NRA post debate ad released...

[Ernie S.]

responsible gun legislation is long overdue - all guns should be lever-action including pistols.

There should also be minimum magazine capacities. Reloading is such a hassle.

 

[Missourian]

It is the NRA who made it LEGAL for American gun runners to sell multiple ARs to Mexican drug lords!!!!

I call bullshit.

You can't handle the truth.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

The investigation begins
The ATF is a bureau of judgment calls. Drug enforcement agents can confiscate cocaine and arrest anyone in possession of it. But ATF agents must distinguish constitutionally protected legal guns from illegal ones, with the NRA and other Second Amendment activists watching for missteps.

Critics have depicted the ATF as "jackbooted government thugs" trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. From the deadly standoff with the Branch Davidian*cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 to allegations that ATF agents illegally seized weapons from suspected straw purchasers at a Richmond *gun show in 2005, these scandals have helped cement the bureau's reputation in some quarters for law-enforcement overreach.

snip/

In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful

It is illegal for anyone except a licenced firearm exporter to sell a firearm to a foreign national.

Period.

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;



Your blog is full of crap.

It is absolutely illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a mexican drug lord.

 

[Ernie S.]

that's the panicky sociophobes to whom I refer. Caught in a society to big for them to handle, and they snap.

It's not a Right or Left, north or south thing. There are nutters who get their hands on guns. And the national "fuck it, here's my gun motherfucker" attitude is over the top.

Bah, criminals are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.

The instances of the "crazed lone gunman going postal" are so rare that they, in toto, represent less than .0001 % of firearm relate homicides in the United States.

In fact, they are so rare, nearly every incident makes the national news.

there were just shy of 9000 murders by gun in 2010.
Non fatal injuries, just under 14,000.
Suicides, just under 19000.
accidental shootings causing death, 550.
and the lowest, police shootings (remarkably low, all things considered) 335.

I rounded for simplicity.

So what you have is approximately 80 deaths, and approximately 40 non fatal shootings, PER DAY.

that's a shameful record.

And in likely 95% of those cases, the gunman was a felon or used the gun in the commission of a felony. I believe murder, robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is already against the law. What more gun legislation do we need?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Bah, criminals are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.

The instances of the "crazed lone gunman going postal" are so rare that they, in toto, represent less than .0001 % of firearm relate homicides in the United States.

In fact, they are so rare, nearly every incident makes the national news.

there were just shy of 9000 murders by gun in 2010.
Non fatal injuries, just under 14,000.
Suicides, just under 19000.
accidental shootings causing death, 550.
and the lowest, police shootings (remarkably low, all things considered) 335.

I rounded for simplicity.

So what you have is approximately 80 deaths, and approximately 40 non fatal shootings, PER DAY.

that's a shameful record.

And in likely 95% of those cases, the gunman was a felon or used the gun in the commission of a felony. I believe murder, robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is already against the law. What more gun legislation do we need?

Well, since shooting people is a felony, I'd have to agree.

But we can all toss out percentages without backing them up. 104% of people know that.

 

[Missourian]

Except..... that it doesn't say that at all.

Of course it does...in the same way freedom of speech includes freedom of expression.

It is extrapolated from the original intent.

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the firearms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Of course it does...in the same way freedom of speech includes freedom of expression.

It is extrapolated from the original intent.

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the arms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

and the average joe sixpack getting a bunch of guns with no oversight really seems like a "well regulated militia" to you?

that's patently absurd.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think that interpretation of the constitution is just a little bit convoluted.

But a society where pretty much anyone, including low education, jumpy rednecks... and panicky sociophobes... a society where there are nutbags (on both the left, and the right) who can get their hands on weapons, is a bad combination.

What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you, Lakhota?

That's not the part that I disagree with. But as long as you fucknuts keep thinking I'm Native, may as well take advantage of it.

Get the fuck of my land, white boy.

I probably have more Native American blood than you do, Chief...
The second amendment is very plain. It's elegant in it's simplicity; so simple, really, that anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED​

What part of that is so difficult to grasp?

 

[Ernie S.]

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the arms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

and the average joe sixpack getting a bunch of guns with no oversight really seems like a "well regulated militia" to you?

that's patently absurd.

When the 2nd amendment was written, well regulated meant well armed. Really! Look it up.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you, Lakhota?

That's not the part that I disagree with. But as long as you fucknuts keep thinking I'm Native, may as well take advantage of it.

Get the fuck of my land, white boy.

I probably have more Native American blood than you do, Chief...
The second amendment is very plain. It's elegant in it's simplicity; so simple, really, that anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED​

What part of that is so difficult to grasp?

you probably do, since I'm white... which was the fucking point.

and you're right. A 3rd grader should be able to understand the intent was in context to a miltia... since it's RIGHT at the fucking start.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the arms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

and the average joe sixpack getting a bunch of guns with no oversight really seems like a "well regulated militia" to you?

that's patently absurd.

When the 2nd amendment was written, well regulated meant well armed. Really! Look it up.

And what did Militia mean? Random citizens using guns to protect themselves from the threat of EACH OTHER?

that's complete dumbfuckery.

 

[Ernie S.]

Except..... that it doesn't say that at all.

Of course it does...in the same way freedom of speech includes freedom of expression.

It is extrapolated from the original intent.

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

It doesn't state that only the folks you deem worthy should be packing either. It says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. My GOD you are stupid!

Get out of my country!

 

[Ernie S.]

and the average joe sixpack getting a bunch of guns with no oversight really seems like a "well regulated militia" to you?

that's patently absurd.

When the 2nd amendment was written, well regulated meant well armed. Really! Look it up.

And what did Militia mean? Random citizens using guns to protect themselves from the threat of EACH OTHER?

that's complete dumbfuckery.

Pretty much everything you've written since changing your name and coming back to USMB has been complete dumbfuckery, dumbfuck.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

When the 2nd amendment was written, well regulated meant well armed. Really! Look it up.

And what did Militia mean? Random citizens using guns to protect themselves from the threat of EACH OTHER?

that's complete dumbfuckery.

Pretty much everything you've written since changing your name and coming back to USMB has been complete dumbfuckery, dumbfuck.

Yes, I know it's really really HARD to figure that there may be more than one person that doesn't believe the same as you. If you squint your eyes and try real hard, it might be possible for you to do so though.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Of course it does...in the same way freedom of speech includes freedom of expression.

It is extrapolated from the original intent.

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

It doesn't state that only the folks you deem worthy should be packing either. It says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. My GOD you are stupid!

Get out of my country!

Because James Holmes should have had guns. And Jiverly Wong. And Michael Mclendon. And George Hennard. Etcetera.

 

[Missourian]

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the arms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

and the average joe sixpack getting a bunch of guns with no oversight really seems like a "well regulated militia" to you?

that's patently absurd.

Seems to be working pretty well so far...200,000,000 legally owned firearms...at a minimum, 199,980,000 are being used responsibly, without oversight.

That's a huge number.

There are only 130 million more citizen than that in the entire country.

 

[edthecynic]

I call bullshit.

You can't handle the truth.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

The investigation begins
The ATF is a bureau of judgment calls. Drug enforcement agents can confiscate cocaine and arrest anyone in possession of it. But ATF agents must distinguish constitutionally protected legal guns from illegal ones, with the NRA and other Second Amendment activists watching for missteps.

Critics have depicted the ATF as "jackbooted government thugs" trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. From the deadly standoff with the Branch Davidian*cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 to allegations that ATF agents illegally seized weapons from suspected straw purchasers at a Richmond *gun show in 2005, these scandals have helped cement the bureau's reputation in some quarters for law-enforcement overreach.

snip/

In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful

It is illegal for anyone except a licenced firearm exporter to sell a firearm to a foreign national.

Period.

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;



Your blog is full of crap.

It is absolutely illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a mexican drug lord.

First of all, that is not Arizona law. And secondly all they have to say they didn't know the person they transfer the gun they just bought was not buying it for personal use in the state. There is no limit on how many long guns can be bought in Arizona and there is no registry reporting who is buying them in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/02/20/20110220arizona-rifle-sale-law.html

Loophole Cited

The ATF in December sought to mandate reporting requirements of long-gun sales in the four Southwestern border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to help reduce guns going to Mexico. The mandate mirrored federal handgun regulations, which require dealers to notify state and federal law enforcement anytime a person buys two or more guns in the same week. It would not prohibit sales to anyone who passes the required background check.

But earlier this month, following strong opposition from more than a dozen U.S. senators, the White House budget office nixed the mandate. It said the issue did not rise to an emergency under the law.

The National Rifle Association praised the decision.

"Had this measure gone into effect, it would have resulted in a registry of law-abiding gun owners and it would also have placed unnecessary burdens on law-abiding firearms retailers," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail.

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says he supported the mandate, in large part because Mexico authorities in meetings pleaded with U.S. officials to stop the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico.

"It is a loophole that needs to be closed if we are at all serious about stopping the flood of guns going to Mexico," Goddard said. "If someone is buying four or five long guns of any version, this seems to be sufficiently unusual circumstances that it should be reported."

 

[OKTexas]

Of course it does...in the same way freedom of speech includes freedom of expression.

It is extrapolated from the original intent.

"Extrapolated" frequently means "making it say what we want to." The amendment does NOT state everyone should be packing. Now, the courts have decided yes, it does. And that means it's a right. It's the dumbest right though. Everyone thinking about their rights, and fuck their responsibilities.

There is no other way to interpret "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Why shall that right not be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

What might that militia be called upon to do? Fight a foreign invader, or a tyrannical government perhaps?

It would probably be a good idea if the firearms stipulated were of a type that were at least similar to those of a professional army.

Extrapolated.

Those are exactly the types of weapons they are trying to ban, what I call utility weapons, some call the assult weapons. They have other uses than assult, so the term utility is more accurate.

 

[Missourian]

You can't handle the truth.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

The investigation begins
The ATF is a bureau of judgment calls. Drug enforcement agents can confiscate cocaine and arrest anyone in possession of it. But ATF agents must distinguish constitutionally protected legal guns from illegal ones, with the NRA and other Second Amendment activists watching for missteps.

Critics have depicted the ATF as "jackbooted government thugs" trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. From the deadly standoff with the Branch Davidian*cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 to allegations that ATF agents illegally seized weapons from suspected straw purchasers at a Richmond *gun show in 2005, these scandals have helped cement the bureau's reputation in some quarters for law-enforcement overreach.

snip/

In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful

It is illegal for anyone except a licenced firearm exporter to sell a firearm to a foreign national.

Period.

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;



Your blog is full of crap.

It is absolutely illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a mexican drug lord.

First of all, that is not Arizona law. And secondly all they have to say they didn't know the person they transfer the gun they just bought was not buying it for personal use in the state. There is no limit on how many long guns can be bought in Arizona and there is no registry reporting who is buying them in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/02/20/20110220arizona-rifle-sale-law.html

Loophole Cited

The ATF in December sought to mandate reporting requirements of long-gun sales in the four Southwestern border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to help reduce guns going to Mexico. The mandate mirrored federal handgun regulations, which require dealers to notify state and federal law enforcement anytime a person buys two or more guns in the same week. It would not prohibit sales to anyone who passes the required background check.

But earlier this month, following strong opposition from more than a dozen U.S. senators, the White House budget office nixed the mandate. It said the issue did not rise to an emergency under the law.

The National Rifle Association praised the decision.

"Had this measure gone into effect, it would have resulted in a registry of law-abiding gun owners and it would also have placed unnecessary burdens on law-abiding firearms retailers," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail.

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says he supported the mandate, in large part because Mexico authorities in meetings pleaded with U.S. officials to stop the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico.

"It is a loophole that needs to be closed if we are at all serious about stopping the flood of guns going to Mexico," Goddard said. "If someone is buying four or five long guns of any version, this seems to be sufficiently unusual circumstances that it should be reported."

That's federal law Ed.

It is illegal to sell a firearm to anyone not a resident of your state.

That means it is your responsibility to ensure the buyer is a resident, by asking for an id.

I gifted a pistol to my Dad, a Florida resident...I live in Missouri.

I had to, by law, transfer the weapon to a Federal Firearm License holder in Missouri, he shipped it to a FFL in Florida, my Father had to have an instant backround check, then the Florida FFL Transfered the pistol to my Dad.



To do it any other way is illegal. Period.

Link to the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

"I didn't know" is no excuse.

 

[OKTexas]

You can't handle the truth.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

The investigation begins
The ATF is a bureau of judgment calls. Drug enforcement agents can confiscate cocaine and arrest anyone in possession of it. But ATF agents must distinguish constitutionally protected legal guns from illegal ones, with the NRA and other Second Amendment activists watching for missteps.

Critics have depicted the ATF as "jackbooted government thugs" trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. From the deadly standoff with the Branch Davidian*cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 to allegations that ATF agents illegally seized weapons from suspected straw purchasers at a Richmond *gun show in 2005, these scandals have helped cement the bureau's reputation in some quarters for law-enforcement overreach.

snip/

In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful

It is illegal for anyone except a licenced firearm exporter to sell a firearm to a foreign national.

Period.

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;



Your blog is full of crap.

It is absolutely illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a mexican drug lord.

First of all, that is not Arizona law. And secondly all they have to say they didn't know the person they transfer the gun they just bought was not buying it for personal use in the state. There is no limit on how many long guns can be bought in Arizona and there is no registry reporting who is buying them in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/02/20/20110220arizona-rifle-sale-law.html

Loophole Cited

The ATF in December sought to mandate reporting requirements of long-gun sales in the four Southwestern border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to help reduce guns going to Mexico. The mandate mirrored federal handgun regulations, which require dealers to notify state and federal law enforcement anytime a person buys two or more guns in the same week. It would not prohibit sales to anyone who passes the required background check.

But earlier this month, following strong opposition from more than a dozen U.S. senators, the White House budget office nixed the mandate. It said the issue did not rise to an emergency under the law.

The National Rifle Association praised the decision.

"Had this measure gone into effect, it would have resulted in a registry of law-abiding gun owners and it would also have placed unnecessary burdens on law-abiding firearms retailers," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail.

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says he supported the mandate, in large part because Mexico authorities in meetings pleaded with U.S. officials to stop the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico.

"It is a loophole that needs to be closed if we are at all serious about stopping the flood of guns going to Mexico," Goddard said. "If someone is buying four or five long guns of any version, this seems to be sufficiently unusual circumstances that it should be reported."

They can stop the flow of guns to mexico very easily, can you say seal the freaking boarder. Of course that would also stop the flow of people and money and drugs and the mixicans don't want any part of that. But neither does the US.

 

[edthecynic]

It is illegal for anyone except a licenced firearm exporter to sell a firearm to a foreign national.

Period.

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;



Your blog is full of crap.

It is absolutely illegal for any individual to sell a firearm to a mexican drug lord.

First of all, that is not Arizona law. And secondly all they have to say they didn't know the person they transfer the gun they just bought was not buying it for personal use in the state. There is no limit on how many long guns can be bought in Arizona and there is no registry reporting who is buying them in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2011/02/20/20110220arizona-rifle-sale-law.html

Loophole Cited

The ATF in December sought to mandate reporting requirements of long-gun sales in the four Southwestern border states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to help reduce guns going to Mexico. The mandate mirrored federal handgun regulations, which require dealers to notify state and federal law enforcement anytime a person buys two or more guns in the same week. It would not prohibit sales to anyone who passes the required background check.

But earlier this month, following strong opposition from more than a dozen U.S. senators, the White House budget office nixed the mandate. It said the issue did not rise to an emergency under the law.

The National Rifle Association praised the decision.

"Had this measure gone into effect, it would have resulted in a registry of law-abiding gun owners and it would also have placed unnecessary burdens on law-abiding firearms retailers," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail.

Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says he supported the mandate, in large part because Mexico authorities in meetings pleaded with U.S. officials to stop the flow of U.S. guns into Mexico.

"It is a loophole that needs to be closed if we are at all serious about stopping the flood of guns going to Mexico," Goddard said. "If someone is buying four or five long guns of any version, this seems to be sufficiently unusual circumstances that it should be reported."

That's federal law Ed.

It is illegal to sell a firearm to anyone not a resident of your state.

That means it is your responsibility to ensure the buyer is a resident, by asking for an id.

I gifted a pistol to my Dad, a Florida resident...I live in Missouri.

I had to, by law, transfer the weapon to a Federal Firearm License holder in Missouri, he shipped it to a FFL in Florida, my Father had to have an instant backround check, then the Florida FFL Transfered the pistol to my Dad.



To do it any other way is illegal. Period.

Link to the law:

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts | LII / Legal Information Institute

"I didn't know" is no excuse.

The law for handguns does not apply to rifles!!!!

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...1/06/18/20110618arizona-gun-laws-roberts.html

That's because in Arizona, you can buy as many assault weapons as you want. And while gun dealers are required by federal law to report multiple handgun sales, you can buy an arsenal of Uzis and there is no requirement that law enforcement be notified.

Which is perhaps why the cartels consider Arizona the shopping center of choice for all their war-weaponry needs.