Bloomberg gun sting ruled legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ZeSpectre

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
5,502
Location
Deep in the valley
NYC, Gun Dealers Both Hail Sting Ruling
NYC, Gun Dealers Both Hail Sting Ruling
January 26, 2008 - 2:20am

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - City officials say a federal judge helped their lawsuit against gun dealers by ruling that there was no crime in sending undercover investigators into gun shops to try to buy weapons illegally.

But gun dealers see the same decision as support for their argument that they didn't do anything wrong.

The sting operation was conducted two years ago. It was the basis for a civil case Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration brought against 27 gun dealers in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. Bloomberg targeted shops that the city believes are responsible for selling guns traced back to crimes in New York City.

Fifteen dealers have settled and agreed to let a special master monitor their sales. Litigation continues against several of the remaining 12 in federal court in Brooklyn.

As part of the legal process, attorneys for some of the gun shops argued that the city had itself violated the law by attempting the illegal buys.

Gun rights advocates and organizations like the National Rifle Association also have complained that Bloomberg's gun sting was a criminal stunt. And the Justice Department even did its own inquiry as to whether the city was out of bounds.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak said Friday the court had found "that the city's actions do not constitute a crime or fraud."

In the sting operation, private investigators hired by the city wore hidden cameras and attempted "straw purchases," in which one person fills out legal forms and buys a gun for someone else. The scam, prohibited by federal law, is typically employed by people who cannot own firearms, such as convicted felons.

Pollak agreed with the city's argument that the buyer's intent is the critical factor in a straw purchase. And in the purchases made by the city's investigators, the buyer did not hand over the purchased gun later.

"No 'straw' sale took place because ownership was never transferred," the judge wrote.

Bloomberg's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, applauded the decision.

"What the court has said today is exactly what we've said _ the only people who broke the law here were dealers who engaged in straw purchases," he said.

But an attorney for some of the defendants also welcomed the judge's ruling.

"Our side is getting stronger every day," said Carl Pierce. "These people engaging in these sales weren't doing anything illegal."
Click to expand...

So "simulated" straw purchases are legal as long as you don't take possession of the firearm?

Then I guess we can also be certain that the gun dealers did nothing wrong either because no crime was committed.

Yet Bloomberg and cronies walk away scott free and several dealers were severely impacted financially (enough that some simply closed up shop).

:fire::fire::fire::fire:
 
Yet Bloomberg and cronies walk away scott free and several dealers were severely impacted financally (enough that some simply closed up shop).
Click to expand...

Wasn't that what they were after in the first place? Bloomberg has used taxpayer monies to bedevil gun dealers out of his jurisdiction into closing their businesses. I am not a lawyer by a long shot. This may be legal, but it most certainly is not just! IMHO :fire:
 
Remember, in the Animal Farm, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. While Bloomberg was unquestionably involved in a conspiracy to violate firearms laws, prosecuting him for it would have been a startling development, given usual precedents concerning the privilege government employees have to violate laws, so long as they can claim to have a good motive.
 
According to this judge, the private investigators did not engage in a straw purchase because they had no intention to actually turn the gun over to the second person. These investigators were not legitimate police officers playing an undercover role so their assertions that they were just playing the role of a straw purchaser should not be given any legal credence. If a person was arrested buying drugs from an undercover police officer could the person then say he was just role playing and had no intention to actually use the drugs!
 
Waitaminit, am I understanding this correctly?

Bloomberg didn't turn the guns over to a second party so therefore a straw purchase never occurred. So how is there basis for a civil suit against the dealers?

If I was one of those dealers that settled I'd be pretty angry right about now. In light of this verdict the only thing that Bloomberg's "sting" proved is that an American can buy a gun.

Whoopdie-freakin-do...
 
What's done may be done from that Judge's perspective.

But, Bloomer-brain better not come back to Virginia and try that again.

Its 100% illegal if he tries it again in Virginia. The attempt alone is a felony. No requirement for the actual unlawful transfer from the strawman to the "buyer."

§ 18.2-308.2:2
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C2

L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.

j. A law-enforcement officer. For purposes of this subdivision, a law-enforcement officer means any employee of a police department or sheriff's office that is part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth.
 
What's done may be done from that Judge's perspective.

But, Bloomer-brain better not come back to Virginia and try that again.

Its 100% illegal if he tries it again in Virginia. The attempt alone is a felony. No requirement for the actual unlawful transfer from the strawman to the "buyer."

§ 18.2-308.2:2
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...d+18.2-308.2C2

L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.

j. A law-enforcement officer. For purposes of this subdivision, a law-enforcement officer means any employee of a police department or sheriff's office that is part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...

Not to read too far into that statute, but wouldn't it actually forbid the BATFE from conducting operations since they are Federal and not part of the Commonwealth Gov't??

c2k
 
W.E.G, How is that interpreted?

If the dealer conveys it the actual buyer the gun, and the actual buyer immediately hands it over to someone else, that would be fine? What's the point?

This reminds me of watching people demonstrating break down of rifles at California gun shows being very careful to remove the stock last and reinstall the stock first so as not to run afoul of the minimum length restrictions in the CA assault weapon ban.
 
We'll see what comes of it, if anything. JT

"All decisions of a magistrate judge are subject to review and either approval, modification or reversal by a district judge of that court, except in civil cases where the parties
consent in advance to allow the magistrate judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the district judge.

The office of United States magistrate judge was established by the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968"
 
Yet Bloomberg and cronies walk away scott free and several dealers were severely impacted financially (enough that some simply closed up shop).
Click to expand...

Doesn't that then mean that "Bloomberg and cronies" are now open for a civil lawsuit? After all, the gun shops can now show damages, right? They had to spend out a ton of money in order to defend themselves from what was obviously not a crime, or fold because they couldn't afford to spend the ton of money.

Is my thinking off here?
 
The interesting thing would be to file Civil Charges against him in the Federal Court located in Alexandria, VA
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, nor an actor that plays one, but wouldn't you have to file there? We're not talking small-claims here. These people are out of their livelihood, not to mention a lot of money. And since the actions that precipitated that were committed in VA, you'd have to file in VA court. I don't know if you could hit them with the new law, since the actions are illegal now and supposedly were not then.
 
We've hit the end of the Republic, folks. Elements of the federal judiciary no longer respect the right of one state to defend itself and its citizens from the aggressive machinations of another. Instead, they support whichever of the parties more closely cleaves with designs and intrigues that solidify the central control of life in these United States by our central government.
 
Maybe I'm just stupid and don't understand the whole thing but could someone explain this "sting" to me? The way I understand it a straw purchase is when a person who can legally own a gun purchases one legally and then sells it illegally so another person who is prohibited from owning a gun.

So what exactly did the dealers supposedly do wrong and how could they be convicted of a straw purchase? I mean if these undercover guys were legal to purchase a firearm what did the dealer do wrong by selling it to him or her?
 
What's actually illegal is the false statement on the form 4473 that you are the actual buyer. The purchase itself is not the crime, rather you have committed a federal perjury. Whether the other person can legally own a firearm or not is irrelevant.

I guess I don't really understand the judge's ruling and would have to read it to understand it. I guess if the "investigator" had the intent to buy the gun himself and did so, then that would not be a straw purchase. But if he took the cash from NYC down there with the intent of transferring the gun to NYC, that would be a straw purchase. What happened to the guns purchased? Did they in fact purchase guns or just talk about it?

It does seem that if the judge has ruled there was no straw purchase that it's hard to see how Bloomberg's lawsuit can go forward.
 
Just how is it LEGAL when someone from one state buys a handgun from a dealer in another state?
The only way for it to be legal is for the dealer to ship the handgun to a dealer in the buyers state.
 
WHAT?

How the Hell can they Rule a Blatant In-Your-Face Violation of Multiple Laws as being Legal???

If any Pro-2A Person or Group tried this they would Rot in the Greybar Hotel until George Washington Climbed out of His Grave and Smacked most of the .gov upside the head.

Not to mention the media would be all over it like white on rice.

(Anything else I can think of to say would not be taking the high road)

*walks off fuming*
 
I, too, am confused at what exactly happened in this "sting". How is the shop liable at all if the person that they legally sell a gun to decides to break the law and sell or give it to someone else? Did the undercover guys go into the shop and say "Hi, my buddy Leroy here wants a high powered rapid fire assault weapon to kill some cops with, but he is a convicted cop killer. Can you please sell it to me so that I can give it to him?"

If that is what happened, and the shop still sold the guy the gun, morally they are wrong, but as far as they should be concerned legally, it is the purchaser's legal problem. I used to work in an airsoft shop where it was illegal to sell an airsoft gun to a minor under 18. I can't tell you how many times a kid would bring their "uncle" or "sister" in and have them buy it. The problem is, that if I want the store to stay open and keep my job, then I will check the ID, and as long as that person is over 18, then I will sell it to them. What they do with it beyond that, is their ass, not mine.
 
Nobody answered my question either so I did a little research. What happened is they would send a team of a guy and a lady in the shop with hidden cameras. The guy would do all the talking like the gun was for him but when it came time to do the paperwork he would tell her to do it. Still really don't see where the crime is on the part of the seller, why should he care who buys it, if she gives it to the guy after leaving then she should be the one getting arrested. Sounds like entrapment to me, evidently though half the shops affected agreed to be overseen by Bloombergs flunkys to avoid a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
As I said in a similar thread several days ago....

A federal judge said Friday that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration did not commit a crime when it sent undercover investigators into gun shops to attempt illegal weapons purchases.
Click to expand...

How do they figure that no crime was committed? Bloomberg and his cronies clearly violated the law by falsifying 4473 forms.

As far as I know, local law enforcement does not have immunity/defense to prosecution for such acts, unless the sting was conducted under the auspices of the BATFE. And that does not appear to be the case... otherwise Bloomberg wouldnt feel it necessary to file civil lawsuits, because the BATFE would be running the show, not him.

Another case of politicians sticking their noses where they dont belong.
 
Also, and how would it be illegal on the part of the dealer? If I walk into a store and say I want to buy a gun, and it is legal, he can sell me that gun. I can then do whatever illegal act I want with it.

Did the officers go in and say "I want to buy this gun for my friend?"

You can't fault a gun dealer for making a legal transaction. If the officers didn't make any mention of their intent, how would a dealer know?

Should car dealers not sell me a car because I will probably go speed with it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
Bloomberg Restraining Order
Replies
7
Views
1K
Sage of Seattle
S
D
  • Locked
ATF Probing Mayor Bloomberg's 'Rogue Gun Sting'
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
ArmedBear
A
G
  • Locked
Gun Dealers Reach Settlement With NYC Mayor Bloomberg
Replies
15
Views
1K
Autolycus
A
M
  • Locked
BLOOMBERG DEALT SETBACK -- FOR NOW
Replies
7
Views
599
1911Tuner
1
W
  • Locked
Gun Dealer Hits Bloomberg on Sting Operation
Replies
12
Views
956
Lupinus
L
Back
Top