The story that will prompt the next call to close the so called Gun Show Loophole


PDA






Jeff White
September 12, 2007, 08:43 PM
I'm sure we'll probably get a lot of support in Congress now......

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICAN_POLICE_GUNS?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Mexican officers arrested at gun show

By BOB CHRISTIE
Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX (AP) -- Three high-ranking Mexican police officers were arrested on allegations of buying weapons and ammunition at a gun show in Phoenix in violation of a law barring noncitizens from purchasing firearms, a U.S. official said Wednesday.

The three had crossed the border at Calexico, Calif., in an official police vehicle and driven to Phoenix, said Tom Mangan, a spokesman with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Police and federal agents arrested them after the three bought three guns and about 450 rounds of ammunition Saturday at the gun show, Mangan said.

It appeared the officers were buying the handguns for their personal use, he said.

Booked on state weapons misconduct and conspiracy were Carlos Alberto Flores, 36, a Baja California state police director; Baja State Police Commander Guillermo Valle Medina, 33; and Jose Santos Cortes Gonzalez, 41, a federal police commander in Baja California.

Flores and Cortes posted $2,000 bond each and were released from jail, and Valle was released on personal recognizance, Mangan said.

A woman who answered the telephone in Flores' office in Mexicali said he was still in charge but not in the office or available for comment. Alejandra Borquez, a spokeswoman for the Mexican state's Office of Public Safety, said she had not heard of the arrests.

Local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents monitoring the gun show overheard Gonzalez negotiating with a dealer for two guns, then watched as he bought them, according to a police report. Gonzalez and Flores met up with Valle and continued buying ammunition and gun supplies before leaving, the report states.

Police stopped their vehicle after they left the gun show, according to the report.

Mangan said Mexican officials have been pressuring U.S. officials to cut off the supply of weapons going south.

"It is ironic we are receiving a great deal of criticism regarding our efforts to stem the tide of illegal weapons, and then we have three law enforcement officers trying to buy weapons here," Mangan said.

Licensed dealers in Arizona must check identification documents and run background checks, but private sellers operate without those rules.

The guns were bought from a private seller, Mangan said.

---

Associated Press writer Olga Rodriguez in Mexico City contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS location of Flores' office to Mexicali)

If you enjoyed reading about "The story that will prompt the next call to close the so called Gun Show Loophole" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
novaDAK
September 12, 2007, 09:42 PM
I commented on the same article over at GT.

The article says that they were seen negotiating with a dealer.

Then it says that they bought the guns from a private seller

Which is it? :rolleyes:

ROMAK IV
September 12, 2007, 09:50 PM
Oh. No! We can't have Mexican police officers buying guns! Seriously, it may be illegal, but I don't think you will have these guns used in hold-ups at convenience stores! I'm sure they just wanted some cheap guns, than what is available in Mexico, and since they are police, they wouldn't have problems witjh Mexican law. And what's the problem? They got caught!

Old Fuff
September 12, 2007, 09:58 PM
...And of course the next time we need some cooperation from them on their side of the border... :uhoh:

I expect the relationship between law enforcement agencies on both side of the line will be a little cooler. On our part this seems like a particularly dumb move - but after all the ATF&E was involved so it probably should have been expected. :banghead:

txgho1911
September 12, 2007, 10:00 PM
So the deportees should have a deportee bootcamp. Load them with old rifles and ammo. Send them south to muster a revolution.

As much sense as arresting Mex officers who may not be able to take the guns they have when they retire.

2RCO
September 12, 2007, 10:08 PM
The three had crossed the border at Calexico, Calif., in an official police vehicle and driven to Phoenix, said Tom Mangan, a spokesman with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

How did this happen? Where they armed?

Honestly I don't really care if a Mexican Cop buys guns at a gunshow, but what were they doing in an official vehicle? Lights & Sirens? I would have thought the ATF would have stepped in with a warning to someone--There has to be more to this story.

Standing Wolf
September 12, 2007, 10:09 PM
So the deportees should have a deportee bootcamp. Load them with old rifles and ammo. Send them south to muster a revolution.

Amen!

Zoogster
September 12, 2007, 10:16 PM
Mexico is like a third world nation, some have a right to do whatever they want, within reason, things outside of reason have to be done less publicly, and then there is laws for the average peon.

In Mexico they do not like the normal people having firearms.
These high ranking individuals were probably were going to attempt to embarass the US government and call for stricter gun control in the US to stop the flow of arms south they speak of. In thier attempt to do so they were arrested for breaking the law and found out there actualy is already laws in place against doing exactly what they were attempting to do.

This is sweet irony.

I seriously doubt the purpose was as innocent as people here assume.

Spreadfire Arms
September 12, 2007, 10:24 PM
all i know is that if i was a high ranking Mexican police official i'd get a gun any way i could! most of those guys have very short life spans, between the drug smugglers out to kill them and all the people they have crossed being dirty cops on the take.

i dont know how a Mexican cop gets guns normally, but i'd suspect these guys aren't the first or the last Mexican cops to come to the US to buy guns.

Kman
September 12, 2007, 10:36 PM
Though I don't like the idea of regulating everything to death, I do like the idea of having a "gun ownership license", showing legally you are able to puchase and competant to handle firearms. Having something like this may enable us to keep our shows and prevent felons, Illegal immigrants, and mentaly questionable individuals out of the show. If you cannot provide proof that you are competant and legal, then you are not welcome.
I buy, sell and trade regularly at the shows, and it pains me to think I may loose this right because of jokers like this, when the right piece of legislation is all that is needed to end the "loophole dilema."

Bartholomew Roberts
September 12, 2007, 10:48 PM
The article says that they were seen negotiating with a dealer.

Then it says that they bought the guns from a private seller

Which is it?

Straw purchase? If so, bad joss for the dealer since the Feds were watching the whole deal.

Leanwolf
September 12, 2007, 11:00 PM
KMAN - "Though I don't like the idea of regulating everything to death, I do like the idea of having a "gun ownership license", showing legally you are able to puchase and competant to handle firearms."


Uh huh.

KMAN, just what kind of regulations and tests do you want instituted in Federal law to enable me to obtain a "gun ownership license" in order to enter a gun show and "handle firearms???"

And just what and how large a Government Bureaucracy do you want to administer this wonderful program nationwide?

How many Gun Ownership License enforcement officers do you want to see at every gun show in the United States??

Cost??

Just wondering.

L.W.

Jeff White
September 12, 2007, 11:18 PM
Kman,
I live in a state that requires me to have a license to possess firearms or ammunition. Illinois has a Firearm Owners Identification Card that every Illinois resident who possesses a firearm or ammunition must have to be legal.

It costs $5.00 for every 5 years. The State Police run a background check on you and if you have no criminal or mental health record you are issued a FOID card. However, the FOID card is meaningless. When I buy a firearm, I still have to submit to the instant records check, even though I was certified as not having anything in my background that would prohibit me from legally possessing firearms. It's just another meaningless infringement of my rights. Like every other government system it's flawed. Several years ago there was a mass shooting in a factory near Chicago by a man who shouldn't have had a FOID card. Yet he did have one and used it purchase the weapons he used in his crime....after he was disqualified to have them.

The fact the Illinois residents are required to prove they have no legal liabilities that would prohibit them from owning firearms has done nothing to keep them from trying to add additional restrictions on us.

Yes we had legislation to close the so called gunshow loophole here in Illinois, despite the fact that a gun owner has to keep a ten year record of who he sold a firearm to and that person's FOID number.

Restrictions like FOID cards and background checks are just backhanded ways to further the agenda of disarming the civilian population.

Jeff

ArfinGreebly
September 12, 2007, 11:26 PM
Nobody is really surprised, right?

I mean, if you're a cop in Mexico, it sure beats carrying a slingshot, no?

:D

iiibdsiil
September 12, 2007, 11:35 PM
You can post bond and leave the country?

Geronimo45
September 12, 2007, 11:45 PM
Local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents monitoring the gun show
Does ICE normally monitor gun shows?

silverlance
September 12, 2007, 11:47 PM
i find it hard to believe that high ranking police officials (not lowly officers) are unable to acquire firearms in mexico. anyone who's been to TJ or rosarito knows that damn near anything is available for sale.

86thecat
September 13, 2007, 04:51 AM
There have been news articles stating Mexican police and military have fired on US officers on the southern border. Corruption in the mex police force is a known problem. Makes sense to use untraceable weapons if not playing by the rules.

1911 guy
September 13, 2007, 08:01 AM
I think this might hit closer to the truth than we'd like to think. First they were likely in the country illegally, then they knowingly purchased firearms illegally, then they tried to take them into mexico illegally. Then ICE shows up and lets them leave the country!? Never to be seen again, no doubt. We have no extradition treaty with mexico, if I recall correctly.

Mannix
September 13, 2007, 08:10 AM
You can post bond and leave the country?
Sure, it's coming back later that'd be the problem.

TexasRifleman
September 13, 2007, 08:43 AM
We have no extradition treaty with mexico, if I recall correctly.

We do have an extradition treaty with Mexico unless the punishment for the crime includes the possibility of a death sentence, then they refuse.

rdhood
September 13, 2007, 08:49 AM
I do like the idea of having a "gun ownership license", showing legally you are able to puchase and competant to handle firearms.

Nothing like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

How about this... ASK FOR A DRIVERS LICENSE. I strongly suspect that the guy that sold those guns knew that the purchasers were from "out of state". Simply asking for a drivers license would have exposed the illegal sale. Anything more than that turns into background checks. I have a long story to tell, and it will get told here as soon as it reaches completion. Suffice to say, I am starting to have great contempt for those who support and encourage background checks. A "gun ownership license" is the answer alright... the answer to getting rid of gun ownership permanently. The antis would love this solution.

geekWithA.45
September 13, 2007, 10:49 AM
The article says that they were seen negotiating with a dealer.

Then it says that they bought the guns from a private seller

Which is it?


Why naturally, it's a private, unlicensed gun dealer, an unscrupulous merchant of death and generally shady character, dontcha know!

It couldn't -possibly- be just some schmoe looking to sell his guns.

Colt
September 13, 2007, 11:31 AM
When I first heard of the "gun show loophole" I figured it was something conjured up by the antis to shut down shows.

When I inquired on this board as to what the "loophole" really was, I was told that it meant private parties could sell guns to one another without either possessing an FFL, and without any type of check being run.

I guess my question is if I can't buy a pistol from an FFL without a check being run, why can I buy one from my neighbor?

I can see Kman's point. My concern is a bit more selfish in nature, though. I don't want to sell a pistol to someone who uses it to cap a rival in the city, then have the police trace the gun back to me.

If we didn't have the NICS checks and FFL's, then I'd say "so what" about private sales. But because such laws are in place, isn't a private sale "risky" for the seller?

damien
September 13, 2007, 11:40 AM
Does ICE normally monitor gun shows?

I am only speculating here, but I bet they do in Texas, Arizona, and California, at least. The amount of crime being committed in those states by illegals has become a major problem. Having ICE there would speed up the process of removing criminals from the country once detected.

strat81
September 13, 2007, 11:54 AM
I can see Kman's point. My concern is a bit more selfish in nature, though. I don't want to sell a pistol to someone who uses it to cap a rival in the city, then have the police trace the gun back to me.

A bill of sale, signed by both parties, along with some identification, address, etc. is fine for that. Now, if the cops are visiting you several times per year for this, it might get a little suspicious. If someone looks unsavory, don't sell to them.

Telperion
September 13, 2007, 11:56 AM
I guess my question is if I can't buy a pistol from an FFL without a check being run, why can I buy one from my neighbor?

At the federal level, Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Although that term has become twisted and warped beyond recognition after 70 years of Supreme Court decisions, in-state private sales are neither interstate nor commercial. States can still regulate them, for example, all private sales are illegal in California.

I can see Kman's point. My concern is a bit more selfish in nature, though. I don't want to sell a pistol to someone who uses it to cap a rival in the city, then have the police trace the gun back to me.

If we didn't have the NICS checks and FFL's, then I'd say "so what" about private sales. But because such laws are in place, isn't a private sale "risky" for the seller?

I've got some bad news for you: in that scenario, even if you sold that gun through an FFL, the police are still going to trace it back to you. Why? Because the ATF's forward trace system only leads as far as the first sale. Under federal law, you're only in trouble if you knowingly sold a gun to someone who is legally disallowed from owning one.

elrod
September 13, 2007, 12:02 PM
Colt
isn't a private sale "risky" for the seller?

If you have doubts about the buyer of your firearm, then require the buyer to have a current CCW permit (or whatever it's called in your neck o' the woods) before you make the sale. If your state dosen't require a CCW, then just keep your gun.:uhoh:

As corrupt as the Mexican officials usually are, I would suspect a profit motive in their gun purchases. I understand the drug dealers and gang members south of the border pay premium prices for guns, and who better to smuggle them across the border than the police? After all, the baby needs shoes!;)

Colt
September 13, 2007, 12:18 PM
I've got some bad news for you: in that scenario, even if you sold that gun through an FFL, the police are still going to trace it back to you.

Right, understood. But at that point, isn't my FFL going to whip out his book and show the reciept of the transaction? I know I'm going to have my receipt and copy of the paperwork. At that point, aren't I pretty much off the hook?

I think of it this way: If I sell a gun to someone privately, and they then kill someone with it, I'm a ripe target of a civil suit. Especially if the buyer was a felon.

By selling through my FFL, I provide a layer of legal protection for a mere $20.

Colt
September 13, 2007, 12:22 PM
If you have doubts about the buyer of your firearm, then require the buyer to have a current CCW permit (or whatever it's called in your neck o' the woods) before you make the sale.

My state issues CCW permits, but they aren't required to own a handgun. I suppose if I were in a bind, I'd accept a CCW instead of using an FFL.

I see your point. But I also feel spending $20 to put the transfer through my FFL is worth the money. Maybe I'm wrong. That's just the reasoning I've always used.

antsi
September 13, 2007, 12:37 PM
------quote-------
Though I don't like the idea of regulating everything to death, I do like the idea of having a "gun ownership license", showing legally you are able to puchase and competant to handle firearms....
I buy, sell and trade regularly at the shows, and it pains me to think I may loose this right because of jokers like this, when the right piece of legislation is all that is needed to end the "loophole dilema."
-------------------

If you lose the right to sell at gun shows, it won't be because of criminals, crazy people, or illegals. It will be because of anti-gun politicians.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking they will just be happy and leave us alone if they get licensing imposed on us. They will not rest at that, or anywhere else, until they have totally outlawed citizen posession of firearms.

I used to live in Illinois and initially thought the FOID (essentially a firearms owner license) was a "reasonable restriction." Then along came Blagoevich (now the governor). He thought it would be a cute idea to raise the FOID fee to $500 per year. That didn't go through, but you see where this is headed. Once he gets the bureaucratic apparatus up and running, he can start tweaking it and abusing it to attack gun owners.

They will chip away, one law at a time, making it increasingly impossible for anyone to own a gun.

Every time they pass one of these things, it makes it easier to pass the next one. Due to the FOID law, Illinois currently has a list of all law-abiding gun owners in that state. Say they decide to ban handguns, or semiauto rifles next week. That FOID list sure will come in handy tostart rounding up all the handguns and AR's, won't it?

That's what will lose you your gunshow firearams dealer business. Please don't think you can save yourself by supporting gun control laws. The gun control crowd wants you out of business just as much as they want to take away my guns.

Kman
September 13, 2007, 10:02 PM
Jeff, this is what I find acceptable: (430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1)
Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24‑3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", as amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 94‑6, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

However, the addition of unnecessary pork-barreling includes:

(b) Any person within this State who transfers or causes to be transferred any firearm, stun gun, or taser shall keep a record of such transfer for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer. Such record shall contain the date of the transfer; the description, serial number or other information identifying the firearm, stun gun, or taser if no serial number is available; and, if the transfer was completed within this State, the transferee's Firearm Owner's Identification Card number. On demand of a peace officer such transferor shall produce for inspection such record of transfer.

Unfortunately, they compromised and made a private sale between law-abiding citizens a public record. You may find solace in knowing of your $5, $3 goes to fish and wildlife, $1 to police services, and the last $1 to operating costs.

Flyboy
September 14, 2007, 12:27 AM
Kman:

s/Firearm/Printing Press/g

Or, if you prefer English to Perl, rights don't require permits.

If you enjoyed reading about "The story that will prompt the next call to close the so called Gun Show Loophole" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!