Bloomberg's Coming for Private Sales and Gunshows!

[Glocktogo]

Yeah, they were doing this back in 2007, so it's been around the block a few times.

 

[Koolhandlinc]

If these private investigaters purchased guns out of state and they video taped themselves and then wrote reports the reports should be enough to convict of felonies!!!!

So 2 people committed crimes and they should be busted.

Edit: I would not sell to someone because I would not want to be a part of a crime! If I know I will say NO!!!!

 

[Bobrob]

If these private investigaters purchased guns out of state and they video taped themselves and then wrote reports the reports should be enough to convict of felonies!!!! So 2 people committed crimes and they should be busted.

Exactly "Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart C—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

§ 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State"

Guilty as charged;
Bloomberg guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, by his own admission.

will he be charged? NEVER

 

[azmrb]

Exactly "Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart C—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

§ 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State"

Guilty as charged;
Bloomberg guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony, by his own admission.

will he be charged? NEVER

You are Assuming that's what happened.

Since Bloomberg likely had legal counsel orchestrating this I doubt they violated the law.

The city hired a team of 40 private investigators from an outside firm to make the purchases.

If he hired these investigators from the 3 states where the gun shows were held it wouldn't violate the law, would it?

And that would explain why he felt confident enough to send the results to BATF.

 

[Talacker]

$1.5MM is a lot of taxpayer money to spend to make a political point. Especially somewhere FAR from NY.

 

[Glocktogo]

You are Assuming that's what happened.

Since Bloomberg likely had legal counsel orchestrating this I doubt they violated the law.

If he hired these investigators from the 3 states where the gun shows were held it wouldn't violate the law, would it?

And that would explain why he felt confident enough to send the results to BATF.

IF that's what he did (and I'm not convinced that he isn't so arrogant as to break the law), then he's setting a dangerous precedent. What would stop mayors and governors from all over the country from sending armies of "investigators" into New York City to catch New York citizens violating federal laws? How would you feel if holier than thou do gooders were invading your city from another state to catch you red handed committing violations of federal law? Perhaps laws like these:

Criminalizing Everyone
by Brian W. Walsh
"You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.

The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor. The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.
That's right. Orchids.

By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary - based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.
Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing's topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.
Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).

These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about "overcriminalization." Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.

Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.

The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: "Life sometimes presents us with lemons." Their job was, yes, to "turn lemons into lemonade."

The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you're an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson's disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.

Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, "What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans." He's right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.

The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials - something he had no intention of doing - while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison.

As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these "illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law." The Cato Institute's Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for "a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct." A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing." Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn't to some federal officials.

Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies." Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the "stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction."

The Norrises' nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn't end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict - in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges - had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.

These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.
Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.

Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

This is a treacherous road he's travelling down. Do we really want a smug arrogant society informing on it's citizenry to the federal government? I certainly don't.

 

[Bobrob]

simply put, if those investigators had been from in state then there wouldn't be any commission of a felony, make sense?

And just because they said they "might not be able to pass a background check" would they in fact not be able to?

"You are Assuming that's what happened." and you are assuming it didn't.

Back before your time(unless you also admit to being a old rusty bucket) there was a certain CBS producer that solicited a 19 year old to attempt to buy a handgun from a gun show vendor. Had the whole thing on tape, put it up on 60 minutes for all of USofA to see.

He wasn't prosecuted, but he did have some uncomfortable interviews with a US attorney.

Taught him a lesson, he never ran with bogus stuff again, and I am sure Dan Rather had access to top notch legal council too, just didn't listen.

 

[azmrb]

We must close the 'Orchid Show Loophole'


Don't get me wrong.
I would like to see Bloomberg burned for violating BATF regulations too.

Just don't get your hopes up. Bloomberg didn't get to be a billionaire out of stupidity or because he overlooked a little loophole like what's legal.

He's not to be underestimated.

 

[Glocktogo]

We must close the 'Orchid Show Loophole'


Don't get me wrong.
I would like to see Bloomberg burned for violating BATF regulations too.

Just don't get your hopes up. Bloomberg didn't get to be a billionaire out of stupidity or because he overlooked a little loophole like what's legal.

He's not to be underestimated.

You could argue that every billionaire is smart and has legal representation. Would you argue that none of them ever break the law?

As I've stated before, I have little doubt that he won't be touched. It's not because he's so smart, but specifically because he's a billionaire with political clout, an army of lawyers and the backing of powerhouse news media outlets. It would be political suicide for any US Attorney to even try, and they're nothing if not political animals.

 

[azmrb]

You could argue that every billionaire is smart and has legal representation. Would you argue that none of them ever break the law?

As I've stated before, I have little doubt that he won't be touched. It's not because he's so smart, but specifically because he's a billionaire with political clout, an army of lawyers and the backing of powerhouse news media outlets. It would be political suicide for any US Attorney to even try, and they're nothing if not political animals.

We agree on this? I may have to rethink my position. LOL