Tucson shooting: Undercover agents expose loophole in US gun laws

[CHIMO]

Undercover investigators have exposed the ease with which high-powered guns can be bought in the US, purchasing the same type of pistol used in the Tucson massacre just two weeks later in a neighbouring city – with no questions asked.

New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, sent a team of undercover agents to the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix, Arizona, just 120 miles away from the scene of the Tucson shooting. There, on 23 January, they bought a Glock 9mm pistol of the kind wielded by Jared Loughner when he killed six people and wounded 13, including the US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a public meeting in Tucson.

The agents filmed the gun sales using hidden cameras.

They bought a Glock 17 gun for $480 (£299) and three $40 extended magazines each holding 33 bullets. Loughner had a 33-round extended magazine attached to his Glock 19, allowing him to wreak carnage in Tucson by shooting multiple times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/31/tucson-shooting-gun-bought-undercover

[fascisthunter]

1. K & R

[tosh]

2. K & invisible R.

[rrneck]

3. Good DUers check for dupes before they post. nt

[shadowrider]

4. My trip beats your dupe n/t

[left is right]

21. I post this overtime someone gets snarky about duplicate posts

I only have time to read from the latest discussion page 1. I start at the bottom of page and I read up. If time permits I refresh one time. I personally appreciate duplicates because otherwise I would not have seen this

[Euromutt]

5. Title notwithstanding, this has zilch to do with the Tucson shooting

Loughner didn't buy his weapon from a private seller at a gun show. The only thing this proves is that Gruaniad, like every British newspaper (including my beloved Economist), has nobody on the staff who knows the first thing about U.S. gun laws.

[sharesunited]

20. He bought it at the Sportsman's Warehouse, which highlights an even more shocking problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Yeah. We don't have any of those in Massachusetts.

The gun markups here are shocking.

[rl6214]

29. How is that an even more shocking problem?

He presented proper Id, passed the NICS background check. If there is a problem it is with the runins he had with the authorities prior to the shooting and they did absolutely nothing because that sheriff dupnik is a dumbshit.

[sharesunited]

30. You can't say that in a society where it is rude or politically incorrect

to commence involuntary commitment proceedings.

As a matter of fact, anyone who does go to the trouble can justifiably expect the respondent to come gunning for them!

Nice system.

Here is where we are and need to go:

Crazy is a right.

Guns and ammo are not.

[clffrdjk]

6. Repost from the other 3 threads on this topic.

So when is Bloomberg going to be brought up on charges for both setting up straw purchases and for purchasing a pistol in a state that he is not a resident of?

[shadowrider]

8. HAHAHAHA n/t

[Euromutt]

31. There's nothing to charge anybody with

The "undercover agents"/"undercover New York investigators" are actually private detectives who are Arizona residents and aren't actually prohibited from possessing firearms. But it sounds more dramatic to say "we sent a team" than to say "we hired a couple of private dicks out of the Yellow Pages."

Just like it sounds more dramatic to say "No Questions Asked" than acknowledge that the seller actually did demand to see the buyer's ID.

Funny, I don't actually see any footage of the buyer saying he "probably couldn't pass a background check." Not that that makes a whole lot of difference; there are reasons why a person who's clean as a whistle might get a "hold" or "deny" order from NICS, such as having a name and physical description resembling that of a listed prohibited person.

[RamboLiberal]

7. Two earlier threads on this story

LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4716112

Guns: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x370452

And Bloomberg's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORGlpb_HfE&feature=player_embedded

[HankyDubs]

10. hey rambolibrul

I've read some of your posts here and it seems to me that you are fair-minded and not an extremist.

Are there any posts (other than possibly your own) on those two threads from gungeon regulars praising Bloomberg for showing that illegal sales are going on at Arizona gun shows?

Shouldn't gun rights activists be pushing for a crackdown on illegal sales to protect the rights and the lives of responsible gun owners and their families?

[Euromutt]

33. What illegal sales?

Nothing that was shown on the videos (this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORGlpb_HfE and this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2u7l8rKrQ at least) was actually illegal. The "undercover agents" were private investigators resident in Arizona with no disqualifying characteristics, the guys selling firearms demanded to see ID to verify residency (and age in the process), and there are legitimate reasons why a person with a clean record might have trouble passing a NICS check, not least if his name and physique resemble that of someone in the database (not that either video shows shows the buyer claiming he "probably couldn't pass a background check," which is kind of odd; given how much weight is being given to that, you'd think it'd be included).

[Abq_Sarah]

47. The second video

LMAO at the "extended magazine clip"! The guy who put the video together doesn't have a clue what he's watching or talking about.

What's next? Is Bloomie going to send undercover investigators to make straw purchases of fertilizer and gasoline in Kansas? :eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

43. Thanks for considering me fair minded

I'm a bit surprised by many here who seem as militant as those on the right and NRA about private gun sales.

I haven't counted those supporting Bloomberg here though even in LBN it is not that many.

Personally IMHO this is the one gun law item I think Dems should push Republicans to support. I do believe that guns are a bit of a different item than most items privately sold in that they can be used criminally and to kill. And yeah I know that a lot of items can be turned in to a weapon. Just my opinion since firearms being sold by a dealer have to go through NICS I see no reason why a way couldn't be provided for all private sales to go through NICS.

I want to make sure as far as possible that anyone buying a gun is legally allowed to home. No it's not perfect but it is a start and IMHO far better than the feel good AWB & magazine limit law in the 90's.

[slackmaster]

9. People working for the mayor of NYC went to another state, lied, and illegally bought guns

No "loophole".

The fact that federal background checks aren't required in private, intrastate transfers of used firearms has nothing to do with gun shows.

[HankyDubs]

11. they illegally bought guns

after telling the seller that they couldn't pass a backgrond check...and you don't see a loophole?

[PavePusher]

12. Were the tapes edited?

Or did they show the raw footage?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[HankyDubs]

15. interesting point

if the tapes were doctored to distort what happened, that would change the matter, obviously.

But so far that is an allegation that I haven't seen supported anywhere. Sounds like a pile of shit to me at this point.

[PavePusher]

16. If you look up the previous tapes done with the VT survivor....

you will find they have been heavily edited. What is on the missing sections? No-one has revealed them, so who knows. But my guess is, since they have not been released, there must be material that undermines the claims of the Blum-bum side. Otherwise, why hide it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. So Bloomberg has the ethical standards of James O'Keefe. Interesting

[HankyDubs]

25. where does that conclusion come from?

thin air?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Both release heavily edited "gotcha" videos, that when examined closely...

...do not show what they are loudly purported to.

[rl6214]

32. How many sellers did they go to and were turned away

that they didn't show the footage of? There had to have been some, they didn't just walk up to the first guy and make a purchase. They edited the tape not showing everything.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. You just admitted a criminal conspiracy by Bloomie and his stooges?

So why should we expect anyone else to follow the law?

"Gun control for thee, but not for me.", indeed.

And (as usual) what you claim isn't quite accurate- Bloomie's boys used weasel words

X_Digger described it best:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=370629&mesg_id=370646

X_Digger (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-31-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I believe the rule is 'know or have reason to believe'-- which explains the mealy-mouthed dialog

They don't come right out and claim to be a prohibited person- because nobody would sell to them, and Bloomie's PR stunt money would be wasted.

No, they have to finesse the language into a good ol boy joke- and then try to claim that it proves something.

[HankyDubs]

14. there's no criminal conspiracy here

unless its a criminal conspiracy to reveal the truth.

"I believe the rule is 'know or have reason to believe"

If someone tells you they can't pass a background check...that's a good reason to believe they can't pass a background check.

[X_Digger]

17. But that's not what they said..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zZnvo_x5tA

"I probably wouldn't pass one, you know what I mean?" (laughing)

.. and then the seller proceeds to check the guy's ID to make sure he's an Arizona resident.

If the guy were unscrupulous, why would he have checked ID?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. So it was just cheap political theater instead of proof of criminal acts?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see that Emperor Bloomberg, Tsar Of All The Boroughs, has once again put one over on that coalition of

rubes, wowsers, Mrs. Grundies, numpties, delicate flowers, and moralizers known as "gun control advocates".

[HankyDubs]

26. Tsar

OMG OBAMA HAS TSARS!!! FREEDUMB!

Don't worry, I won't report this post just because you insulted all gun control advocates.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Ahem. "emperor bloomberg" About 3,590 results (0.14 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=%22emperor%20bloomberg%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw

Knowledge is good. You might consider acquiring some...

[HankyDubs]

24. it is what they said

"I probably wouldn't pass one, you know what I mean."

Now pretend for a second that you weren't obsessed with this single issue--Ready?

Don't you think that the seller has a reasonable suspicion after hearing this statement that the buyer would not pass a background check? Didn't he just say in so many words that he wouldn't pass such a check?

What is the objection to the idea that every gun seller at a gun show should be mandated to participate in the NICS system? I mean that would eliminate entirely this ridiculous subjective standard and make it harder for the criminally insane to purchase firepower?

Is there a rational objection? Love to hear it.

[X_Digger]

28. Like I've stated before- if it were an 800# that you could call..

.. and it preserved anonymous ownership, I'd be for it. Or if, as Krispos42 proposed, a corner of your license was colored to indicate that you'd been NICS pre-screened.

[kudzu22]

44. Didn't hear that in the video

that was linked in the OP. Maybe there's another one that I haven't seen.

[Euromutt]

34. "Probably" does not equal "definitely"

Sometimes people get a "hold" or "deny" response from NICS even though they're clean as a whistle, but have the misfortune of having the same name as, and a similar physical description to someone who is in the system.

There is a lot of room for ambiguity in a phrase like "I probably couldn't pass a background check," which is precisely why Bloomberg's hired private dicks use it.

[slackmaster]

36. When two people break a law, that's not a manifestation of a loophole

Get your definitions straight.

[kudzu22]

45. If breaking the law constitutes a 'loophole' then every law has a loophole

The speeding laws have the "no cops around" loophole

Tax laws have the "lying on your return" loophole

When they talk about the "gun show loophole" they mean that people can buy guns LEGALLY without a background check. It's still illegal to sell to someone you know is prohibited from owning firearms, background check or not.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

35. Why is a mayor conducting covert sting operations in other states?

Who does this asshole think he is, the head of ATF or something? It's very Bush-y, really, to way overstep boundaries and take unilateral actions that circumvent established protocols. Next thing he's going to invade Mexico.

[Remmah2]

37. and who's money is he spending? nt

nt

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Of course, Loughner had no trouble buying his at SPORTS AUTHORITY.

Clearly the gun shows caused this.

[PavePusher]

46. Umm, I think you mean "Sportsmans Warehouse".

To the best of my knowledge, "Sports Authority" does not sell handguns.

[armueller2001]

41. Wow, I wasn't aware that the 9mm round

was considered "high-powered". Compared to what, a BB gun?

[RamboLiberal]

42. Cho killed 34 with 9mm and 22

May not be considered a man stopper but it kills with some effeciency.