The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 14, 2019, 09:56 PM   #26
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
Quote:
Yet we see day in and day out, stories of felons arrested in possession of a firearm. They never seem to be prosecuted on that charge either
This is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. They get arrested for possession all the time. But they seldom get charged with possession, unless there is nothing else to charge them with.

Some time back we added a lot of mandatory sentence requirements to illegal gun charges. They cannot be reduced or ignored. SO the result is that many criminals will plead to some other charge, with a lesser sentence if the prosecutors DON'T bring the gun charge. Prosecutors are happy, they get a conviction and the bad guy goes to jail for some time, at least.

(ex. pleading guilty and getting 6 years for dope (which might also be further adjusted with good behavior, etc) vs. 10 years mandatory if they get convicted on the gun charge.

I can't say if its the best way to deal with things, not sure what is, but whenever I see some report of them looking for, or have picked up someone who's on the sunny side of 30 with a dozen or more felony convictions, AND they have a gun on them, SOMETHING isn't working the way we want it to...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 15, 2019, 11:29 AM   #27
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,309
Is there any statistic about how many criminals pay for a gun (from any source) versus stealing? I would think a person engaged in other criminal activities won’t want to lay out cash for a gun when they can steal a gun from another criminal or victim. That is, do they even have the mindset of paying for anything versus just taking what they want?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 15, 2019, 01:30 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
I don't know who would have such statistics, if they even exist as reliable numbers. Consider this, there are many different "classes" of criminals, and many of those who would use a gun, aren't the same people as those who steal guns.

Sure, there lots of overlap, but often, the guy who's planning on armed robbery doesn't want to take the additional time, effort, and risk stealing a gun when he can buy it, or trade for it, from someone else who has already stolen it.

Prices for stolen guns depend on market factors, and can range from really cheap ($50 for a stolen $400 pistol is still $50 profit for the thief) to well over (even double) legal retail costs, it all depends on the black market supply and demand.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 15, 2019, 02:00 PM   #29
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,328
My modest experience with prohibited populations suggests that they ordinarily obtain their arms through channels they trust to keep the transfer confidential. This means they don't use FFLs, or at least not licensees who run checks.

So UBCs respond to illicit arms transfers by making them illegal, which the participants already know. If UBCs aren't rationally related to dissuading prohibited persons from obtaining arms, then to what are they really related? They add to the administrative burden of legal sales; they are a direct burden on the right, not an incidental one.

Direct burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights can be unconstitutional. Burdens on keeping and bearing arms may superficially all seem direct, but laws that prohibit brandishing, shooting in city limits or using one in a crime are directed to safe use and against use as a criminal tool; they have some beneficial general purpose. A UBC the primary consequence if which is that a legal transaction becomes a greater pain in the rump, while an illicit transaction becomes no more expensive or burdensome appears aimed squarely at legal transfer and possession.

Last edited by zukiphile; February 15, 2019 at 02:28 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 16, 2019, 09:17 AM   #30
357 Python
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 921
As I understand it a straw purchase is when one person who is legally capable of purchasing a firearm purchases one for someone that is prohibited from having a firearm. Someone purchasing one for a family member or even a friend is legal as long as that person is not prohibited. My father bought my first handgun for me so I could work as an armed security officer at the age of 19. That was way back in 1979 and I still have that handgun today, a 6 inch barrel Colt Python.
357 Python is offline  
Old February 16, 2019, 01:15 PM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
Quote:
As I understand it a straw purchase is when one person who is legally capable of purchasing a firearm purchases one for someone that is prohibited from having a firearm. Someone purchasing one for a family member or even a friend is legal as long as that person is not prohibited.
This is the general understanding but it is NOT legally correct. Strawman purchase is when someone buys a gun for someone else, but declares it is for themselves on the 4473 form.

The person the gun is being bought for, does NOT have to be a prohibited person. It's a legal briar patch, but in simplest terms, you can buy a gun for yourself, and give to someone else later, as a gift. Legal.
You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 07:07 AM   #32
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 774
Apparently sometimes they get guns the same way that the rest of us do: https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-sh...ony-conviction
Mainah is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 09:51 AM   #33
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainah View Post
Apparently sometimes they get guns the same way that the rest of us do: https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-sh...ony-conviction
Quote:
As a result, his concealed carry permit application was rejected, his FOID card was revoked and he was sent a letter notifying him to voluntarily relinquish the gun to either local law enforcement or the holder of a valid FOID card, which he never did. The Illinois State Police said in a statement Monday that local law enforcement could have petitioned a judge to issue a search warrant for the FOID card and any weapons in Martin's possession. However, state law does not require them to do so.
yikes..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 12:39 PM   #34
FAS1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 449
Since the majority of the guns were stolen, I wish they would have been able to drill down further and see how or if the guns were secured by any extra means like a safe, rsc, handgun safe, etc.

Most acknowledge that these just buy some time, but I wonder how many chose just an easier target to begin with.
__________________
Glenn
FAS1 SAFE
FAS1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 01:12 PM   #35
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
Quote:
I wish they would have been able to drill down further and see how or if the guns were secured by any extra means like a safe, rsc, handgun safe, etc.

And why would that matter? Is the theft (of anything) somehow valid if the thief has to work harder?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 01:56 PM   #36
Brownstone322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 197
Lemme quote you out of sequence, because I have a question from the middle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
you can buy a gun for yourself, and give to someone else later, as a gift. Legal.
Clear. ("Later" could actually be "quite soon," but if your intent at the time of purchase was that the gun was for you, it's legal. That could change after one trip to the range, of course.)

Quote:
But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
That's even more clear. The transaction has nothing to do with whether the third party (who is the actual buyer) will be a legal gun owner. They need to complete and sign their own form.

Quote:
You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
OK, so how does one declare this? I ask for this reason. Two Christmases ago, a woman I know was looking to buy a Beretta 92 for her husband. I told her to make sure she knew the law and specifically how to answer every question on ATF Form 4473. On one hand, Question 11.a seems pretty restrictive:

"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

But the end notes give you wiggle room:

"A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."

So how does one actually declare a purchase as a "bona fide gift" to a legal third party? I asked my local gun shop, and they didn't have an entirely reassuring answer other than to say, "If in doubt, buy a gift certificate."
__________________
"To live outside the law, you must be honest." -- Bob Dylan
Brownstone322 is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 02:46 PM   #37
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownstone322
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
That's even more clear. The transaction has nothing to do with whether the third party (who is the actual buyer) will be a legal gun owner. They need to complete and sign their own form.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
OK, so how does one declare this? I ask for this reason. Two Christmases ago, a woman I know was looking to buy a Beretta 92 for her husband. I told her to make sure she knew the law and specifically how to answer every question on ATF Form 4473. On one hand, Question 11.a seems pretty restrictive:

Quote:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
Emphasis added.

In your example, the woman is not buying the Beretta 92 on behalf of her husband, she is buying it for him.

"On behalf" above is a colloquialism for an agency relationship. "On behalf of the Salvation Army, I'd like to offer you a cup of coffee and a doughnut" means that the coffee and doughnuts offer isn't mine, but the Salvation Army's, and I am just communicating their offer.

"For" is ambiguous, but when contrasted with "on behalf of" indicates donation to someone. "I am buying a pacifier for my child" doesn't mean that my child appointed me to purchase a pacifier in my capacity as her agent; it means I am buying it, owning the pacifier, then giving to my child when I get home.

The most effective way not to confuse the counter staff about a gift you are buying is not to rope them into a conversation about it. Their disincentive for incorrectly allowing a transfer is likely much higher than any incentive for completing one, so they are more likely to err in not allowing a legitimate transfer.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 03:04 PM   #38
Brownstone322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2017
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
Emphasis added.

In your example, the woman is not buying the Beretta 92 on behalf of her husband, she is buying it for him.

"On behalf" above is a colloquialism for an agency relationship. "On behalf of the Salvation Army, I'd like to offer you a cup of coffee and a doughnut" means that the coffee and doughnuts offer isn't mine, but the Salvation Army's, and I am just communicating their offer.

"For" is ambiguous, but when contrasted with "on behalf of" indicates donation to someone. "I am buying a pacifier for my child" doesn't mean that my child appointed me to purchase a pacifier in my capacity as her agent; it means I am buying it, owning the pacifier, then giving to my child when I get home.

The most effective way not to confuse the counter staff about a gift you are buying is not to rope them into a conversation about it. Their disincentive for incorrectly allowing a transfer is likely much higher than any incentive for completing one, so they are more likely to err in not allowing a legitimate transfer.
I understand the distinction, thanks, but that really wasn't the essence of my question. "44 AMP" had written that it's legal to "buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such)," which raised my question, mostly because I'd had personal experience (vicariously, anyway).

My question was in regard to "declaring as such." To me, a clear declaration would be more comfortable than parsing the meanings of prepositional phrases. But I don't think there's any way to make such a declaration.
__________________
"To live outside the law, you must be honest." -- Bob Dylan
Brownstone322 is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 03:14 PM   #39
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 390
Most armed criminals who are really around for awhile, not broke drug addicts who indescrimently rob you on the street or hold up liquor stores, are out there making what is considered great $$ by working folks.

A drug dealing gang banger is probably not going to stick out their neck to steal anything except a load of cash from another rival gang - they are going to try to stay under the radar and use their financial means to secure whatever they need (which could come from theiving drug addicts or a more organized source).. if you have the $$ you can pretty much buy anything.

There is a lot of cold steel out there, for instance when someone dies a huge collection can instantly disperse without any legal ramifications even in a state with strict controls/tracking. Often on the grey market a regulated thing like a gun is worth more, so there's motivation to sell them under the table.

My point is, the criminals doing most of the killing are probably not stealing their guns.
riffraff is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 03:14 PM   #40
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,328
Quote:
But I don't think there's any way to make such a declaration.
I would agree. What you intend to do with your firearm after you get it isn't part of the transfer process, so there is no reason to declare it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 06:53 PM   #41
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 774
Quote:
Most armed criminals who are really around for awhile, not broke drug addicts who indescrimently rob you on the street or hold up liquor stores, are out there making what is considered great $$ by working folks.

A drug dealing gang banger is probably not going to stick out their neck to steal anything except a load of cash from another rival gang - they are going to try to stay under the radar and use their financial means to secure whatever they need (which could come from theiving drug addicts or a more organized source).. if you have the $$ you can pretty much buy anything.

There is a lot of cold steel out there, for instance when someone dies a huge collection can instantly disperse without any legal ramifications even in a state with strict controls/tracking. Often on the grey market a regulated thing like a gun is worth more, so there's motivation to sell them under the table.

My point is, the criminals doing most of the killing are probably not stealing their guns.
I agree, especially since most experienced drug dealers know that they can count on customers with clean records to buy guns legally and exchange them for drugs. That's a problem here in Maine where we respect gun rights but are dealing with people who have direct access to major drug supplies and also live in states that restrict gun rights like MA, CT, and NY. It creates an unfortunate free market exchange.

The problem isn't simply the hard case dealers. It's also the high local population of drug addicts who fuel the whole thing. From the perspective of someone who grew up in a major city and moved here it feels like a significant population of addicts includes a segment of locals who are figuring out how to be real gangsters.
Mainah is offline  
Old February 19, 2019, 07:20 PM   #42
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,235
Apologies if my imprecise language created some misconceptions. This is a very tricksy law because of the nuances of our language and various understandings, plus the legal interpretation.

My saying "declaring it as a gift" was a poor choice of phrase. What I meant to convey was declaring or identifying it as a gift, if asked.

Quote:
"A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."
The 4473 doesn't ask if its a gift. It asks if you are the actual buyer. And it states that you are the actual buyer, if it is a bona fide gift, and describes what a bona fide gift is. So its up to you to determine if you are the actual buyer, as described. and answer.

you don't actually fill out a box marked "gift" or answer a question if it is a gift on the form. Sorry for the confusion.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 11:24 PM   #43
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
The Internet argument is that social media allows an easy meet and great private sale than just wandering around the gun show. There is a debate about how many of these privates sales are to forbidden individuals. Some estimates (and I haven't evaluated the validity) say 50 to 85% of such Internet set up sales are in the forbidden category
I only have anecdotal evidence, but those “some estimates” are laughable. I occasionally work with an atf field agent. ATF was on a kick to troll through armslist and gunbroker for a little while a few years ago. When they contacted sellers and posed as prohibited persons, or tried to meet out of state, or any other obvious on the face violation, 95% of the sellers declined to even meet. That effort was quickly dropped and the business of trying to use informants to reach the true black market resumed as it was much more successful. So not a scientific study, but compelling anecdotal evidence in my experience. I know of this first hand. I can assure you it is much more likely that greater than 85% of internet sales are legit.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 11:29 PM   #44
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,993
Quote:
Yet we see day in and day out, stories of felons arrested in possession of a firearm. They never seem to be prosecuted on that charge either.
I dunno, maybe where you are from that’s true. My local prosecutor usually pursues a conviction in these cases, and it is frequently charged as a stand alone crime. Sure there are some circumstances where it is not vigorously prosecuted, but I would say most of the time it is. These things vary from state to state, even county to county.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old February 28, 2019, 08:47 AM   #45
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 648
Most hardcore criminals get their firearms from their own sources. One can walk into any public housing and with the right connections be offered weapons.

You can even get artillery, rockets, and explosives......

Quote:
Numerous officials said the principal source for the black market weapons was theft from United States military bases, ships and warehouses. Among the stolen weapons officials say have been found on the black market are land mines, plastic explosives, missiles, bazookas, grenade launchers and artillery.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/29/u...ary-bases.html

Quote:
More than $1 million in weapons parts and sensitive military equipment was stolen out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and sold in a vast black market, some of it to foreign buyers through eBay, according to testimony at a federal trial this week.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/2017/...ary-equipment/

Some of these remain domestic while many go overseas.

Quote:
The US appears to be the most common source country for arms that are for sale on the dark web. Almost 60 per cent of the firearms listings are associated with products that originate from the US. However, Europe represents the largest market for arms trade on the dark web, generating revenues that are around five times higher than the US.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2091.html

The Dark Web is now a growing source of illegal weapons.

The largest debate is whether most illegal firearms come from theft, licensed merchants performing illegal transactions, or illegal private sales. Without actual fact, we are simply taking a shot in the dark as data exist's supporting all sides of the debate.

What is a fact is in every country in Europe as well as Australia that has implemented heavy gun control laws has only shifted the market for those who wish to visit violence on others underground. The criminal demand for weaponry remains and that demand is met.

Only the law abiding are harmed, only now it is from both sides. Criminal predators and a government who has denied their citizens the right to self defense.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 28, 2019, 08:57 AM   #46
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 648
Quote:
So not a scientific study
That is the biggest obstacle in this debate. Lack of facts as to the sources of criminal logistics on weapon supply.

In light of that fact and until that study is conducted, I do not believe it is productive to engage in "my lack of data is more valid than your lack of data". Instead, concentrate on what we do know about the effects of draconian gun laws on crime.
davidsog is offline  
Old February 28, 2019, 10:09 AM   #47
FAS1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
And why would that matter? Is the theft (of anything) somehow valid if the thief has to work harder?
Not a matter of validating how hard a thief works, rather the lack of many to secure their guns. I see stories locally all the time about thieves walking through neighborhoods and parking lots pulling on door handles. When a car is unlocked they see what they can steel.

A local news story a few years ago reported 18 UNLOCKED vehicles burglarized in one night in a prominent neighborhood. 3 firearms were stolen right there with no effort.

That's not to say the car owner is at fault for what a thief does, but we all know without taking deliberate steps to try to prevent it we would all be victims at some time or another. Locks, alarms, cameras, etc., all seem to be accepted realities if you don't want your stuff stolen. If you don't have some or all of those things your odds go up to be victimized.

With all these measures you are either simply buying time if the thief wants to work hard enough, but most will find the easier target. Personally, I want to make it as hard as possible so they move on to the easy target.
__________________
Glenn
FAS1 SAFE
FAS1 is offline  
Old March 1, 2019, 09:42 AM   #48
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 709
Quote:
A local news story a few years ago reported 18 UNLOCKED vehicles burglarized in one night in a prominent neighborhood. 3 firearms were stolen right there with no effort.
I don't think keeping a firearm in a LOCKED car overnight is very smart, let alone an UNlocked one..
Some around here keep their car unlocked so some thief doesn't break something to get inside..BUT I certainly would make sure nothing 'important'(like a GUN???), wouldn't be inside.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old March 1, 2019, 10:16 AM   #49
TBM900
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 350
And if you dig in even deeper, you'll find that the originating source for the 'stolen firearm' category is actually either via a straw purchaser or a family member. In other words, the person caught with it during the crime, had stole it from someone else who had stolen it.

Leftists/media have many times over the years used the 'stolen firearm' data point to either blame law-abiding gun owners (failing to secure their guns) or to create laws to force law abiding gun owners into securing them (mandatory gun locks). But they only looked at where the end user sourced their firearm, not where it first originated and entered the market.

Which is almost always straw purchase or stolen from a family member.
TBM900 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11901 seconds with 9 queries