CoRoMo
Member
I just saw this today...
Denver Fox31 News Crew Trying To Conduct Undercover ArmsList "Stings"
- Thread starter CoRoMo
- Start date
- Status
To my knowledge they aren't given any special exemption. They are breaking the law like a common criminal, which is why the police should be called.
r1derbike
Member
Time to introduce those clowns to felonious charges, and get the word out that they, and Denver Fox31 were behind it.
OP
OP
CoRoMo
Member
Didn't happen to me. I saw the post on ArmsList and just wanted to post it here.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Seeing as the sale isn't straw until completed, why doesn't an LEO member here play along with them? We have evidence of their intent to commit a felony, I should think officers or even the ATF would be snapping at the bit...
I've never understood the logic behind any sort of blind "sting" operation, especially when done for political purposes. Let's break some laws to show the laws we have are too easily broken, so we can pass more laws that can be broken in turn
. If LE are not the ones conducting this little operation, the hammer needs to be brought down hard. This nonsense is incredibly subversive, especially if done without legitimate legal oversight and justification.
TCB
I've never understood the logic behind any sort of blind "sting" operation, especially when done for political purposes. Let's break some laws to show the laws we have are too easily broken, so we can pass more laws that can be broken in turn
. If LE are not the ones conducting this little operation, the hammer needs to be brought down hard. This nonsense is incredibly subversive, especially if done without legitimate legal oversight and justification.TCB
InkEd
Member
Citizen's arrest! Citizen's arrest! Hey Andy! Citizen's arrest!
Keep records of everything on your smartphone. Slam them on the ground and hold them until the police arrive.
Keep records of everything on your smartphone. Slam them on the ground and hold them until the police arrive.
HILLBILLY-06
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 57
Now that's funny as heck, I was trying to think of a way to find humor in this, but this guy nailed it good.... "Mayburry Style" LOL
Cranky CJ
Member
Hmm, I think straw purchases only apply to FFL. FTF private doesn't really apply. If you are a lawyer, please correct if I'm wrong. But, I don't think any laws are broken by this obtuse sting.
frankenstein406
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2011
- Messages
- 816
wonder if armslist can ip ban them
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Citizens Arrests only apply to misdemeanors in most states. So it wouldn't be applicable here.
.
Citizens Arrests only apply to misdemeanors in most states. So it wouldn't be applicable here.
.
Shadow 7D
Member
Illegal, with private STILL illegal, and most likely contrary to the NEW state laws, so video tape, put it out WIDE and UM... get these sukka's arrested, or call the competing new stations and sting the sting.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
That is pure evilly genius!
InkEd
Member
Rat 'em out the stinking BATFE. Pretend you don't know they are a news team.
OilyPablo
Member
I'm sure they will film some idiot doing something supposedly shady.....and air it with the usual "ALL gun owners" theme. Has their show hit the news yet?
longknife12
Member
I got a email yesterday warning of this.....from the original guy. Glad it's going national.Fortunantly, I buy, don't sell.
Dan
Dan
usmarine0352_2005 said:
No actually it is the opposite.
Citizen's arrest applies to serious felonies just about everywhere, but only to misdemeanors in some states.
You just typically see it used in the reverse because trying to arrest violent felons is a lot more dangerous and with typically higher stakes than trying to stop the shop lifter.
Also stopping serious felonies would typically result in facing or needing serious or lethal force escalating legal ramifications, while fewer misdemeanor offenders would escalate to felony actions when confronted.
So more misdemeanors are stopped by citizen's arrest than felonies, but more actually have the right to arrest for felonies than misdemeanors.
Also police officers in some states have a higher legal criteria to arrest for misdemeanor offenses not committed in thier presence, but have a lower threshold for felonies not committed in thier presence. As a result a citizen that did witness a misdemeanor may technically be the one performing the arrest even when it is an officer taking them into custody. So they depend more on citizen's arrest for misdemeanors than felonies.
However as it applies to things like this, the confusion today is the term felony is far more broad than it used to be.
And it covers relatively minor offenses, like just mere possession of various things.
While in the past it was a term used to refer primarily to serious violent offenses, and some of the more serious non violent ones.
As a result now they have started using various distinctions under the law in various places of certain types of felonies and creating various felony categories, because the expansion of what qualifies as a felony makes terms like 'felony' meaningless in determining the seriousness of an offense as it applies to using force.
Which is related to making arrests.
But what the law allows and reality still can clash. Pursuing a suspect if it later results in the need for lethal force is often used against someone to prove they put themselves in the situation and imply the use or need for that force was partially thier own fault. Even if an attempted arrest was entirely legal it will instead be made out as vigilante action. So even though it is the legal right of most to arrest felons, public perception means it may not legally be decided in favor of the person attempting the arrest.
But this is not because of the law, but because of the views of the people that make up the jury, police, investigators, media, etc which will be interpreting and applying the law.
Because under the law you could pursue and arrest felons in most states.
Further many people do not understand citizens arrest, and may not cooperate. They are more likely to resist arrest and use violence towards a regular citizen than towards and officer. Just as many trying to arrest may not understand thier own legal limitations.
So being on either end of a citizen's arrest is generally advised against.
No actually it is the opposite.
Citizen's arrest applies to serious felonies just about everywhere, but only to misdemeanors in some states.
You just typically see it used in the reverse because trying to arrest violent felons is a lot more dangerous and with typically higher stakes than trying to stop the shop lifter.
Also stopping serious felonies would typically result in facing or needing serious or lethal force escalating legal ramifications, while fewer misdemeanor offenders would escalate to felony actions when confronted.
So more misdemeanors are stopped by citizen's arrest than felonies, but more actually have the right to arrest for felonies than misdemeanors.
Also police officers in some states have a higher legal criteria to arrest for misdemeanor offenses not committed in thier presence, but have a lower threshold for felonies not committed in thier presence. As a result a citizen that did witness a misdemeanor may technically be the one performing the arrest even when it is an officer taking them into custody. So they depend more on citizen's arrest for misdemeanors than felonies.
However as it applies to things like this, the confusion today is the term felony is far more broad than it used to be.
And it covers relatively minor offenses, like just mere possession of various things.
While in the past it was a term used to refer primarily to serious violent offenses, and some of the more serious non violent ones.
As a result now they have started using various distinctions under the law in various places of certain types of felonies and creating various felony categories, because the expansion of what qualifies as a felony makes terms like 'felony' meaningless in determining the seriousness of an offense as it applies to using force.
Which is related to making arrests.
But what the law allows and reality still can clash. Pursuing a suspect if it later results in the need for lethal force is often used against someone to prove they put themselves in the situation and imply the use or need for that force was partially thier own fault. Even if an attempted arrest was entirely legal it will instead be made out as vigilante action. So even though it is the legal right of most to arrest felons, public perception means it may not legally be decided in favor of the person attempting the arrest.
But this is not because of the law, but because of the views of the people that make up the jury, police, investigators, media, etc which will be interpreting and applying the law.
Because under the law you could pursue and arrest felons in most states.
Further many people do not understand citizens arrest, and may not cooperate. They are more likely to resist arrest and use violence towards a regular citizen than towards and officer. Just as many trying to arrest may not understand thier own legal limitations.
So being on either end of a citizen's arrest is generally advised against.
Last edited:
How could it be? In a private sale no one is filling out any paperwork swearing to anything.
I am sure giving the gun to a person who can not legally have one is certainly illegal...but how can buying a gun for someone else with no paperwork possibly be illegal....and if it is, how in the world could they enforce it?
Last edited:
- Status