How to prevent straw purchases?

[boomerang]

While we may need to propose something, that something should be better information and better enforcement of current laws, not more laws.

[seamusTX]

Maybe the Treasury Secretary can order the BATFE compliance guys to focus on this problem instead of minor violations like someone writing "TX" instead of "Texas" on a 4473.

That's a great idea. That kind of nitpicking does nothing except occasionally put a small-time FFL out of business.

Another idea occurred to me. Extend the "don't lie for the other guy" program to include a reward for information leading to the arrest of a straw buyer.

IOW, if someone who is a citizen with a clean record is approached by a guy offering him payment to buy a weapon, said citizen could drop a dime, maybe participate in a sting, and get several thousand dollars -- more than the straw buyer would have paid him.

- Jim

[frazzled]

Those in government who do not respect the right to keep and bear arms are not stupid. They have a plan that they hope will limit such activities. Some of the proposals on the table are

• one purchase a month laws
• requiring all private sales to go through an FFL
• requiring the reporting of theft or loss of a firearm, with criminal penalties for failing to do so

- Jim

I'm ok with these three actually. I'm shocked that private sales don't go through an FFL.

[Purplehood]

This probably won't go over well, but here goes:

Everytime a DL or CHL is presented for a purchase of a firearm through a dealer, the quantity is noted in a state/federal database.

You buy one firearm, a "1" shows up. You buy another a week later, another "1" shows up. You buy 14 the next day, a "14" shows up.

Every 30 days, the ticker rolls back to "0". Investigators could see if any one individual is buying wild quantities of firearms in any 30 day period. If so, they might give them a call and ask about it. I am relatively sure that if I received a call asking about firearms purchases from the ATF and I were involved in gun-smuggling, I would think twice.

In any event, it might give border-line guys needing money pause before they do it, and the ATF at least some idea of who might possibly be involved and who probably is not.

No specifics on type of firearm would need be mentioned, just the quantity, period.

[Oldgringo]

Thanks, Oldgringo. I would much rather see the NRA and its supporters in Congress propose legislation than the usual suspects.

The problem with the one-gun-a-month rule is that someone has to keep track of purchases.

At present, NICS queries are supposed to be purged after three days. In order to enforce a one-gun-a-month rule, they would have to be preserved for at least a month. It's not a big stretch for them to be preserved indefinitely, creating a de facto registration system.

I haven't made my mind up one way or the other about these issues. I'm just thinking out loud here.

- Jim

Like you, I'm definitely not in favor of more restrictions; however, those currently in power think more laws are good. One thing is for certain - something will be done by someone. It's better that we clean our own house than have someone else clean it for us. What's the solution? I dunno' What I do know is that wringing our hands and bellyaching about the current administrataion will get us nothing but sore hands.

[Oldgringo]

This probably won't go over well, but here goes:

Everytime a DL or CHL is presented for a purchase of a firearm through a dealer, the quantity is noted in a state/federal database.

You buy one firearm, a "1" shows up. You buy another a week later, another "1" shows up. You buy 14 the next day, a "14" shows up.

Every 30 days, the ticker rolls back to "0". Investigators could see if any one individual is buying wild quantities of firearms in any 30 day period. If so, they might give them a call and ask about it. I am relatively sure that if I received a call asking about firearms purchases from the ATF and I were involved in gun-smuggling, I would think twice.

In any event, it might give border-line guys needing money pause before they do it, and the ATF at least some idea of who might possibly be involved and who probably is not.

No specifics on type of firearm would need be mentioned, just the quantity, period.

This is not a bad idea and its certainly doable.

[jimlongley]

However, we have a political problem here and now that we need confront.

It's already illegal. Vigorously enforce the existing law. Maybe the Treasury Secretary can order the BATFE compliance guys to focus on this problem instead of minor violations like someone writing "TX" instead of "Texas" on a 4473.

I agree, vigorous enforcement, including Bloomberg, Daley, others lke them, and the people working for them, would go a long way toward fixing at least part of the problem.

Everytime a DL or CHL is presented for a purchase of a firearm through a dealer, the quantity is noted in a state/federal database.

You buy one firearm, a "1" shows up. You buy another a week later, another "1" shows up. You buy 14 the next day, a "14" shows up.

Every 30 days, the ticker rolls back to "0". Investigators could see if any one individual is buying wild quantities of firearms in any 30 day period. If so, they might give them a call and ask about it. I am relatively sure that if I received a call asking about firearms purchases from the ATF and I were involved in gun-smuggling, I would think twice.

The complications involved in implementing such a scheme (calendar month or 30 days starts at purchase) and the potential for abuse by the government (can you guarantee that they won't keep the record for more than 30 days, they already try to keep stuff that is supposed to be expunged, and how can we be sure it's just the DL/CHL and a digit being recorded?) make this impractical at best. And how do I know that the next time a cop stops me, he won't get a message that says "This guy bought a gun within the last 30 days."?

Nope, unacceptable and an invasion of my privacy, particularly in light of the limited likelyhood that it will succeed in any way.

Those in government who do not respect the right to keep and bear arms are not stupid. They have a plan that they hope will limit such activities. Some of the proposals on the table are

• one purchase a month laws
• requiring all private sales to go through an FFL
• requiring the reporting of theft or loss of a firearm, with criminal penalties for failing to do so

- Jim

I'm ok with these three actually. I'm shocked that private sales don't go through an FFL.

I am not OK with the first two and the third already exists in many jurisdictions but is usually only used as a threat.

If I happen to come into a windfall and can finally buy the XD45 and the S&W in .45ACP at one time, what harm am I doing by purchasing both of them at once, after all I already have an untold number of guns? Making me wait to purchase the second one is unreasonable at best, aprticularly in light of the fact that it is unlikely to have an effect on the smugglers.

If such a law is passed, then all the smugglers have to do is set up multiple straw purchase plans, one gun from each of several individuals, instead of suborning just one individual for multiple purchases. If it's as easy as the media and government would have us believe it won't be a problem for the smugglers to work around it.

And of course the same applies to private purchases, with the added factor that these guys are already violating numerous laws, why would a couple more stop them? It's also unreasonable for me to have to go through a dealer if I find someone who wants to swap me the above mentioned handguns for my Garand and 400 rounds of ammo.

Giving up rights in hopes of preventing criminals from doing bad things has never worked before, I see no reason to expect it to start working now.

The NRA and many gun owners are often cast as unreasonable because we are supposedly unwilling to compromise "Even just a little." over "imiportant crime prevention laws" such as these. The problem is that we already tried the compromises, in 1968 and several times since then, and they didn't work, and now the anti-gun brady nuts want jus one more little increment, jut one gun a month, and then it will be full capacity magazines, and then semi-auto rifles with certain mean looking features, and then, and then, and then.

Nope, it's time for the line in the sand, we've gone this far and no farther.

[Purplehood]

I see no need for local LEOs to get access to the ticker proposal information. Only ATF.

[seamusTX]

I'm inclined to agree with Jim Longley about the problems inherent with keeping track of how many guns a person buys.

If a bill affecting NICS gets to the House floor, there is no way to guarantee that it won't let the FBI keep complete NICS records indefinitely. That would mean the feds would have de facto registration, knowing who owns what, including the serial number, from the day that the program starts.

Then, what does BATFE do with someone who has bought $10,000 worth of guns in one month? They ask him where they are. He says he sold them to his 12 best friends. That is not illegal under current law.

If the guy is a straw buyer, it will probably scare him enough to stop doing it, but there are always more recruits.

Requiring private sales to go through an FFL would be an annoyance, to say the least. Many people do not have an FFL in easy driving range. The potential problems with fulfilling this requirement at gun shows have been explained thoroughly elsewhere.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

seamus wrote:

Requiring private sales to go through an FFL would be an annoyance, to say the least.

Is purchase through a FFL the answer? Maybe not, but an annoyance is better than 'new and improved' laws further hindering or outright preventing primary purchases. As for secondary purchases; i.e., person to person...I dunno'.

[tesla]

The answers to the long-term breakdown of Mexico's civil society and the resulting anarchy along the border do not lie in greater gun control in the United States. Basic problems resulting from decades of corrupt single party socialist rule and unenforceable drug prohibitions cannot and will not be solved by more US gun control.

This argument is a straw man. "Who can be in favor of violence on the border? Not I, you say! Something, anything, must be done! This is a crisis!!!"

Bleh. This is the latest in a long string of rationalizations aimed at an incremementalist approach to gun prohibition. The goal is a disarmed populace (like the majority of the English speaking world), and it is pursued using whatever emotional argument may resonate with the public on a particular day. Today that argument is violence on the border with Mexico.

I'm not impressed. Lack of US gun control is not the cause of anarchy in Mexico (corruption? collectivism? prohibition?). This is a cynical misdirection - an emotional sleight of hand intended to advance a domestic political agenda. Double bleh. I'm not buying it.

[seamusTX]

I agree entirely that no amount of "gun control" in the U.S. will fix Mexico's problems. But I don't think we have the option of just saying No this time.

- Jim

[mbw]

Whoa!

Back the truck up!

Most of the posts in this thread are falling for the lib line that there are thousands of automatic weapons being bought by straw buyers and smuggled into Mexico.

I do not belive that. I think that the numbers of semi-automatic weapons may be in the hundreds, but not thousands.

I have been paying attention to the increased news reports of "This Problem" for some time now. I find it very strange that as soon as we have a lib congress and a lib president that this problem just appears out of nowhere.

Don't fall for the hype! Make them prove their case before we agree that there is in fact a problem that needs to be dealt with. Show me where these thousands of automatic weapons were shipped to from the factory that produced them. Show me who purchased these weapons and where they purchased them. Show me that the Feds have prosecuted the people who who broken current Federal firearms laws.

Then we can talk.

[Oldgringo]

I agree entirely that no amount of "gun control" in the U.S. will fix Mexico's problems. But I don't think we have the option of just saying No this time.

- Jim

Jim is right. Not only will no amount of "gun control" not fix Mexico's problems, "gun control" will not fix our problems here in the good 'ol USA. Stricter enforcement of existing laws is definitely in order; however, we also have to do a better job of minding our own store.

[seamusTX]

I don't think anyone in this forum believes that Mexicans are getting machine guns and other weapons of war from the U.S. We all know how difficult and expensive it is for a non-LEO to acquire a machine gun here.

What is ending up in Mexico is a certain number of handguns and semi-auto rifles from the U.S.

The strategic problem that the supporters of the RKBA have is that we don't have the political means to stop something from being done at the federal level. It takes only a bare majority to pass legislation in the House, and the Republicans can barely sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

My question is how to relieve the political pressure for an "assault weapons ban" while limiting the damage.

IOW, if you were running the NRA-ILA, what would do?

- Jim