC taxpayer money doing investigation in AZ which can produce nothing of NYC but inflate his own ego.

That said, he made us look real bad here and some gun owners didn't help. The undercover individuals said they were looking to buy handguns and specifically said they didn't believe they could pass a background check. The private sellers on the tapes stated none were needed and didn't call off the sale after the revelation that the proposed buyer could not pass the check.

It is illegal for a private seller to sell a firearm to an individual who they have reason to believe is not allowed to own one. When that person clearly states they would not pass a background the private seller has a pretty weak case.

Now I haven't seen/heard an complete uneditted tape. Perhaps the sellers actually did cut off the sale and we did not see that. It looks bad for us though. Bloomberg is using his very local authority to pursue a national personal agenda and doing so well.

[NJgunowner]

Bloomberg is just furthering his political agenda. He's done in NYC after this term, and he's probably trying to put together something so he can run for senate.

[youngunz4life]

I'm not against gun shows, but I have never liked how people who have no business with firearms can just walk in and buy one at a gun show.

[Musketeer]

Why is he done after this term? He can and has changed the laws on term limits to suit himself when Guilliani, who could have been declared king inthe wake of 9/11, chose to respect them. He is a third party candidate who bought the last election before the other candidates even announced.

I think he likes being emperor of NYC.

[orangello]

My first thought was that those "officers" should be arrested, as should Bloomburg.

None of them have any authority outside NY city and what they did was a criminal act... and Bloomburg is an accessory.

I wondered, if a Mississippi Highway Patrol Officer was in Florida and suspected a person was selling crack, could they arrest this person themselves, or could they only call in a complaint or attempt a "citizens' arrest"?

What if the MHP officer decided to attempt to buy some crack to be sure the suspicious person was in fact selling crack and not some other substance? If the officer buys the crack, isn't that officer illegally in possession of a controlled substance, and didn't that officer commit an illegal act in purchasing the crack?

I realize Bloomberg is just trying for political strength, but i have serious doubts about the legality of his agents actions. What am i missing? Did they make some "arrangements" with local law enforcement or the BATF to act on behalf of an agency with jurisdiction? Is there something in AZ law that allows out-of-state persons to legally purchase a firearm in AZ? I didn't think i was allowed to make a firearms purchase at a gunshow in another state? Perhaps there is an exception for out-of-state, out-of-jurisdiction "agents"?

[everragenepa]

AZ should send undercovers to NYC and see how many they can buy in back allys.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

None of them have any authority outside NY city and what they did was a criminal act... and Bloomburg is an accessory.

This is basically a cheap publicity stunt designed to further a political agenda.

That said, I'm not clear about why you think Bloomberg, or the private detectives he hired, (they were not NYPD, but from a private agency, according to this report from the New York Daily News) violated any laws. They didn't try to "arrest" anyone, and according to the website "Can We Tape", recording oral communications is legal in Arizona: "...consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3001."

We may not like that he did it, and if Mayor Bloomberg paid the detective agency with taxpayer money rather than his own, there might be some legal issues there, but I don't see that the "sting" itself was in any way illegal.

Originally Posted by Musketeer

That said, he made us look real bad here and some gun owners didn't help. The undercover individuals said they were looking to buy handguns and specifically said they didn't believe they could pass a background check. The private sellers on the tapes stated none were needed and didn't call off the sale after the revelation that the proposed buyer could not pass the check.

It is illegal for a private seller to sell a firearm to an individual who they have reason to believe is not allowed to own one. When that person clearly states they would not pass a background the private seller has a pretty weak case.

Exactly. It's a huge embarrassment for those who want to preserve the status quo for private-party firearm sales. But embarrassing people is not illegal, as far as I know...

[Mr. James]

but I have never liked how people who have no business with firearms can just walk in and buy one at a gun show

Yeah, that freedom thing sure is messy.

Who gets to decide whether or not another citizen "has business with firearms"? You? Me? Michael Bloomberg?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Vanya

That said, I'm not clear about why you think Bloomberg, or the private detectives he hired to go to Arizona, (They were not NYPD, but from a private agency, according to this report from the New York Daily News) violated any laws.

Quote from the article in your link...


"Mayor Bloomberg and his 'task force' have no legal authority in the state of Arizona, or in any other place in America except New York City," the statement said. "These forays into America's heartland committing blatant acts to entrap otherwise innocent gun owners is an unlawful scheme."


Plus, are these "detectives" from AZ or NY? If they're from NY, it's illegal for them to buy a handgun in AZ. If they're from AZ, it's illegal for the SELLER to sell a handgun to anyone he suspects of not being allowed to own it... therefore, is it not illegal for the BUYER to participate in this ILLEGAL SALE?

[youngunz4life]

I don't like how he is kicking a dog(AZ) when he is down either. The point was political and to just have it on camera+leaked(as already mentioned). I am willing to bet no bust was made(gunshow might tell that seller not to come back). probably no coincidence VA was mentioned- VA Tech Massacre weapons were bought at a gun show. its common knowledge videotaping stuff like this isn't illegal, but they should not have been on the clock or paid in any way, shape, or form.

mr james, I hear you but this guy isn't even looking at the damn license. stuff like this sways people that are on the fence with the gun issue(s)

[Pahoo]

If our Governor, let alone a Mayor, pulled this trick, he would never get reelected. Perhaps this is part into his 5-year plan. He knows that this kind of publicity, only appeals to the uninformed and the left. He is also aware that because of his high profile the news media will even report him blowing his nose. What a smart patheitc fool. .... :barf:



Be Safe !!!

[youngunz4life]

I would like to know whose license was flashed. Either he found a buddy in AZ or purposely used someone who wasn't an AZ resident for more show(it might not have even been his license). he was probably turned down multiple times before that 'hit'

[johnwilliamson062]

I never thought about the fact that these detectives are probably illegally buying a handgun if they are NY residents.

[johnbt]

" VA Tech Massacre weapons were bought at a gun show."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. And not true.


They were both acquired at a bricks-and-mortar store. He passed the background check both times.

John

"In March, Cho bought a 9mm Glock 19 from a gun store in Roanoke, Va A little over a month earlier, he had purchased a Walther .22-caliber from www.thegunsource.com, a Web site owned and operated by Green Bay-based TGSCOM Inc.

TGSCOM Inc. owner Eric Thompson said Cho ordered the handgun online Feb. 2 and picked it up at a pawn shop in Blacksburg, Va., on Feb 9.

“There was absolutely nothing at all remarkable about it,” Thompson said.

Cho paid the $267.63 cost with a credit card and that was his first and only purchase through the Web site, Thompson said.

The Walther P22 is a low-powered handgun usually used for target practice or shooting squirrels, Thompson said.

Cho filled out the paperwork prior to the purchases and underwent federal and state background checks each time, both of which were initiated by the shops in Virginia.
"

[youngunz4life]

my buddy said that too john, but they had on the news that one of the firearms confiscated(maybe one that wasn't shot or something?) was bought at a VA gunshow. I'll take your word for it until I see evidence otherwise, and I appreciate the correction.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Quote from the article in your link...

"Mayor Bloomberg and his 'task force' have no legal authority in the state of Arizona, or in any other place in America except New York City," the statement said. "These forays into America's heartland committing blatant acts to entrap otherwise innocent gun owners is an unlawful scheme."

Meh. That's just a rant by the owners of the gun show in question.

are these "detectives" from AZ or NY? If they're from NY, it's illegal for them to buy a handgun in AZ. If they're from AZ, it's illegal for the SELLER to sell a handgun to anyone he suspects of not being allowed to own it... therefore, is it not illegal for the BUYER to participate in this ILLEGAL SALE?

According to this article from the Associated Press, published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Bloomberg's office said all the investigators were Arizona residents and broke no laws." (My emphasis)

From the transcript of one such transaction, published in the New York Times: "Seller: "Just see an Arizona ID and that's it with me."

So, as far as that criterion goes, the seller was covered. And if the buyer was an AZ resident and not in fact a prohibited person, there was no illegality on that side of the transaction, as far as I can see. It seems excessively convoluted to argue that the buyer, who was not a prohibited person, acted illegally by participating in a sale in which the seller merely thought he might be...

And according to the NYT, Arizona's Attorney General has criticized Mayor Bloomberg for not notifying the Arizona State Police, but he hasn't suggested that Mr. Bloomberg, or the investigators he hired, did anything illegal. And the AG was pretty irritated, it seems: he said in a statement, "The fact that no such notification was made indicates this so-called sting is nothing less than a public relations stunt."

It seems to me that if Arizona's AG was that annoyed, and thought Mayor Bloomberg's minions had acted illegally, he'd have said so... It's, from our point of view, in unspeakably poor taste for Mr. Bloomberg to have done this -- and as I said above, it seems a dubious use of taxpayers' money if the investigators were paid by the city of New York.

But the investigators don't appear to have done anything illegal.

[MTT TL]

my buddy said that too john, but they had on the news that one of the firearms confiscated(maybe one that wasn't shot or something?) was bought at a VA gunshow. I'll take your word for it until I see evidence otherwise, and I appreciate the correction.

Truly? You would repeat something your buddy told you over taking .0045 seconds for a google search? That is amazing.

During February and March 2007, Cho began purchasing the weapons that he later used during the killings. On February 9, 2007, Cho purchased his first handgun, a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol, from TGSCOM Inc., a federally-licensed firearms dealer based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and the operator of the website through which Cho ordered the gun.[77][78][79][80] TGSCOM Inc. shipped the Walther P22 to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Virginia, where Cho completed the legally-required background check for the purchase transaction and took possession of the handgun.[81] Cho bought a second handgun, a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol, on March 13, 2007 from Roanoke Firearms, a licensed gun dealer located in Roanoke, Virginia

Ross, B. & Esposito, R. (April 17, 2007). "First Gun Bought March 13; No 'Spur of the Moment' Crime". ABC News. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...gun_bough.html. Retrieved September 16, 2008.

CBS News (April 17, 2007). "Gun Used In Rampage Traced To Roanoke Shop". WJZ-13 Baltimore. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/200709271...107173020.html. Retrieved September 24, 2008.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Vanya

Meh. That's just a rant by the owners of the gun show in question.

Maybe, but I think they're right.


I'm not convinced that the purchase is legal even if they are AZ residents. Unfortunately, we'll never know unless someone in the district in question presses charges.

It seems to me that participating in an illegal transaction is a crime. If the seller is not allowed to sell, the buyer is not allowed to buy.

I can legally buy antibiotics from a pharmacist. The pharmacist can legally sell them to me.... but I need a "license", a prescription.

If I go to a pharmacist and tell him that I don't have a prescription but I'd like to buy this antibiotic and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I have a prescription in my pocket.

If I can legally buy a handgun but I tell the guy that I can't and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I CAN legally buy the gun.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'd advise folks to calm down and KNOW what you are talking about before you rant.

If you say the action is illegal - prove it with AZ or Federal law cites, please.

If you don't like Bloomberg personally - we don't care.

Rants-0'-fun, closed threads!

- So was the investigators actions technically illegal?

- Were the actions of the potential sellers going to be or were they illegal?

That's the issue.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

If I go to a pharmacist and tell him that I don't have a prescription but I'd like to buy this antibiotic and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I have a prescription in my pocket.

True, but irrelevant. In that case, both parties have a responsibility: for the sale to take place legally, you're required to present the prescription, and the pharmacist is required to record its information on the container used for the drugs. It's not legal for you to possess prescription drugs without a current prescription for them.

If I can legally buy a handgun but I tell the guy that I can't and he sells it to me, we're BOTH illegal, even if I CAN legally buy the gun.

According to the ATF's website:
"To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

"A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."

All the onus here is on the seller, not on the buyer. As the buyer was not in fact "prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law," he commited no crime by doing so. It may be mean, tricky, and underhanded to set someone up in this way, but I really don't think you can argue that it's illegal....

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Vanya

All the onus here is on the seller, not on the buyer. As the buyer was not in fact "prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law," he commits no crime by doing so. It may be mean, tricky, and underhanded to set someone up in this way, but I really don't think you can argue that it's illegal....

It's true that the regs (at least that one) seem to make no mention of this type of instance, but who would have thought that an otherwise legal purchaser would INTENTIONALLY appear to be illegal?


It's also true that the pharmacy analogy falls apart at some level. It's not a perfect example but I think the idea is similar.

If you have a prescription for a drug is it legal for you to buy it from someone who can not legally sell it to you?

Anyway, I don't know the laws, I'm surmising, but if it's NOT illegal to do what they did, it SHOULD be.

Knowingly participating in an illegal transaction should be illegal, for BOTH parties.

[youngunz4life]

I am assuming you can but just were reading a little too fast.

Truly? You would repeat something your buddy told you over taking .0045 seconds for a google search? That is amazing.

Its not amazing. I heard the wrong facts on the news. My buddy said I was wrong at the time and I didn't believe him(opposite of what you just said above).