Are Feds Cracking Down On Straw Buyers?

[2A_Tom]

In answer to the title question- it looks like it

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local...cle_519a427d-7b45-5e73-90b6-f2639edf3e81.html

He said his office is cooperating with state and local law enforcement agencies to reduce the number of firearms that are stolen and then used in later crimes.

This makes no sense.

 

[HoughMade]

Like investigating where guns used in crime came from to hopefully arrest the people who stole and resold them? Makes sense to me.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I dunno, Hough, making firearms easily accessible to criminals and allowing them to take it without force or effort seems pretty negligent to me. Maybe even in a locked car too since the windows make the locks ineffective, but thats probably a bridge too far as they at least made an attempt to secure it.

 

[HoughMade]

I dunno, Hough, making firearms easily accessible to criminals and allowing them to take it without force or effort seems pretty negligent to me. Maybe even in a locked car too since the windows make the locks ineffective, but thats probably a bridge too far as they at least made an attempt to secure it.

Negligent, legally speaking, so what?

 

[2A_Tom]

OK, let me parse it a bit better.

He said his office is cooperating with state and local law enforcement agencies to reduce the number of firearms that are stolen

So, they are going to stake out your and my homes to make sure nobody steals our guns? How exactly do they keep firearms from being stolen?

and then used in later crimes.

OK, It has been stolen. Name a use of it that is not a crime. Possessing it is a crime. Selling it is a crime. Threatening with it is a crime. Shooting someone with it is a crime.

I suppose that accepting this concept is tantamount to wanting Safe Storage, Mandatory Theft Reporting, Holding original purchaser or even holding manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with the stolen gun.

 

[HoughMade]

Law enforcement does not encounter the gun, usually, until it has been used in a crime of violence.

 

[drillsgt]

That's not a crime. It's not even a basis for civil liability...no matter who you are.

Nicholson v. Lee, No.18A-CR-1371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 14, 2019).

Unless you live in CT and i'm sure there are some legislators in IN that would love to import some of their nonsense.

 

[2A_Tom]

Law enforcement does not encounter the gun, usually, until it has been used in a crime of violence.

That was my point.

The sentence that described their focus was poorly stated to fool some of the people or all of the people that they are focused on getting votes from.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Negligent, legally speaking, so what?

Don't get me wrong, I dont have a hard on for punishing those folks. I just find it odd that there is negligent behavior with not much appetite for punishment. At the least you've put one more gun on the street to be used in a crime. At its worst, you end up with a Brian Terry type situation.

 

[2A_Tom]

Don't get me wrong, I dont have a hard on for punishing those folks. I just find it odd that there is negligent behavior with not much appetite for punishment. At the least you've put one more gun on the street to be used in a crime. At its worst, you end up with a Brian Terry type situation.

That is exactly what anti's say about safe storage and gun locks.

If I had not been reading your posts for several years I would wonder if you liked peanut Butter on your Fluff Fudd Nutter sandwich.

 

[OurDee]

"Maybe even in a locked car too since the windows make the locks ineffective, but thats probably a bridge too far as they at least made an attempt to secure it."

If you only knew how fast your car can be opened when locked and without a key. I can show you.

 

[2A_Tom]

Don't get me wrong, I dont have a hard on for punishing those folks. I just find it odd that there is negligent behavior with not much appetite for punishment. At the least you've put one more gun on the street to be used in a crime. At its worst, you end up with a Brian Terry type situation.

Wait! What? I missed this.

Brian Terry? You gotta be trollin' with that.

Comparing someone having their legally owned gun stolen to an illegal gun running operation.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Wait! What? I missed this.

Brian Terry? You gotta be trollin' with that.

Comparing someone having their legally owned gun stolen to an illegal gun running operation.

Notice I said TYPE situation... ergo gun is obtained nefariously and ends up killing an innocent. Not a direct equivalent. The point is neither the lawful owner nor the likes of Obama/Holder anticipated anyone dying by their actions.

Make more sense now?

EDIT: And remember I'm talking about somebody having a gun stolen from an unsecured location, not someone who attempted to secure it. (no matter how insecure a tempered glass box is)

 

[Tombs]

"Maybe even in a locked car too since the windows make the locks ineffective, but thats probably a bridge too far as they at least made an attempt to secure it."

If you only knew how fast your car can be opened when locked and without a key. I can show you.

And if only people knew how easily picked their door locks for their house were, or how easily their safes can be defeated.

It requires a level of dedication to investigate what's on the market and how it's defeated to really settle on something confidence inspiring, but no matter how good the lock is, there is a way to defeat it. It's simply a matter of time and annoyance. It's not reasonable to expect people to spend that much time to know what products are actually a decent deterrent to a thief. If all else fails, a concrete nailgun will get into just about anything on the planet.

This is why, as suggested earlier, that convicting people for having their property stolen, is ridiculous.