How Criminals Obtain Guns

[5whiskey]

So I was perusing a few things today in my "goof off" time, and ran across something interesting. Why? Well I was trying to decide if I could ever support a UBC bill if it was well written and contained language that would exempt gifts to family, loaning to friends, etc.

SO... with no further ado, the DOJ was so kind as to conduct research into how convicted criminals currently serving prison time for gun crimes obtained the firearms used in the crimes. Here is the link...

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Here are some takeaways

more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.

So more than half of the guns used in crimes are admittedly either found at the crime scene, stolen, or black market purchases. A quarter was "given" the firearm by family or friends (I suspect this is where straw purchases come in).

The information continues...

-About 1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense.

-Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, 0.8% obtained it at a gun show.

So my takeaway at least, is the "gun show loophole" can be put to bed as a myth (we already knew that). Less than 1% of guns used in crimes among this populace were obtained from a gun show. A little over 1% purchased the gun at a gun shop.

Oh, and this seems to reinforce what we have long suspected and argued here... the word is out on BGCs being required to purchase a firearm through FFLs, so most criminals obtain their firearms through illegal/black market channels. Oh and "gifts from friends or family" (still think this pretty much = straw purchases). Your thoughts?

[44 AMP]

They call it a loophole, but I always thought it was just obeying the law.

"gifts from friends or family" (still think this pretty much = straw purchases). Your thoughts?

While a straw purchase is quite possible, there are other possibilities, such as, the "gifter" not knowing they gave a gift (aka stolen from family), or an actual gift of a firearm they already had for some time. Remember its only a strawman purchase if its bought in order to give it to someone else. Guns that a family member or friend has had for years (legal or otherwise) given to the criminal would not be a straw purchase.

Do consider that some of the people in jail are from "career criminal" families. Multiple members of a family group possibly spanning generations. I think you might find situations where the gun(s) that Uncle Jimmy had before he went up the river, and Aunt Gwen still has stashed somewhere might wind up in the hands of nephews or cousins when they need a "piece"... as a "gift".

[zukiphile]

While a straw purchase is quite possible, there are other possibilities, such as, the "gifter" not knowing they gave a gift (aka stolen from family), or an actual gift of a firearm they already had for some time. Remember its only a strawman purchase if its bought in order to give it to someone else. Guns that a family member or friend has had for years (legal or otherwise) given to the criminal would not be a straw purchase.

Or even a convicted felon who actually stole a firearm is smart enough not to confess to Justice that, in addition to his other crimes, he also stole a gun.

[mehavey]

So my takeaway at least, is the "gun show loophole" can be put to bed as a myth

Truth, logic... and outright facts. . . are irrelevant in the game now afoot.
Remember that . . . if you want to play the game.

[USNRet93]

Well I was trying to decide if I could ever support a UBC bill if it was well written and contained language that would exempt gifts to family, loaning to friends, etc.

Not getting into the whys and where-fors of a UBC..but how would a UBC differ from what's happening now..in that all states have 'BG' check requirements?

Be Fed based is the big difference? Be the purview of the FBI/ATF< whomever in the FED(my CO one goes thru CBI)..?

Not arguing for or against except the 'will impact law abiding individuals'..a BGC done by state does that now, yes?

The stats above are eye opening, BTW..I would have thought it would be higher(obtained legally).
I think another point is with 'mass shootings', often the gent doesn't survive(suicide), BGC wasn't 'effective', mental illness is a factor(mass murder is kinda the definition of 'mentally ill', isn't it?) and it receives the most MSM coverage..VS just 'crimes'..

[kmw1954]

1.3% obtained through retail and 0.8% obtained through Gun Shows.

So at the time of the purchase the buyer either was NOT restricted or the Seller also committed a crime! Therefore should also be found and prosecuted. Or this was done as a private "Face to Face" sale where allowed and of dubious means.

By law those two stats should be at Zero %. and even 0.001% is too much. Unless of course you believe BGC are illegal or an infringement and need to be eliminated.

[Onward Allusion]

LOL . . .

"Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates"

Gotta take the number with a grain of salt, gentlemen. Those were the really dumb ones who answered . . .

[44 AMP]

well, two points mentioned that should be looked into...

"Based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates"

The common problem with all surveys is that, for the results to mean anything, those participating have to tell the truth. Some would take the responses at face value, figuring, "why would they lie?? They're already in prison" To which I would respond, "why wouldn't they lie? They're already in prison!"

I'm reminded of a survey done a few years back (ok decades, ) about high school kids having sex. The results said high school boys were getting it all the time and the girls never did it. The survey was "accurate" in that they accurately reported the results they got, but it wasn't in line with the real world (and this time it was obviously so,) because they were relying on the anonymous answers of high school kids. Lots of people LIE on surveys, just because they can, and do it screw up the survey,

The other point mentioned is a good one, and deserves consideration, as well.

OF that 1.3% and .8% how many of those "legal" purchases were actually legal purchases, done BEFORE the criminal committed any crimes??

We see about 2% (according to a survey... of criminals...) illegally obtaining guns through the legal process. And we say 'that's too many!" but do we know what percentage of them were prohibited persons when they bought the gun? If they weren't a prohibited person, then they were legal to buy the gun, were not legally a criminal when they bought the gun. The fact that LATER they used their legally obtained gun to commit a crime and wound up in prison needs to be factored in (or out?), because it skews your results if you're looking for where criminals got their guns.

[unclejack37]

Interesting, I guess it depends on what you want to believe. Maybe the DOJ in the article above was trying to prove their point that most guns are stolen. Here's another point made by an ATF agent on the same subject.http://https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/page...ocon/guns.html I do believe that background checks works some of the time.

[riffraff]

I think the biggest problem with the arguments surrounding background checks is the public is never made aware that even with a private sale, guns can never legally cross state lines.

So even if in (insert State here) they allow sales without a background check to dangerous felons at every gun show (like they say on the news) - the people buying the guns need to be residents of that state.. If the guns somehow get re-sold over state lines that's already illegal, so problems are isolated to the state where the sales are happening unless somebody is breaking the law..

Well that and the fact that terms like "buying guns online" are thrown around, which is a complete farce.

The non gun owning public is led to think all these channels of easy gun access are available so they think UBC is closing some huge hole.

[kmw1954]

riffraffI believe I have to agree with that sentiment. That many non-gun people have that perspective and have that idea because that is what they have been repeatedly told and have never taken the time to research the issue.

They hear it on the news, they read it in their papers and hear from their politicians so "it must be true!".

[USNRet93]

Not getting into the whys and where-fors of a UBC..but how would a UBC differ from what's happening now..in that all states now have 'BG' check requirements?

Be Fed based is the big difference? Be the purview of the FBI/ATF< whomever in the FED(my CO one goes thru CBI)..?

Not arguing for or against except the 'will impact law abiding individuals'..a BGC done by state does that now, yes?

Asking again cuz I don't know.

[zukiphile]

Be Fed based is the big difference?

A federally enforced restriction differs from a state enforced restriction because the federal government isn't a state government, and has different powers and limits.

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by riffraff

Well that and the fact that terms like "buying guns online" are thrown around, which is a complete farce.

I could rant a while about misconceptions held by the non-gun-buying public, but you just hit one of them (and I'll be brief). I know people (anti-gunners) who think that if you can't buy a gun from a licensed dealer (ostensibly because you can't pass the background check), then you just go to Gunbroker.com and get anything you want, same as buying shoes off eBay. They really think this, and I can't entirely blame them, because leaders of anti-gun culture are so loose with the term "online sales," which suggests an open, unregulated free-for-all. Keep repeating a lie until it becomes a form of truth.

Then there's the "gun-show loophole" myth ... never mind.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

A federally enforced restriction differs from a state enforced restriction because the federal government isn't a state government, and has different powers and limits.

I understand that but without stating anything pro or con about UBC...and since the US Feds require all retail gun sales be via a background check by the state..how would a Fed UBC be any different or restricting?

[zukiphile]

I understand that but without stating anything pro or con about UBC...and since the US Feds require all retail gun sales be via a background check by the state..how would a Fed UBC be any different or restricting?

The federal government has the power to control transactions with its licensees. There is no federal requirement to conduct a background check on a transaction from a non-licensee.

If you live in a state that has exercised its general police power to regulate transactions between all individuals by prohibiting transactions in which no UBC has been conducted, that is arguably a matter within the scope of a state’s general police power, which is extraordinarily broad.

The federal government, lacking that same general police power, would lack the legal authority to regulate intrastate commerce amongst its nonlicensees, and Congress would need to make a finding that categorically intrastate commerce is a matter of or impacts interstate commerce under one of the post Hoover judicial expansions of that authority.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The federal government has the power to control transactions with its licensees. There is no federal requirement to conduct a background check on a transaction from a non-licensee.

If you live in a state that has exercised its general police power to regulate transactions between all individuals by prohibiting transactions in which no UBC has been conducted, that is arguably a matter within the scope of a state’s general police power, which is extraordinarily broad.

The federal government, lacking that same general police power, would lack the legal authority to regulate intrastate commerce amongst its nonlicensees, and Congress would need to make a finding that categorically intrastate commerce is a matter of or impacts interstate commerce under one of the post Hoover judicial expansions of that authority.

Considering the mess in DC right now..do you think this would ever make it out of committee, let alone for a vote and then to trump? Seems unlikely..

[zukiphile]

Considering the mess in DC right now..do you think this would ever make it out of committee, let alone for a vote and then to trump? Seems unlikely..

"Ever" is along time and people can be short-sighted, fickle, craven, dim and opportunistic; it's the human condition. It only takes a temporary "fever over the land" for a bad idea to take on the force of law. After a shooting, put a weeping mother or a child spouting undiluted nonsense on the television, and you'll see people, even those who write on gun fora, recoil from defense of the right.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just for info - the loophole language debate needs a sophisticated view.

1. Private sales at gun shows or between individuals without checks in states are legal.

2. At some gun shows, we had large tables of 'private' sales and individuals parading with posters and guns - saying they were private sales. That has been toned down by the management.

In the past, cities have argued that gun shows were a magnet for private sellers to gather for illegal sales, esp. in parking lots. Some cities banned gun shows on the grounds of being attractive nuisances.

3. The loophole means that you avoid a NICS check (or approved LTC type sale), so that if you are not legal, you can buy the gun without a check.

4. 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.

5. Since new guns do enter the criminal market, the channels are being investigated for the relative proportions from gun stores doing straw man sales in large quantities, thefts, family handowns, etc. Time to crime is the term for these. Interesting, I heard a presentation that on the average, a NIB gun, if used in crime, took about 10 years to be in a crime. If the NIB was sold to a second party, then it was 5 years. That suggested the second sale came closer to a criminal application.

6. As a marketing problem, the neutral or antigun person doesn't see why if you will go through a NICS for a new gun, you won't for a used private gun sale. The arguments given, seem to me, are only convincing to those already convinced about the RKBA in purist form. I'd bet we see more state UBCs and a Fed one if the politics are right. Fighting the Socialist wave isn't going to be convincing.

This is for your information, folks.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Just for info - the loophole language debate needs a sophisticated view.

1. Private sales at gun shows or between individuals without checks in states are legal.

2. At some gun shows, we had large tables of 'private' sales and individuals parading with posters and guns - saying they were private sales. That has been toned down by the management.

Indeed, though these aren't loopholes; they are just private sales.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

4. 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.

That sounds like a great hunting opportunity for law enforcement if it's true.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

6. As a marketing problem, the neutral or antigun person doesn't see why if you will go through a NICS for a new gun, you won't for a used private gun sale. The arguments given, seem to me, are only convincing to those already convinced about the RKBA in purist form.

That illustrates the importance of continuing education, but not the wisdom of popular error.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Fighting the Socialist wave isn't going to be convincing.

Recent events suggest otherwise.

Congressional democrats are running from the Green New Deal, a marketing effort for the old red one, as if it were poison.

Originally Posted by Kyle Smith

How bad is the debut of the Green New Deal looking a week later? “Dead on arrival” makes it sound better than it is. It’s more like Zima meets Green Lantern times Bill Simmons’s HBO show. It’s such a disaster that Democrats and their media allies are calling Mitch McConnell a nefarious schemer for proposing to allow them to vote on their own idea. A party whose loudest voice avers that we’re 144 months from the end of the world if we don’t “address climate change” (and that was almost a month ago!) is saying, “Hey, let’s not slam the pedal to the metal and rush this thing all the way to the voting-on-a-nonbinding-resolution phase this year.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...for-democrats/

Identifying the ways in which a movement, the specific goal of which is to expand state power and constrict the rights of individuals protected by constitutional government, educates and informs, and in this case prompts shame and retreat. Identifying a movement that proposes to take not just your guns, but your insurance, home, car, air travel etc, appropriately stigmatizes it.

[riffraff]

In regard to the last 2 posts - I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession. It would seem really easy to setup a sting - post some guns on Armslist, when they buyer shows up and pulls out the $$ you inform them you are the police, take their ID, and run a background check - if they pass go ahead and sell them the gun, if they are prohibited then arrest them.

[zukiphile]

Perhaps there is greater compliance with current regulation than some fear.

But the GAO report also reinforced what the NRA has said all along, that online sales are not “unregulated” but subject to the same federal laws that apply to any other commercial or private gun sales. These include licensing for commercial sellers (with the attendant responsibility to identify buyers, keep transaction records, and run background checks), restrictions for all sellers on transacting across state lines, and a ban on selling to anyone with reason to believe the person is prohibited.

GAO’s findings showed nothing so much as that private sellers advertising online are knowledgeable about the law, conscientious, and self-policing. Fifty-six of the sellers (78%) “outright refused to complete a transaction once our undercover agents revealed either that the shipping address was across state lines or that the agent was prohibited from owning firearms.” In five other cases, the forum on which the ad was posted “froze” the prospective buyers’ accounts and blocked the transaction once information on their prohibited status was revealed. The agents failed to complete the remaining 11 cases because they determined the sellers wanted to take their money without actually making delivery of the firearm.

In every single case, however, the sellers would not deliver a firearm to a buyer they had reason to believe was prohibited or lived in a different state. The GAO report also showed that websites and legitimate sellers were willing to freeze out suspicious actors and cooperate with law enforcement officials to identify and successfully prosecute criminals operating online.

Emphasis added.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...un-controllers

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by riffraff

In regard to the last 2 posts - I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession. It would seem really easy to setup a sting - post some guns on Armslist, when they buyer shows up and pulls out the $$ you inform them you are the police, take their ID, and run a background check - if they pass go ahead and sell them the gun, if they are prohibited then arrest them.

I see all types of issues with setting up a sting of a scale that would be effective for the cost and manpower involved, and it's a whole lot more complex than looking for johns with new female recruits:

From a citizen's perspective, this could easily be seen as an expensive gallivant if they spend $100K and get very few felon in possession off the street.

Are you willing to sell the guns to lawful purchasers for the same price that stumble across the ad? Does that drive an 'unfair competition' clause in state or federal regulations? For the volume you're doing, do you have the right business licenses / FFL license? (Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix got snagged on that one).

Is this entrapment?

Credit cards over the internet? Whose front are you going to use?
and on and on

[44 AMP]

I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession.

When asked why we don't prosecute people who lie on the 4473 form (prohibited person trying to buy a gun is a crime, lying on the form is another crime..) the second highest official of the Executive branch, the Vice President (at the time, Joe Biden) answered, "We don't have time for that."


The current administration doesn't seem to have altered that priority.


I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason...

[kmw1954]

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. But we need more laws that involve non-criminals with guns. Guess that makes sense if the final goal is to make everyone a felon therefore no one can own a gun.