Story of an Illegal Handgun : Firestar 45 - New York City

[kach22i]

Story of an Illegal Handgun : Firestar 45 - New York City
ORIGINALLY AIRED: October 3, 2007 on CBC-TV
REPEATING: Wednesday December 5 at 9pm & Sunday December 9 at 11pm on CBC-TV
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/newyork.html

Did anyone else catch this?

Most crimes using illegal firearms can be traced to 1% of all gun dealers which are practicing questionable business practices of selling firearms.

The feds know who they are because they wrote a computer tracking program.

Great program, all gun owners should watch.

Yes, I own a gun and took a CCW course but this program opened up a real can of worms.

The bad guys should not be able to get guns like this program shows.

[techweenie]

When one of the 1% you refer to got raided earlier this year, the Pelican 'gun nuts' went ballistic (pardon the pun). So no, I don't think anything that even mentions limiting gun sales will get any traction with the loud end of the spectrum.

Every mall shooting, church shooting, McDonalds shooting and university shooting is shrugged off. Even moves to limit gun sales to eliminate non-citizen purchasers are shouted down. There isn't much room for discussion.

[id10t]

I think that the problem is that instead of enforcing one of the many many gun laws in this country (over 20k I read a while back...) the knee jerk reaction is to pass more laws, with nice sounding abbreviations and catch phrases. Also, some of the restrictions on the law abiding need to be removed (where you can carry with a ccw, have ccw be honored nationwide, etc, no more "parts count" bs, allow transferrable registrations of new full auto).

And yes, the BATFE *should* be going after licensees that are pumping out the straw sales, and not harassing dealers over minor paperwork details (abbreviations for states, etc).

[Jeff Higgins]

I think you missinterpret our position, Tech. Most gun owners I know are all for effectively enforcing the gun aws that are currently on the books. We see that passing yet another unenforced, or seldom enforced gun law is no solution. Many recent shootings (if not most) have been carried out by folks that violated a number of laws before they even pulled the trigger. They obtained the guns illegally from unscrupulous dealers, had mental health issues that legally preclude them from owning firearms, were convicted felons out on early parole; you name it.

Accusing us of "brushing off" these tragedies is a bit callous and immature, don't you think? None of us have done that. If calling for well reasoned responses to these tragedies appears to you as some sort of brush-off, I would conclude you must be seeking a more knee-jerk sort of reaction. That is sort of the province of the hand-wringing ninnie; when reasonable people don't just go off half cocked after some reactionary, ill-conceived "solution", it must be because we just don't care.

"Gun control" can take two distinctly different forms. Passing ever more laws to appease the dimwitted into thinking our leaders are doing something (wringing hands for effect), or diligently enforcing existing laws. In many of the shootings of the last few years, the latter would have prevented the shooter from obtaining their guns. The former wouldn't have done *****.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think you missinterpret our position, Tech. Most gun owners I know are all for effectively enforcing the gun aws that are currently on the books. We see that passing yet another unenforced, or seldom enforced gun law is no solution. Many recent shootings (if not most) have been carried out by folks that violated a number of laws before they even pulled the trigger. They obtained the guns illegally from unscrupulous dealers, had mental health issues that legally preclude them from owning firearms, were convicted felons out on early parole; you name it.

Accusing us of "brushing off" these tragedies is a bit callous and immature, don't you think? None of us have done that. If calling for well reasoned responses to these tragedies appears to you as some sort of brush-off, I would conclude you must be seeking a more knee-jerk sort of reaction. That is sort of the province of the hand-wringing ninnie; when reasonable people don't just go off half cocked after some reactionary, ill-conceived "solution", it must be because we just don't care.

"Gun control" can take two distinctly different forms. Passing ever more laws to appease the dimwitted into thinking our leaders are doing something (wringing hands for effect), or diligently enforcing existing laws. In many of the shootings of the last few years, the latter would have prevented the shooter from obtaining their guns. The former wouldn't have done *****.

Jeff, I don't lump you with the 'gun nuts.' And I'm a gun owner myself. I'm disgusted by just about everything the NRA does, as well as the comments of the apologists for the 'gun nuts,' one of which I heard on the radio not more than 60 minutes ago on our local loony right station. They were all excited that the state AG is confiscating people's guns -- after they are convicted as felons.

Sorry, the position that everyone should be armed is ludicrous. The notion that we should tolerate the highest rate of murder in the 'civilized' world is ludicrous.

My position is that what we have now isn't working.

One more thing: as to enforcing existing laws, that's what was happening with the Chicago area gun shop that a huge number of crimes were tracked back to. But gun groups protested the enforcement of those laws, and in the discussion here, so did the 'gun nuts.'

[Hugh R]

One thing I give LAPD Chief Bratton credit for is he has had the LAPD track the historical sales of guns used in gang crimes and found some very high percentages of guns were sold in Nevada at a handful of gun stores to people with questionable rights to purchase. He's brought in the FBI to hammer those dealers. I own a couple of guns, most I inherited, but I did buy one 9mm and one O/U shotgun for skeet shooting. I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, etc. But I also recognize that banning the sale of legal firearms to lawful citizens in the US will do NOTHING to curb the sale of illegal ones to criminals.

[stealthn]

I saw the show (Canadian) and it was a real eye opener. It amazes me how much power the NRA has and enforces even when it's to the determent of lives and law abiding folk.

I think the only way to stop those shops is to impose a 5 day waiting list, that way truckers won't be bringing boat loads of illegal guns to Canada to kill innocent kids.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by techweenie

My position is that what we have now isn't working.

I agree with you. But WHY isn't it working?

Again and again and again and again......we see folks wanting to pass a new gun law. Yet time and again, we find that the majority of crimes are being commited by folks who are obtaining guns illegally.

I think there is room to change the gun laws in this country. But we are barely enforcing the ones we have. So whats the point?

Some 18 year old kid with no firearms training, no parental guidance, can walk into a store and buy an AK-47 and 1000 rounds of 7.62x39mm. To my mind, thats not right. But since the BATF basically enforces laws at its own whim, WTF is the point is passing yet another unenforced law? So Bloomberg and Hillary can trumpet a 'victory' for the ultra liberal douchbags that support them?

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I agree with you. But WHY isn't it working?

Again and again and again and again......we see folks wanting to pass a new gun law. Yet time and again, we find that the majority of crimes are being commited by folks who are obtaining guns illegally.

I think there is room to change the gun laws in this country. But we are barely enforcing the ones we have. So whats the point?

Some 18 year old kid with no firearms training, no parental guidance, can walk into a store and buy an AK-47 and 1000 rounds of 7.62x39mm. To my mind, thats not right. But since the BATF basically enforces laws at its own whim, WTF is the point is passing yet another unenforced law? So Bloomberg and Hillary can trumpet a 'victory' for the ultra liberal douchbags that support them?

We do not need any new gun laws, just enforce the existing ones! The new laws are a "knee jerk" reaction to the public and the legislator trying to make the public feel good.

Are you suggesting "1984" here? If you want to futher limit weapon or ammo purchases, where does it end? I used to know guys who had 10-20,000 rounds of ammo in their houses. They stocked up on it, shot it at the range and then reloaded it in the winter. Nothing illegal or suspect with it but now they are being semi-branded as a criminal because of some nut-case's actions.

[legion]

Living in a semi-rural area, I can tell you that the waiting periods are a major PITA. I often have to travel 50-200 miles to purchase the gun I'm looking for. With waiting periods, that means that I have to make a minimum of two trips. And if the dealer forgets to call in my information? Three or more trips.

Of course the people who live in big cities who pass the laws don't think about this, and could care less anyway.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by techweenie

Jeff, I don't lump you with the 'gun nuts.' And I'm a gun owner myself. I'm disgusted by just about everything the NRA does, as well as the comments of the apologists for the 'gun nuts,' one of which I heard on the radio not more than 60 minutes ago on our local loony right station. They were all excited that the state AG is confiscating people's guns -- after they are convicted as felons.

Sorry, the position that everyone should be armed is ludicrous. The notion that we should tolerate the highest rate of murder in the 'civilized' world is ludicrous.

My position is that what we have now isn't working.

One more thing: as to enforcing existing laws, that's what was happening with the Chicago area gun shop that a huge number of crimes were tracked back to. But gun groups protested the enforcement of those laws, and in the discussion here, so did the 'gun nuts.'

Agreed on all points. What we are doing today certainly is not working. You are spot on concerning our murder rates; we are not just a percentage or two higher than the norm, we are factors higher. I see those murder rates as the perverbial "canary in the mineshaft", clearly indicating very deeply rooted social ills. A "root cause analysis" of those ills does not lead me to guns, however.

Unfortunatley it leads some to guns, but I think they arrive there dishonestly. I think they have an innate fear of guns, a desire to succeed politically, and are cynical enough to understand others share their fear and will support them if the "do something" about the problem. While a wholly inneffective approach, it remains a very visible approach, sure to garner support in the target circles. Throw the evil NRA in there as the poster child for everything that is wrong with gun ownership, and the money just comes a'rollin' on in.

I'm a life member in the NRA. That does not mean I agree with everything they do. The Chicago case was an embarrasment. On the one hand, the NRA is one of the most strident supporters of punishing (and severely) those who abuse their gun rights. On the other, they have their own villains that are sure to whip members up into a frenzy; the BATF and liberals. At times, like in Chicago, the NRA goes to far in its "no quarter" approach. They prefer to err on the side of the evil, over-zealous BATF persecuting "innocent" gun dealers/owners in some evil liberal wrought master plan to dissarm all of us. It gets their donations a'rollin'.

Obviously, I support the NRA and its approach as a whole. They do champion effective law, such as "three stikes you're out", mandatory additional sentencing with no parole for gun crime, etc. These have proven to work in the jurisdictions in which they have been enacted. Layer upon layer of additional gun law has not. We have several decades of data on which to draw to base those conclusions, and they are inescapable. The one approach - tougher enforcement and punishment - begins to dig to the root cause. It has a long ways to go, granted, but at least it's showing demonstratable results. The other approach has not.

[The Gaijin]

And 85% of stupid liberal ideas spawning a miriad of social engineering programs causing untold human misery can be traced to 1% of bookstores.

What are we going to do? Ban books? Close bookstores? Regulate book sales?

I hope not.

If the NYPD want to crack down on these gun runners - it is going to take time, money and effort. That is the answer. I doubt many of the bad guys have the licences/permits as they cross back into the city.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I agree with you. But WHY isn't it working?

Again and again and again and again......we see folks wanting to pass a new gun law. Yet time and again, we find that the majority of crimes are being commited by folks who are obtaining guns illegally.

I think there is room to change the gun laws in this country. But we are barely enforcing the ones we have. So whats the point?

Some 18 year old kid with no firearms training, no parental guidance, can walk into a store and buy an AK-47 and 1000 rounds of 7.62x39mm. To my mind, thats not right. But since the BATF basically enforces laws at its own whim, WTF is the point is passing yet another unenforced law? So Bloomberg and Hillary can trumpet a 'victory' for the ultra liberal douchbags that support them?

We could start by getting the fact straight. No non-LEO in this country can walk into a store and buy an AK-47. To do so, you have to file a class III application with the BATF, pay a $200 tax stamp, have an interview with your local sheriff, get his sign-off, waive most of your 4th Amendment rights and then pay around $10k or so for the AK-47.

Oh, you mean an AK-47 lookalike? Well, that's a different story. Full auto rifles do not exactly grown on trees in the U.S. and that's what an AK-47 is. The lookalikes may fire the same caliber, but they are not full auto and that's a world of difference. Some states require buyers to be 21 for long guns, but some probably allow them at 18. What law is gonna stop a suicidal nut from killing a lot of people? If you're willing to die for your crime, there's not much one can do to deter you, especially since we don't take out reprisals against family members in this country.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by legion

Living in a semi-rural area, I can tell you that the waiting periods are a major PITA. I often have to travel 50-200 miles to purchase the gun I'm looking for. With waiting periods, that means that I have to make a minimum of two trips. And if the dealer forgets to call in my information? Three or more trips.

Of course the people who live in big cities who pass the laws don't think about this, and could care less anyway.

The Firestar-45 featured in the TV program was purchased like so many others from this one gun shop in Georgia. NYC gang members drive to Georgia (one guy did this every few weeks), purchase 10 or more handguns at a time with no waiting, drive back to NYC and sell them on the streets. The guns then get used in many violent crimes leaving a bloody trail.

That same Firestar-45 was later sold by the mom when her son was murdered in a gang related activity. The gun made it's way into Canada (smulggler) where I believe a very young child finally fell victim to it again.

Also covered in the CBC story is that the makers of the handguns actually know which gun shops are selling to gang members and criminals (based on records and volume). They choose to keep selling arms to the dealers because no Georgia or other state laws are being violated, and the money is just too good.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Also covered in the CBC story is that the makers of the handguns actually know which gun shops are selling to gang members and criminals (based on records and volume). They choose to keep selling arms to the dealers because no Georgia or other state laws are being violated, and the money is just too good.

That part of the story is more than a bit of a stretch. It is grossly distorted and missrepresented by some one with a clear agenda, and a dimwitted, trusting audience following that agenda. It just does not make sense. Think of it in the context of another product, like beer.

Do brewers know which stores are selling to minors? Can they tell just from sales volumes, locations, or other data they can see? There is a multi-tiered distribution system between the large brewers and the corner store selling their product. I suspect they have regional data, and data by wholesaler, and maybe even by retailer. But how could they tell, from that data, how much of their beer goes to minors? Should it be their responsibility to police it? Would one expect them to limit sales in an area with a particularly bad teenage drinking problem?

I don't think so. I think we would look to the local authorities to do something about their local problem. Shut down the corner store that routinely sells to minors. Punish its owners, revoke liquor licenses; all of that. Local authorities have the means in place to do that. Brewers do not.

Getting back to firearms manufacturers, anyone who has been in the hobby or business for any length of time will vouch for the integrity of the vast majority of them. It is a unique industry, in that a reputation for integrity is more important than most other industries. It is populated by folks who will do what they say, and will say what they do. If the word ever got out that a credible, reputable manufacturer was knowingly supplying a criminal market, their days in the business would be over. No, I'm sorry, but the insinuation that manufacturers are callous and greedy enough to knowingly profit from criminal enterprise just doesn't hold water. Except with the hand-wringing ninnies that would like to view us all as vermin, that is.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That part of the story is more than a bit of a stretch. It is grossly distorted and missrepresented

The FBI with a stack of violations, missing and or improperly filled out paperwork on the same few stores is no distortion and or missrepresention.

How many handguns can a small poor rural Georgia gun shop hope to sell?

When the numbers from filled orders pop out at you like a pair of boobs at the beach, you bet they know and notice.

Don't defind the undefenable, it's shows poorly on you.

I'm sure you can watch the CBC TV show on-line, it's part of the Fifth-Estate series.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by kach22i

The FBI with a stack of violations, missing and or improperly filled out paperwork on the same few stores is no distortion and or missrepresention.

How many handguns can a small poor rural Georgia gun shop hope to sell?

When the numbers from filled orders pop out at you like a pair of boobs at the beach, you bet they know and notice.

Don't defind the undefenable, it's shows poorly on you.

I'm sure you can watch the CBC TV show on-line, it's part of the Fifth-Estate series.

Perhaps you don't know that a "small poor rural Georgia gun shop" can sell thousands of guns a month. They can list them online. I have bought many handguns online. The shop just has to ship to an FFL and they have to have a copy of the FFL on file. Plenty of smalltown shops sell this way. If any such guns ended up used in crimes, it would be pretty easy to figure out which FFL received the gun and transferred it to the criminal/straw purchaser. Whether BATF chooses to go after such people is another matter. They have a history of ignoring big fish and harassing small ones. Co-incidentally, BATF is a big client of mine and I have a meeting at their new HQ this week with a few of their agents. I will ask about this.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by kach22i

The FBI with a stack of violations, missing and or improperly filled out paperwork on the same few stores is no distortion and or missrepresention.

How many handguns can a small poor rural Georgia gun shop hope to sell?

When the numbers from filled orders pop out at you like a pair of boobs at the beach, you bet they know and notice.

Don't defind the undefenable, it's shows poorly on you.

I'm sure you can watch the CBC TV show on-line, it's part of the Fifth-Estate series.

You present a moving target here, Kach. Your initial assertion was that the manufacturers "know" that these shops are selling to criminals. Granted, the FBI "knows", and has data to back it up. You are making a massive non-sequitor by asserting that the manufacturers must then also "know". That is only the conclusion of the hand-wringing anti-gun ninnies that put this show together.

The FBI has both the authority and the charter to go after these kinds of shops. They need to do that, and with a vengeance. As a gun owner, I would love to see it. If they have enough solid evidence they will certainly do so. Yes, they do need more evidence than the reactionary idiots that tell guys like you how "obvious" this is. Believe me, if they had it, they would use it.

Regardless, the onus should not, nay cannot, be shifted to the manufacturers. As long as a dealer is Federally licensed to sell, the manufacturers would have no reason not to do business with them. Regardless off the news media hype and tripe you swallow so eagerly, these manufacturers really have no way of "knowing" a dishonest shop is knowingly selling to criminals. Their "notification" to quit selling to such a shop comes in the form of a revocation of any given shops' FFL. That happens after the authorities do their job.

So no, I am by no means "defending the indefensible". I'm calling bull***** on a weak, contrived accusation levelled at gun manufacturers. Seedy dealers do not equate to seedy manufacturers. I'm calling bull***** on an effort to smear them as complicit in knowingly supplying criminals with guns. One that you have apparently bought into. Sorry Kach, but that reflects rather poorly on you, now doesn't it?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I'm sure you can watch the CBC TV show on-line, it's part of the Fifth-Estate series.

Right after the Audi drives itself into the exposed gas tank of another car, which is ignited by a memo concerning GWs service in the National Guard

I will ask you this: what would you prefer we do? What mechanism would you put in place? Do you want my guns, none of which have been fired in anger, two of which look like assault weapons but cannot be made to fire like an assault weapon? You want my 22 cal Rugar? My 9m? Is my Kimber .45 too much?

My son is a wizard with his .410 o/u...

I will then say this: Enforce the law(s) as currently written. Do not allow pandering.

[SlowToady]

No facts, no support, no sources, nothing. Just conjecture.

I don't think that the bad showing is on Mr. Higgins...

All that happens when more laws are passed is that more citizens become criminals. As was previously noted, before anyone actually is injured through the use of a firearm, there are often times numerous laws broken, from acquisition, carrying, and so on. If one has it made up in their mind to commit a violent act, I don't see that passing any more laws, to further outlaw what they are already set out to do, will deter them from accomplishing their goal.

The problems this country has regarding homicide run far deeper and far more complex than merely the presence of firearms. The firearm is simply a replaceable means to an end; if one hopes to curb our rampant homicides, one needs to understand and attack the underlying problem. Getting rid of the firearms isn't going to rid us of the problem.

Originally Posted by kach22i

The FBI with a stack of violations, missing and or improperly filled out paperwork on the same few stores is no distortion and or missrepresention.

How many handguns can a small poor rural Georgia gun shop hope to sell?

When the numbers from filled orders pop out at you like a pair of boobs at the beach, you bet they know and notice.

Don't defind the undefenable, it's shows poorly on you.

I'm sure you can watch the CBC TV show on-line, it's part of the Fifth-Estate series.