Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. First, it's not just a question of whether something is illegal.
Thu Jun 21, 2012, 02:41 PM
Jun 2012

It's also a question of how effective the laws are in terms of catching and prosecuting criminals.

Second, the statute in question is not about international gun running. It is about gun trafficking within the US -- straw purchasing, basically. Right now, straw purchasing is prosecuted as "lying and buying" -- that is, lying on the form when you purchase the gun. The penalties are weak, and it is not easy to prosecute:

Straw purchasers themselves are typically prosecuted for what's known as "lying and buying": making a false statement on the federal documentation they fill out when purchasing a gun by claiming they are the actual intended possessor when, in fact, the gun is for someone else. But even in those cases, courts have held that the evidence must show the gun was purchased on behalf of a "prohibited possessor" – a felon, for example.

All of these things can be tough to prove, and several cases had been tossed over lack of evidence. Most notable was one of the last big cases the Phoenix ATF investigated before Fast and Furious – the widely publicized probe of gun shop owner George Iknadosian, who was accused of knowingly selling hundreds of guns to straw buyers.

In March 2009, a judge threw out the case against Iknadosian, noting that the weapons were purchased legally and there was no proof that they ultimately wound up in the hands of unlawful possessors. It was a hard pill to swallow, and the lead agent on that case, ATF special agent Hope MacAllister, would go on to become the lead case agent for Fast and Furious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/atf-fast-and-furious-gun-trafficking_n_914064.html

The statute that the Democrats are proposing would make it explicitly illegal to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who cannot legally possess one. As I've said above, given that several ATF agents have commented that this would be a useful tool for them, I really don't get where the resistance is coming from.
Weak gun laws or weak enforcement of gun laws? Remmah2 Jun 2012 #1
+1 Glassunion Jun 2012 #2
Great. Just what we need with November rapidly approaching. Simo 1939_1940 Jun 2012 #3
Plus it feeds into the FNC conspiracy theory that F&F was an attempt Lionessa Jun 2012 #4
Definitely weak enforcement. ManiacJoe Jun 2012 #5
I sometimes wonder if weak enforcement is intentional? Remmah2 Jun 2012 #6
I hate to think that this is a possibility ... spin Jun 2012 #65
What fucking good is "increasing the penalties" MicaelS Jun 2012 #7
It's just as good as adding a bunch of new laws slackmaster Jun 2012 #9
Gentlemen! Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #41
Obviously, the gun laws were too weak to prevent the ATF from doing what it did. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #8
It is ALREADY illegal to traffic arms to mexico or anywhere else. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #10
Sorry, your NRA talking points are wrong (again...). DanTex Jun 2012 #11
not exactly gejohnston Jun 2012 #12
Actually, there is no minimum sentence for lying and buying. DanTex Jun 2012 #17
had the intent to lie? gejohnston Jun 2012 #23
That's because one is specifically not needed. Clames Jun 2012 #13
The cluelessness... DanTex Jun 2012 #16
Like William Newell? gejohnston Jun 2012 #19
And Carlos Canillo, Lee Casa, William Forcelli... DanTex Jun 2012 #20
how would it be written? gejohnston Jun 2012 #22
Like this... DanTex Jun 2012 #24
outside of organizer and conspiracy gejohnston Jun 2012 #31
That law would not apply to intrastate manufactured firearms. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #34
Of course, "easily rendered impotent"... LOL DanTex Jun 2012 #36
...infests the anti-gun/pro-gun-control extremist. Clames Jun 2012 #42
How in the world wouldn't ITAR cover people driving guns into mexico? OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #15
First, it's not just a question of whether something is illegal. DanTex Jun 2012 #18
because it is already the law gejohnston Jun 2012 #21
LAws don't "catch and prosecute" anyone. PavePusher Jun 2012 #25
Pay close attention now! DanTex Jun 2012 #27
For some, apparently. n/t PavePusher Jun 2012 #28
LOL, I think your word salad is a little ripe/stale... OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #26
add to that gejohnston Jun 2012 #32
Head in the sand... DanTex Jun 2012 #33
If an attorney (or AG) can't prosocute expressly illegal behaviour under clearly worded laws... OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #37
Except the simple laws have obviously not sufficed. DanTex Jun 2012 #38
I understand your argument, "The old laws don't or aren't working"... OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #39
Yes, I can be very specific. DanTex Jun 2012 #40
That PDF is not a bad start. ManiacJoe Jun 2012 #43
The 1968 GCA expressly forbids nonlicensed civilians from exporting/importing firearms OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #44
In other words, you were wrong: there is no law explicitly against gun trafficking. DanTex Jun 2012 #46
Then let them have their redundant law. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #50
Also, just to be clear, I don't find that proposed legislation to be lacking or bad. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #45
If a bunch of people regulating Wall Street banks were to say... DanTex Jun 2012 #47
Apples to oranges. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #49
Only because you are in favor of one right-wing industry lobby and not the other. DanTex Jun 2012 #51
So, why no federal prosecuters? gejohnston Jun 2012 #52
No proof of YOUR claims? That's what I thought. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #53
For the 50th time... DanTex Jun 2012 #55
and once again, the GCA deals with gejohnston Jun 2012 #56
And once again, not it doesn't, as evidenced by the inability of anyone to... DanTex Jun 2012 #57
we have. gejohnston Jun 2012 #59
Go read the 18 USC § 922... I promise you it's already illegal. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #58
Round and round we go! OK, guys, I'm done trying to reason with y'all. DanTex Jun 2012 #60
come with an open mind next time while we explain gejohnston Jun 2012 #61
Mighty rich ... Straw Man Jun 2012 #62
I just noticed something gejohnston Jun 2012 #64
Isnt the prohibited end user at the heart of the Malone bill too? aikoaiko Jun 2012 #54
The law makes it damned difficult to even legally export to a "friendly" country. oneshooter Jun 2012 #48
Yep. Not enough laws. That has to be it. NT. Marinedem Jun 2012 #14
More! Harder! Faster! Deeper!!! PavePusher Jun 2012 #29
The GC&RKBA SOP does not support non-gun porn. OneTenthofOnePercent Jun 2012 #30
Porn?! PavePusher Jun 2012 #35
This thread is epic... virginia mountainman Jun 2012 #63
At some point the stupidity must be pointed out Spoonman Jun 2012 #66
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Amid ATF Fast And Furious...»Reply #18