More on Bloomberg’s suit
The Bloomberg administration’s unusual move appears to circumvent the law signed by President Bush last year that gives gun makers and dealers broad protection from civil suits, except in cases where they violate the law.
Actually, it doesn’t if the dealers involved knowingly sold weapons to straw purchasers. Otherwise, there really is no negligence on their part. But it looks like they did, according to this report:
For the sting operation, the city singled out about 45 dealers based on gun trace data that links weapons sold in those shops to hundreds of shootings and other crimes in New York City from 1994 to 2001.
Private investigators wore hidden cameras and attempted “straw purchases,” where one person fills out the legal forms and makes the purchase for someone else. The scam, prohibited by federal law, is typically used by people who cannot own firearms, such as convicted felons.
The city said the undercover investigators entered stores in teams of two, usually a man and a woman. While the woman roamed the store and acted disinterested, the man made all the inquiries about the gun and made it clear he was the buyer. When it came time to make the purchase, the woman would step up to fill out the paperwork.
The majority of dealers refused the sale, Bloomberg said. In a video from one such attempt, the man behind the counter shrugged his shoulders, apologized and said it would be against the law for him to sell to the woman because she was clearly not the intended user.
But the 15 dealers named in the suit allowed the transaction, and Bloomberg called them “the worst of the worst.”
“They were either intentionally or negligently selling handguns in a manner that violates federal law,” he said.
Of course, the city of New York running sting operations out of its jurisdiction is a bit troubling.
Also, it rather depends on if the man was in fact a prohibited person. If he is, the investigators broke the law.
Update: No real details but the shops in Georgia are denying selling guns illegally:
Earl Driggers, the owner of A-1 Jewelry and Pawn, said his store has cooperated with authorities in a sting operation in the past, but was not a target of the probe. He believes he has always complied with the law. He said that once someone passes a background check and is sold a gun, it’s impossible for gun stores to control who the buyer gives that gun to.
“We certainly do everything we can to make sure guns don’t leave our store illegally,” Driggers said. “I don’t know what you’re supposed to do. If a guy comes in and meets all the criteria and you comply with the law, I don’t know what you do.”
His son, Greg Driggers, is owner of AAA Pawnbrokers. The younger Driggers said he, too, was baffled why his store was named in the lawsuit.
“We’re not selling guns illegally,” the younger Driggers said. He added, “If they wound up in the hands of criminals, that’s because people are doing things illegal, but it’s not on the part of us. At any time, anybody, any authority is welcome to come in and check my records.”
May 16th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Wouldn’t it be the interested man who is most likely the prohibited person. (Or acting prohibited person?) If they’re both legal, I bet it can be somewhat confusing… My wife and I once ended up in a similar situation… my wife was buying me a gun for a Christmas present. The dealer said that since I would “own” it, I should fill out the form, and my wife paid. (From the same checking account, not that that really mattered, just the principle of a present)
I doubt this describes what the PIs did, and it sure sounds like they broke the law. But I wouldn’t be suprised if there are some details that make what they did not illegal.
And a state/city (not sure if NYS got involved) acting outside their juristiction sure does sound wrong.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I’m not a lawyer, so if this is a stupid question just let me know.
What gives NYC the power to run a sting aimed at finding violations of federal law?
May 16th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Aughtsix, whoops. Corrected that.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:51 am
We can turn this into our favor, and use it for a call againt background-checks.
C.H.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
It amazes me how many people do not realize that it is not a strawman purchase even if purchased for another as long as that other is not a prohibited person. My wife was once refused a purchase of a present for me because the FFL dealer thought that constituted a straw man purchase, although I am not a prohibited person. Sadly he knew I wasn’t because he had accepted mail order guns for fee for me previously.
May 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
The form 4473, filled out by the purchaser, specifically asks the question “Are you the actual buyer of the firearm” or something extremely close to that. It does NOT ask you if you intend to give the firearm as a gift – just whether or not you are the “actual buyer”.
If someone (involved in a state-run sting operation or not) fills out and signs a fraudulent statement on a form 4473, are they not committing a crime of fraud?
Notice also the lack of any mention of the 2nd amendment (remember that annoying little trifle? No, I suppose not.) or of the fact that areas with relatively few gun laws have less crime, while areas like NY and DC, with relatively high numbers of gun laws, have higher violent crime rates. The victims should sue the government that disarmed them.
The whole “sting” operation and the report is a smoke and mirrors trick, designed to deflect attention away from the pathetic failures of their socialist policies, their massive corruption, and their direct, willful violation of the Constitution of the United States. They are thus, vehemently anti American. Yes I will say it, and I will repeat it.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
From what I’ve managed to find on the topic at the ATF site, a ‘straw purchase’ can be made either to transfer the weapon to a prohibited person, or to hide the identity of the actual purchaser (ie, make it so the .gov don’t know you have the gun.) This may be the interpretation that the NYC Anti-Freedom Brigade is banking on.
My question with regards to the publicity stunt lawsuit is what exactly is their basis for saying the dealer broke the law? If the person who filled out the form kept the gun, then no law was broken, because they were, in fact, the actual purchaser (and if the intent was to entrap the gun store, I’m betting that’s what they did.) If they gave it to their partner, then they broke the law themselves, as noted above, by lying on the 4473. And if they used NYC money for it, then the NYC government should be charged with conspiracy to violate federal firearms laws.