Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Drug Control Breeds Gun Control
Two weeks ago (as Radley Balko noted), a Fox News story by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott debunked the commonly heard factoid that 90 percent of the firearms used by Mexican drug traffickers come from American dealers. In a front-page story about gun smuggling on Tuesday, The New York Times modified the claim, saying "90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers last year and asked to be traced came from [gun] dealers in the United States." But according to La Jeunesse and Lott, that's not quite right either:
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced—and of those, 90 percent—5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover—were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
Hence La Jeunesse and Lott's conclusion that "only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S." Which sounds a lot less impressive than 90 percent.
Does the percentage matter? Rhetorically, yes, because gun controllers argue that more restrictions should be placed on American gun buyers to reduce smuggling of firearms to Mexico. The Times story implicitly makes an argument for heavier regulation of long gun sales and requiring private sellers to do background checks (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole"). It also suggests that the sheer number of retailers, such as the "1,500 licensed gun dealers in the Houston area, easily accessible to Mexico," is a problem.
The story does acknowledge skepticism that limiting Americans' gun rights will reduce violence in Mexico:
With billions in profits from illegal drugs, the cartels can easily obtain weapons on the black market in other countries, [NRA Executive Vice President Wayne] LaPierre and many gun dealers argue. "The cartels have the money to get guns wherever they want," said Charles Fredien, the owner of Chuck's Gun in Brownsville, Tex., on the border "They have grenades, don't they? They don't buy grenades here."
You might think the persistence of the drug traffickers' main business, which consists of transporting and selling products that are entirely illegal on both sides of the border, would give pause to those who think they can block the flow of guns to the cartels. Instead, the violence fostered by drug control feeds demands for equally futile gun control.
In February I noted Attorney General Eric Holder's call for renewing the federal "assault weapon" ban in response to Mexico's prohibition-related violence. The Cato Institute's David Rittgers detects a rhetorical shift from "assault weapons," which was always an arbitrary and fuzzy category, to "military-style weapons," which he says is potentially "a term inclusive of all modern firearms in a back-door attempt to enact a new gun control scheme."
Addendum: Radley Balko points out that President Obama yesterday used the erroneous 90 percent figure during his visit to Mexico, where he reiterated his support for an "assault weapon" ban. "Some 90 per cent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States," Obama said, repeating a claim made by Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Elemenope|4.17.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Drug Control Breeds Gun Control
Shhhhhh! Don't fucking tell them that!
-------
In other news, what, no coverage of the torture memos?
|4.17.09 @ 1:15PM|#
It's too bad there aren't any laws already on the books which cover transporting weapons across our borders.
|4.17.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Elemenope,
Torture was bad when the previous administration was doing it, but
we're not going to prosecute any of those fellows, because dey vus
juzt obeyink orders. We don't want to set a precedent or anything
if this administration decides to do questionable
things.
Elemenope|4.17.09 @ 1:31PM|#
ProL --
If that were the case, they never would have released the memos in
the first place. Knowing now what was in the memos, prosecutions on
some level are now probably practically unavoidable.
Observe: "We will not release the memos." [gnashing and wailing
from outside] "OK, fine, here are the memos."
...
"We will not prosecute anyone on the basis of the evidence provided
in the memos." [gnashing and wailing from outside] "OK, fine, if
you insist..."
You see, if they looked too willing, they would be accused of
political sniping. So they can't. But if they didn't want to, it
makes no sense for them to release the memos in the first
place.
spambot|4.17.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Indeed they can not control drug traffic across the border and drugs are illegal. So they think making guns illegal (or more so) will fix the problem. Errrr right.
mark|4.17.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Can someone please explain to me what is wrong with closing the "gun show loophole"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could walk into a gun show and buy a gun on the spot for which I would normally need a waiting period and background check, if I bought that same gun in a gun shop. Just trying to figure out what the debate is here. (I'm against reviving the AWB but I'm totally confused about the gun show debate)
Elemenope|4.17.09 @ 1:38PM|#
mark --
The debate is whether background checks and waiting periods are
reasonable regulation at all. Gun control advocates want
to close the gun show loophole, gun rights advocates want to expand
the loophole into the universal status quo.
Blossom|4.17.09 @ 1:39PM|#
What pisses me off is that Obama says he will now have US citizens searched when entering Mexico.
|4.17.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Of the 5,114, how many can be traced to US government aid to
Mexico?
That is one question I would like asked.
|4.17.09 @ 1:42PM|#
mark - there is no "gun show loophole". The law at gun shows is
the same as anywhere else. If you are a gun dealer you have to
submit the name of the purchaser for a check.
If you are not a dealer, (i.e. a private sale: a widow selling her
husbands guns, my buddy selling me his pistol) no check is
needed.
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could walk into a gun show and buy a gun on the spot for which I would normally need a waiting period and background check, if I bought that same gun in a gun shop.
If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show you need a background
check and you need to comply with any waiting periods.
If, on the other hand, you buy a gun from a private individual at a
gun show you don't need a background check and you don't need to
comply with any waiting periods. Just as you would not have to do
those things if you went to the sellers home and made the deal
there.
Local and state laws an add additional restrictions but that's
another story.
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Correction:
Local and state laws can add additional restrictions but
that's another story.
James said it first and with more brevity.
Paul|4.17.09 @ 1:54PM|#
What pisses me off is that Obama says he will now have US
citizens searched when entering Mexico.
Linky?
|4.17.09 @ 1:54PM|#
"Closing the gun show loophole" = imposing restrictions on
private citizens rights to sell their guns in one setting (a gun
show), but not in another (their home).
Once the gun show loophole is closed, expect to hear about the
"garage sale loophole" or somesuch. Its a ratchet; it only turns
one way.
Paul|4.17.09 @ 1:55PM|#
To the gun control advocate, the "gun show loophole" is the mere existence of gun shows.
Paul|4.17.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Seattle closed its own gun show loophole: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950630&slug=2128924
LarryA|4.17.09 @ 2:06PM|#
If, on the other hand, you buy a gun from a private
individual at a gun show you don't need a background check and you
don't need to comply with any waiting periods. Just as you would
not have to do those things if you went to the sellers home and
made the deal there.
I would add that according to BATFE any person who makes more than
occasional private sale must be licensed as a dealer and comply
with the background check rules. I'd tell you how many guns you
could sell and still be "occasional," but the BATFE refuses to
answer that question.
Therefore there are no "unlicensed dealers" in the U.S. Only
federally-licensed dealers and criminals commercially sell guns
here.
Joel|4.17.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Mark,
The guilty little secret of "gun show loophole" hoplophobes is that
it isn't just gun shows. Any federal law closing the "loophole"
would essentially outlaw all private sales. The better to make sure
all guns have paper trails.
Also, what Paul said.
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Therefore there are no "unlicensed dealers" in the U.S."
Which leads one to ask, if there are all these guns in Mexico being
traced back to BHO'd "gun stores on the border" why aren't we
starting to see arrests of the dealers who are making the
sales?
It would not take an investigation of more than a few transactions
before one conspirator spilled the beans, I'm thinking.
Actually, what i'm thinking is this particular trade is nowhere
near as extensive as announced.
How about the way more likely scenario that corrupt officials in
Mexico are diverting arms from police and military arsenals to the
cartels. Or that the cartels are buying weapons from channels other
than the US. There are countries where the paperwork of firearms
transactions are nowhere near as onerous as the US. And plenty of
corrupt officials to look the other way.
old poet|4.17.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Addendum: Radley Balko points out that President Obama
yesterday used the erroneous 90 percent figure during his visit to
Mexico, where he reiterated his support for an "assault weapon"
ban.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
B|4.17.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Restricting my rights because of lawlessness in Mexico is pure fucking insanity. Anyone who supports such bullshit should be run out of town on a rail.
Nick|4.17.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Obama will tell any lie to foster support for more gun control/abolishment of gun rights.
B|4.17.09 @ 2:50PM|#
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could walk into a gun show and
buy a gun on the spot for which I would normally need a waiting
period and background check, if I bought that same gun in a gun
shop."
I don't know what state you live in, but there is no nationwide
mandated waiting period, if the instant background check is
successful.
T|4.17.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Problem: Government solution to previous "problem" isn't
working.
Solution: More of the same, but harder! Faster! Stronger!
It's not about solving the problem, is it?
B|4.17.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Not surprising that the one person on this thread (I won't mention any names) that knows the least about guns and the existing law is the one pushing hardest for new restrictions.
Paul|4.17.09 @ 2:59PM|#
I'd tell you how many guns you could sell and still be
"occasional," but the BATFE refuses to answer that
question.
Typical government/law enforcement.
I can't tell you what the law is, but we'll arrest you if you break
it.
Meaning that in the agencies eyes, there is somewhere a metric,
somewhere a definition that they recognize when the line is
crossed.
I still say that in modern times, ignorance of the law is
an excuse.
|4.17.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Paul:
"there is somewhere a metric, somewhere a definition that they
recognize when the line is crossed."
I think it's more like art. BATFE doesn't know much about gun
dealers, but they know 'em when they see 'em.
T|4.17.09 @ 3:32PM|#
BATFE doesn't know much about gun dealers, but they know 'em
when they see 'em.
You could amend that to include machine guns and explosives. BATFE
don't know much about them either, but they'll damn sure try to
prosecute you for having them.
Elemenope|4.17.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Not surprising that the one person on this thread (I won't
mention any names) that knows the least about guns and the existing
law is the one pushing hardest for new restrictions.
Who is pushing for restrictions?
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 4:01PM|#
"I think it's more like art. BATFE doesn't know much about gun
dealers, but they know 'em when they see 'em."
I though that was pornography.
Of course most of the liberals I know think gun dealers are
obscene.
kinnath|4.17.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Since he used the 90% figure yesterday, it's not
"erroneous", it's "lying".
Truthful, but misleading. Not the same as an actual lie.
|4.17.09 @ 4:37PM|#
Truthful, but misleading. Not the same as an actual
lie.
Material omissions can make anything a lie. I am quite comfortable
that any use of the 90% figure that is not heavily qualified is a
lie. A despicable lie, told knowingly to advance a perfidious
agenda.
T|4.17.09 @ 4:38PM|#
A despicable lie, told knowingly to advance a perfidious
agenda.
I think you just summed up politics.
|4.17.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Truthful? It wouldn't be truthful for me to say 90% of people are against abortion, when really 9 out of 10 people I surveyed in a Eucharistic Adoration chapel are against it.
kinnath|4.17.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Material omissions can make anything a lie. I am quite
comfortable that any use of the 90% figure that is not heavily
qualified is a lie. A despicable lie, told knowingly to advance a
perfidious agenda.
po TAY to . . . po TAH to . . ;-)
kinnath|4.17.09 @ 4:50PM|#
Radley Balko points out that President Obama yesterday used
the erroneous 90 percent figure during his visit to Mexico, where
he reiterated his support for an "assault weapon" ban.
The good and honorable Mr. Balko does not give us the context of
the use of the 90% claim.
If POTUS said "a study says . . . " The it would be truthful, but
highly misleading. Standard operatind procedure for politics.
If POTUS used no qualifiers, then I would tend more towards R C
Dean's position.
cuernimus|4.17.09 @ 5:50PM|#
How many of these weapons originate from American manufacturers under assumption that they will be used by the Mexican government to fight the drug war? The weapons would still originate from the US, but the current administration isn't going to stop throwing weapons at the "problem," even if most of these weapons eventually end up in the hands of cartels.
|4.17.09 @ 7:12PM|#
Just in case someone mistakenly thinks Barry invented the technique, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebels called it "The Big Lie". Tell a whopper and people are more likely to believe it than a little fib, especially if its what they were expecting/wanting to hear.
|4.17.09 @ 7:19PM|#
The real hoot about the "Gun Show Loophole" comes in two
parts.
#1. The private sellers can't run a background check if they wanted
to. NICS requires a valid Federal Firearms Liscense number as part
of the transaction, and they don't have one.
#2. Many of them used to have an FFL, and would be willing and able
to run the instant checks, but the Clinton administration, formerly
the most anti-gun administration in US history but now a fading
second place, coerced about 40,000 FFL holders to give up their
liscenses, which brings us back to #1.
mark|4.17.09 @ 7:45PM|#
DDS, that is incredible! Thanks everyone for clearing up this
issue for me.
So can all those confiscated Mexican guns be traced to American
dealers and then to the individuals who bought those very guns? If
that's true I see no need for additional legislation.
mark|4.17.09 @ 7:59PM|#
Or more generally, is there already some national standard for
keeping track of the chain of custody of a regulated gun? I'm just
trying to figure out if there are already adequate laws and
practices in place to 1) keep guns out of the hands of
criminals/traffickers and 2) find and prosecute those who sell guns
to aforementioned criminals?
I know the AWB has nothing to do with gun smuggling to Mexico, and
having my President lie about the issue in order to pass unrelated
and useless legislation is enough of a reason not to vote for him
again, but I'm still concerned about criminals having easy access
to guns, as I'm sure most of you are.
Robert|4.17.09 @ 9:31PM|#
Mark, your concern is already obsolete. All the criminal has to do is manufacture his own gun if he can't get it on the black market. Digital fabrication has already made that easier. Don't get me started on Universal Assemblers.
|4.17.09 @ 9:33PM|#
Mexican citizens who are able to afford it have armed security
guards protect their families, in their homes and out. So Obama
wants Americans to give up their rights to buy and own guns to
fight drug cartels in Mexico.....while Mexicans hire people to
protect them. Unbelievable....
He wants to take away our second amendment rights - - time for
impeachment considerations.
cuernimus|4.17.09 @ 9:43PM|#
Or more generally, is there already some national standard for keeping track of the chain of custody of a regulated gun?
Certain states and cities have registration but there is no federal
registry of ownership of a particular firearm (because they
generally lead to gun confiscation). Finding all previous owners of
a particular weapon usually requires individual detective
work.
but I'm still concerned about criminals having easy access to guns, as I'm sure most of you are.
No, not really, or at least not in the way you are. First off, what
crime exists that would entail someone needing to be kept away from
guns yet not be kept in prison? I can see keeping guns away from
someone with severe psychological problems, but that's not a crime.
Also, keep in mind that guns are very much equivalent to drugs in
that they are relatively cheap and easy to smuggle (and thus easy
to have a black market form). So if people with nefarious plans in
mind can easily circumvent the law to obtain a weapon, who is
affected by these laws? For every story of a murderer who exploited
the "gun-show loophole" you could probably find a story about
someone murdered waiting for the 5-day background check to allow
him/her to legally protect him/herself.
|4.17.09 @ 9:43PM|#
Mark,
If you look at the most gun-unfriendly places on earth, places
where gun ownership has either never been allowed or severely
restricted, THERE IS STILL GUN CRIME. Look at Britain as an
example.
No Federal law depriving legitimate gun owners of their rights will
have the slightest effect on criminal activity. Anyone who thinks
it will is delusional.
I suspect, however, that those who push such ideas are not at all
delusional; they simply know they wish to promulgate and enforce
laws that most Americans would not support. Knowing that they might
face armed revolt should the anger rise high enough, they wish to
preempt this possibility.
The first step is to make ownership difficult and expensive; once
there are fewer legitimate gun owners, the next step will be
confiscation.
Maybe you don't remember Diane Feinstein's comment about wanting to
be able to say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" some years
back. I DO remember it, and I know the gun-grabbers will stop at
nothing to get what they want. No lie is too dirty, no associate
too despicable--as far as their concerned the end justifies the
means, and that goes for whatever means are required.
Publilius|4.17.09 @ 9:44PM|#
Or more generally, is there already some national standard
for keeping track of the chain of custody of a regulated gun? I'm
just trying to figure out if there are already adequate laws and
practices in place to 1) keep guns out of the hands of
criminals/traffickers and 2) find and prosecute those who sell guns
to aforementioned criminals?
New guns have a paper trail from the manufacturer or importer down
to the individual gun dealer and the original individual purchaser.
After that, a firearm may be sold to another individual without any
record.
However, you should check out the prices of new firearms in a gun
store. Criminals don't need to pay that kind of money. They buy
stolen guns for a fraction of the new cost. So the bottom line is
that few criminals buy guns through dealers.
We can't keep drugs out of the hands of those who want them, and
those are completely illegal. I can't think of any way to keep
firearms out of the hands of criminals.
|4.17.09 @ 9:44PM|#
I've heard that we (the US gov't) sell Mexico weaponry.
What percentage of the weapons that turn up at crime scenes are the
weapons their own security forces have "lost?"
|4.17.09 @ 9:52PM|#
My home state is rattling the cages of the anti-gun people:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/04/16/legi/top/65st_090416_statesrights.txt
Even most liberal Democrats here don't want to be associated with
gun control.
|4.17.09 @ 9:53PM|#
One thing that hasn't received much attention is that Iran has
established a rather large embassy in Nicaragua.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iranians-plant-their-flag-in-wilds-of-nicaragua/70934/
While they may be interested in trade, the Iranians have some
experience in smuggling weapons to insurgent groups. There's also a
revenge angle in that we have done rather little to stem the flow
of opium from Afghanistan to Iran.
|4.17.09 @ 10:22PM|#
Since they were able to trace these guns, that means that they know what type the guns are. Why is that not in the report?? They should be able to produce a list of the guns and identify them.
|4.17.09 @ 10:26PM|#
The Admin. also just signed up to push the UN's International
Small Arms Treaty fiasco. This is a back door way to get at your
guns and the market for them and blame someone else.
They will blame the UN and "international" entities. Which will
warm the heart of Justice Ginsburg, being the ever inclusive
internationalist herself.
And we will riot in the street.
hmm|4.17.09 @ 10:33PM|#
A weapons ban won't come until after the next round of
elections. The democrats are already scared they are going to lose
seats and more than a few of them are in their seats due to pro gun
points of view.
This is all actually a cunning plan by Big O to stimulate the
economy. The price of ammo and the waiting time for lower receivers
that are even remotely assault oriented are astronomical. I think
some places have started give wait times in weeks using scientific
notation. See he's putting machinists and ammo packers to
work!!
Orange Line Special|4.17.09 @ 10:49PM|#
Instapundit is linking to those under the title "BUSTING OBAMA
FOR gun/drug falsehoods."
Now, I hesitate to inform Reason and Insty of this, but BHO is
never going to read this post. Approximately 99.9999% of Americans
will never read this post.
If Jacob Sullum wants to bust Obama for real and not just for play,
he should go to one of Obama's events and ask him a question about
this issue to his face on video.
Yet, Reason has consistenly avoided doing anything like that,
instead using their crack video team to make lame joke videos
instead of actually doing something effective.
In case anyone coming here from Instapundit wants to see the
effective way to oppose BHO that Insty refuses to push, click
here.
|4.17.09 @ 10:51PM|#
The end objective of the "gun control" lobby is to confiscate
all firearms owned by private citizens.
All of the issues under debate - "assault weapons bans", gun show
"loopholes", microstamping of ammunition, etc. - are simply a
reflection that they don't yet have the political power to do this
openly and honestly, so they have adopted an incremental
approach.
They are notably dishonest regarding both the facts and their
goals.
hmm|4.17.09 @ 11:05PM|#
Not a bad site (24ahead) but not exactly rocking the word with its traffic. I guess you get points for the plug. Do you get a free t-shirt as well?
|4.17.09 @ 11:48PM|#
Something else in the William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott article was the number of guns AR-15(full auto) sold by Colt to the Mexican government with U.S. Govt approval. It also stated that over 150,000 Mexican sildiers deserted (taking their weapons with them??)I wonder how many of these were included in "the count"?
|4.18.09 @ 1:03AM|#
I'd love to see the actual breakdown of those 5,114 guns that
can be traced back to the US. How many were delivered directly to
the Mexican government? How many were burglarized from homes in the
US? How many came from police department evidence lockers? You get
the idea....
Technically, it could be said that all of those could be traced
back to dealers in the US (with the exception of a handful of
pre-'68 pieces that had never gone through a dealer).
|4.18.09 @ 1:12AM|#
Reading through the thread I was becoming anxious that no one
had made the point that The Basseteer eventually made @ 11:48. BTW,
Mexican govt (military and Federales) weapons are overwhelmingly,
if not exclusively, U.S. made.
Obama repeats the "90 percent" lie IOT keep faith with his anti gun
supporters; Calderon says the same IOT to wipe away the stigma of
Mexican corruption, incompetence and cowardice.
|4.18.09 @ 1:24AM|#
"I'd love to see the actual breakdown of those 5,114 guns that
can be traced back to the US."
So would I, but I suspect that the actual origin of these weapons
would undermine the Admin's case.
If only a small percentage of these guns originated with a gun
dealer or were purchased from a gun show, I suspect that both the
outrage and emotional elements of the Admin's case would be
lost.
Apparently, they have established a method for determining the
origin of those weapons that were issued to members of the Mexican
Army. Most of these guns have never been fired and were only
dropped once.
|4.18.09 @ 2:02AM|#
We get the illegals, they get the guns ? Sounds like a poor trade to me. How about we send them back all the defective Mexicans, and they send us back whatever guns came from here ?
|4.18.09 @ 2:16AM|#
With the momentum that the pro-2nd Amendment forces now have, it should take only mild resistance to ensure that no more gun bans go through. I'd say, let Obama squander the small amount of political capital he has left, so that more insidious invasions don't take place. The worst possible thing that libertarians could do is to squeal like stuck pigs.
|4.18.09 @ 8:05AM|#
There's missing information still, even with the 17% figure. The
assumption some are making is that the guns that can be traced to
the U.S. were "sold illegally" to someone who took it to Mexico to
commit a crime.
We don't know that. All we know is that the guns were originally
distributed in the U.S. and found their way to a criminal in
Mexico. That is all we know.
Don't assume that a gun dealer was involved in the transaction.
Don't assume that a person who may have bought it did so illegally
(they may have shown ID, went through the background check,
etc.).
Some portion of the guns traced to the U.S. could have been bought
legally and then stolen. "Straw" purchases could have been made to
get around the restrictions (straw purchases are when a person who
would pass the background check, buys a gun for someone who
wouldn't). Straw purchases are illegal.
A licensed gun dealer has to keep records of every gun they buy and
every gun they sell, and they're audited by ATF. Not only would
they lose their license if they sold gun to a known felon/crazy
(not making the sale after checking NICS and listing the NICS
confirmation on the sale records), they'd risk a felony
conviction.
Americans are not allowed to sell to felons. Just because a sale is
private doesn't mean that portion of the law is void. The only
difference is that they don't have access to the NICS database
directly, but a lot of private sales (especially if they are made
across state lines), transfer the guns they're selling through a
dealer so the background (NICS) check can be done. Dealers charge
about $25 to do this for folks making private sales.
The "gun show loophole" has no meaning at all. People show up at a
gun show, just like they show up at a flea market, with something
to sell. They're not the business owners who have booths at gun
shows or they'd generally be licensed dealers and the above would
apply. If someone routinely went to a gun show to sell guns (and
especially if they rented a booth to do so), the ATF would be on
them like a ton of bricks, charging them with acting as a gun
dealer without a license.
A lot of the sales of guns at gun shows are private sellers (folks
who show up) selling to the dealers at the show, thus avoiding any
risk of making an illegal sale.
Some long guns made before a certain date are considered antiques
and there is no background check required on their sale, but it is
always a felony to sell to a felon, regardless of who makes the
sale.
The important point of the story is that these were guns
confiscated in Mexico when someone committed a crime with a gun,
ie, CRIMINALS. Criminals, by definition, don't comply with the law,
regardless of how many guns laws we make. Gun laws are not a
talisman to prevent people from committing crimes.
Jack McHugh|4.18.09 @ 9:26AM|#
I think we're looking at this wrong. Isn't anyone worried about
a balance of payments deficit in black market foreign trade? The
fact that we're importing a lot more merchandise without the
approval of the U.S. Customs Bureau than we are exporting without
the approval of our trading partner? Shouldn't we be celebrating
the successes of our black market exporters?
Oh, never mind.
ajacksonian|4.18.09 @ 10:42AM|#
You know if Mexico really does have a beef with US guns coming
into Mexico, they could just exercise their sovereignty and close
the border to all save designated ports of entry...
Amazing that they won't do that... or ask the US for help in doing
that. Plus it would stop human trafficking and the shipment of
illegal drugs overland, which Mexico cites as a source of their
problem, too.
That ends the problem pretty much right there, and then Mexico can
deal with the overseas sellers from Russia, China and a few places
elsewhere in the Middle East and Europe. Plenty of black market
suppliers to the Red Mafia. Who are cited by a Library of Congress
review in 2003 as having involvement with Mexican drug
cartels/gangs.
Or go after the deserters in the Mexican Federal Police and Army
and crack down on internal corruption.
Ahh... pointing out the obvious remedies that are hard to do,
instead of complaining about the non-remedy that restricts civil
rights of law abiding citizens in the US. So much easier to go
after the law abiding than the criminal, I guess.
|4.18.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Seems to me that Mexican ans US authorities would be pleased when a US-sold gun was found. They have a complete trace on the weapon from manufactorer to distributer to dealer to purchaser who has been checked out against FBI files. If a person buys as little as two guns that end up in any drug cartel's possesion, it would warrant a "special" visit from the FBI. Since drug money would likely be involved in some of the transactions, this could provide a convienent entry point for tracing drug money through the network.
Steve|4.18.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Love you page! Should be required reading!!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our blog COMMON CENTS? Check us
out here...
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
|4.18.09 @ 8:31PM|#
mark sez If that's true I see no need for additional
legislation.
With thoughts like that you'll never be a liberal.
|4.19.09 @ 11:33AM|#
This is rather idiotic.
Of the guns which could be traced, 90% are known
to come from the U.S.
Thus Obama's "some 90%" is a more meaningful -- and accurate --
statement than the "17%" BS of Misters La Jeunesse and Lott.
online gun shop|4.20.09 @ 12:52AM|#
This is one great post I have ever read! pls keep it coming! Great discussions to read here. thanks.
|4.21.09 @ 7:18PM|#
See what California and a lying California attorney, Steven T.
Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada
citizen right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson
had broken into this Nevada citizen's home! Gun Controllers Among
Us, Marin County California Courts
Most liberal Marin County Ca has repeatedly thumbed their nose at
the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal actions onto a
Nevada citizen. What's next?
Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada
citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the
following Monday court in California and the California incompetent
judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be
served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to
a Nevada citizen!
Three strikes you're out lying California attorney, Steven T.
Schoonover
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245