Skip to main content

Gun Laws, or any law, only work when those covered to either uphold or report on suspicious behavior carry out the word of the law, and this is only about one. How many others are taking place and probably daily and if not almost every weekend around the country. We learned quickly after the Webster NY firefighters killings that the felon, convicted and having served time for murder, used guns bought by a next door neighbor. She said the guns were stolen from her car yet apparently there was no record of a police report about that extreme theft, and it was reported also he accompanied her to gun shows in the area where the purchases were made. All guns are numbered and supposed to be registered by those, guns used in crimes traced back to someone who purchased but then sold, directly or at open gun shows, or they were stolen from, and there's no record puts the original owner in the same guilt as the perp who used.

This is a recent case that was just resolved but there are still questions and investigations into going on.

N.C. man pleads guilty to gun trafficking

This buying went on for quite awhile, yet the gun shops he was purchasing from, and especially the gun shows not recording his buys, didn't think this was unusual, one, or an employee of, finally did and finally reported their suspicions.

Jan. 30, 2013 - A man pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Charlotte, N.C. federal court to trafficking in dozens of assault weapons, court records showed.
snip


Polices apprehended Beas after Charlotte gun store employees became suspicious of his large AK-47 purchases and voluntarily informed federal agents, the Observer reported.

For six months last year, Beas went to gun shows in Charlotte, Hickory, Atlanta, Columbia, Greenville and Myrtle Beach, court records showed. He sold in a hotel parking lot parts for 12 .50-caliber weapons, the most powerful available for public sale, the report said.  read more>>>

This report comes from the Charlotte Observer, the gun straw buyer trafficker faced the charges in the Charlotte court, which goes abit deeper then the one above.

Accused gun trafficker pleads guilty in Charlotte court
January 30, 2013 - Authorities captured Michael Beas, 33, after employees at a Charlotte gun store grew suspicious of his large AK-47 purchases and tipped off federal agents.
snip

The case is unusual in the Western District of North Carolina. U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins’ office has prosecuted only three other gun trafficking cases in the past five years.

Tompkins says agents are hampered by the lack of a system to track multiple assault weapons purchases. Authorities don’t know how many guns Beas bought and sold, or to whom he sold them. read more>>>

That last above, "Authorities don’t know how many guns Beas bought and sold, or to whom he sold them." comes about in the further investigations. They suspect he was gun running the purchaes or dealing with gun runners in Bolivia as he traveled to that country that's well known for gun running. Thing is he's married to a Bolivian and his lawyer said he traveled there to try and win back his wife who had left him and moved back to.

Yesterday I was streaming the hearings on guns and had to turn it off well before they were finished. Why, well there was a number of spin talk points being made that defied logic let alone common sense and not only by those testifying as gun advocates but once again by tepubs on the panel, marketing for the gun manufacturers. From Lapierre to the other gun advocates on the panel, twisting themselves into knots, especially the woman as she said she spoke for millions of, to the tepubs on the panel they kept attacking the Obama administration and their perception of it being totally lax on enforcement of the gun laws on the books. If I knew I wouldn't greatly hurt myself I would have been banging my head on the table each time they did, and there were a number of statements of. Just leaving out all that was left on the table when the Administration came in and the short four years, now to be extended, to try and clean up the total mess, the issues on guns have been a marketing bonanza for the gun manufacturers and the NRA types as well as their bought government representatives. Even before Obama first took the oath gun sales started skyrocketing, just do a search. And throughout these past four years and on numerous occasions since the same has happened. When it's reported that the Justice Department, or local police, have arrested people of a so called militia group the rightwing press and blogs come to the defense of those arrested and or convicted as having their 'rights' violated, the NRA's usual response is to go dead silent like they did after the Sandy Hook shooting, probably for fear someone might ask if they are paying members of. Yet now it's all the fault of the Obama Administration or video games or whatever.

There's a newer small gunshop that opened, shortly after Obama first took the Oath of office and is still there, among the already many, in the area and towns and cities. On opening the owner had a big banner staked out front about getting your AR-15 and AK-47 there before Obama takes away your 'gun rights' to own whatever you want to. Every time there's been a nationally reported shooting, especially mass shootings with many innocent victims, the sign gets staked out front again. The day after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was no different, totally out of sight and out of mind the extremely young victims of Sandy Hook elementary, it was once again all about the gun owners right to stock up them arsenals, there it was again and the small parking lot was full with pickup trucks and cars coming and going, apparently they also needed thousands of rounds of ammunition as well as some walked out with no guns but packed plastic shopping bags.

What Gabby Said

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Much of the talk about guns has been focused on the mental issues, known or diagnosed, of some people and the help they should be getting as well as keeping them from owning weapons especially assault pistols and rifles and access to. In the Sandy Hook shooting it's all been about the younger shooter and what was found out about his diagnoses of, yet extremely little about what he wasn't getting help, his mother could afford the best, or if the mother herself wasn't sinking deeper into her own troubles. She apparently told friends at a bar she frequented about her guns and that she bought to protect herself if and when the economy completely collapsed. Also said was she wouldn't allow anyone into the home, even a landscaper she'd hired to do work around. Apparently making friends wasn't extended to the neighborhood she lived in, not hard to not do as the house stood far back from the road. This aired last night before a Newtown High School Conn. Legislative hearing on guns:

Newtown mother: Lanza home a "black spot" in neighborhood
January 30, 2013 - The Hockleys lived just yards away from the home of the gunman. Nicole Hockley saw Adam Lanza only once. It was from a distance -- the week of the attack.

Hockley: That house was kind of a black spot in the neighborhood. No one spoke about them. I've never heard a neighbor speak of them. Perhaps if there was more engagement within a community with neighbors looking out for each other, supporting each other, then maybe they would have gotten help in a different sort of way. But to everyone on your street except for one house, and that happens to be a house with people that--or a person who does this--that's kind of hard to swallow. So there is some regret there. read more>>>

More on the hearing last night with video's of some testimonies:

Newtown families hope massacre transforms nation

Originally posted to jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and VAGV - Veterans Against Gun Violence.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Marketing Guns on Public Dime (24+ / 0-)


    This Sheriff is a piece of work, not to mention an extreme danger to his own community, as he complains about funding but finds nothing wrong with using tax payers money on radio PSA ads to push the Gun Lobby, and NRA type, marketing scheme's to rush out and stock up them home arsenals putting more guns on the streets his officers, regulated law and order militia, patrol to aid and protect the citizens who will live among even more firearms and loads of ammunition!!

    America Discovers Sheriff Clarke

    As a few others around the country have opened their communities to lawlessness by saying they wouldn't enforce federal laws, meaning the little dictators are pickin and a choosen what laws they will enforce and I'll bet if a real good buddy of you wouldn't be arrested for anything you might do or if so the arrest report would just get lost.

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:36:54 AM PST

    •  What Should A Responsible (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gordon20024, carver, SilentBrook, a2nite

      Public Servant, especially in law enforcement and extremely tight budgets, be calling for instead of doing the NRA marketing with public funded PSA's, they should be calling for heavy taxes on all things related to guns, as we do on say cigarettes right now and continuing to grow and revenues placed in the general funds supporting non smokers needs,  especially the guns themselves as well as the ammunition for including the tools for self loading your own. With the revenues going to make up the shortfalls and into the hiring needs as well as sensible law enforcement equipment needs called for through city counsels, town councils, state legislatures, public meetings, wherever!

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:33:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  .50 cal is the most powerful for public sale? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jimstaro, SilentBrook, Kickemout

    Tell that to these guys:

  •  Crooked malfeasant clowns (7+ / 0-)

    like this need to be shown the door.

    He's no better than the collared-and-leashed-NRA-owned elected officials who work in Washington---but sure as hell don't serve there.

    We need to do something about the level of gun-violence in this country---and all we have standing between us and our goals---are clowns like this.

    I have zero respect for this kind of public servant---he's a disgrace and an embarassment to one and all.

    He'd be performing an actual public service---though it's not likely to happen---if he resigned.

    Then he would actually be a true Public Servant---and that I could respect.

    “One look, and your life was absolutely changed,” said Michael McGowan, one of the first police officers to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, as a gunman, in the space of minutes, killed 20 first graders and 6 adults.

    by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:52:56 AM PST

  •  Its insane that you could not buy and resell.... (11+ / 0-)

    cigarettes or alcohol with the incredible ease you have in buying and reselling firearms.

    Not only are you unlikely to be caught, but you are even less likely to be stopped or sufficiently punished for reselling firearms to anybody with cash in their pockets.

    They should just rename it the AT and drop the F.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:53:37 AM PST

    •  Keep in mind, as to your point above, (6+ / 0-)

      And I'm a long time smoker, the restrictions on not only booze but especially smoking itself, even outdoors, with many folks popping pills, legally, then ever before, yet a growing no restrictions on packing a loaded weapon, why you can even go shopping with them strapped to your back or as a sidearm showing clearly.

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:10:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  they're all straw buyers (11+ / 0-)

    as I've said here before, a "legitimate" gun buyer is just initiating a lifecycle for that weapon. Though many weapons do remain in "legitimate" hands (where they're quite handy for use in suicide and domestic violence), many others join a powerful current that moves them toward domestic illegal uses (gangs, people who are banned from owning guns, etc) and international trafficking (Mexico).

    The more comprehensive background check requirements people are talking about, if implemented universally with proper funding, could help better study this flow of weapons in order to evaluate other measures; but the most important element of the background checks is that it will reduce the number of people who can initially buy a gun and kick off that lifecycle. If we can have a national database keeping track of who's buying guns, we could also potentially put limits on the number of purchases an individual can make and identify deliberate traffickers, too.

    Drying up supply is something that will take decades, but we can start now by implementing measures that will put a drag on the flow of guns at key points in this lifecycle. There's much more we can do, too, but I'm quite interested in slowing down the supply side in the near term.

  •  This is the problem (9+ / 0-)

    with Second Amendment Absolutists claiming that they'd just prefer to see current law enforced. Well if that's the case why the need for the Tiehart Amendments? Why is gun ownership a more sensitive subject than the conversations citizens conduct on their cell phones? What could be the harm in gathering and cross referencing data related to gun ownership as long as due process is followed when accessing that data?

    •  Wel, the government works around due process (0+ / 0-)

      right now. Why would we continue to trust them?

      Warrantless wiretaps being just one example. Your example of cell phones is a bad one. They SHOULDN'T be monitoring our cell phone conversations.

      The Tiarht amendment (at least the parts that I'm familiar) keeps the NICS system from becoming a de facto registration.

      Which is what the amendment was designed to do.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:08:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If A Society See's (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Gordon20024, SilentBrook

        A Growing paranoia you don't think it should address that?

        Seems that's what you're saying with the 'it's the government', guess what, that's you!!

        And you, along with everyone else, left Accountability for crimes committed by the previous administration as well as everything they did Off The Table as everyone quickly, moved on, started blaming the present, and that continues!!

        Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

        by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:35:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Have you been paying attention? (0+ / 0-)

          Warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention of American citizens without due process....yeah, that's Constitutional.

          Dude, one of the reasons why I can't STAND Holder is due to his failure to prosecute the previous administration. I complained when that happened then.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:39:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Apparently You Haven't (0+ / 0-)

            Like I just said, we All left everything on the table that came out of the previous especially the previous justice department with their oh so christan educated lawyers!!!

            If you didn't think any coming, wait if the DC control ever goes back to the now totally nut cases calling themselves republican just look at the states allowed to, would continue to use what the american public by majority finds not a problem, then well I don't know what to say because you still won't get it!

            Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

            by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:52:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Are you capable of reading? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook
        What could be the harm in gathering and cross referencing data related to gun ownership as long as due process is followed when accessing that data?
        There are courts in this country. Citizens have recourse is warrantless searches are undertaken. Tiarht Amendments proscribe ways that law enforcement may gather, collect and use data when investigating crimes. Your concerns about potential due process violations are noted but in the meanwhile I assume your vehicle still has it's license plates on it and that you comply with state law when trading, selling or otherwise distributing guns in your collection. I assume you want your doctor to be accredited and any lawyers you do business with to be state sanctioned. Nowhere did I advocate for warrantless search, as my original post made clear. It IS possible, and potentially necessary, to monitor conversations when investigating crime, and there are methods for getting authorization to do so in order that evidence collected can be used in court. That's what I was referring to, and I hope you will not further conflate the separate issues of use of gun data and government violation of privacy.
        •  I comply with state and federal law (0+ / 0-)

          when I sell a firearm.

          What could be the harm in gathering and cross referencing data related to gun ownership as long as due process is followed when accessing that data?
          You can't guarantee me that due process will be followed 100%. The Tiahrt amendment is supposed to ensure gun data (privacy) isn't violated by the government.

          Works for me.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:27:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Right now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      There are enough people that are afraid that registration of their guns will result in them being confiscated at a later date.

      I personally think that if Assault Weapons were banned and then the Supreme Court ruled that as in violation of the second amendment that that would actually pave the way for a sensible registration scheme at the national level.

      But as long as you have people afraid that registration will result in the banning and rounding up of guns and those people form a significant miniorty, one of the best things we could do to reduce gun deaths is politically out of reach.

      •  As I Said Above (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        S F Hippie, mrblifil, SilentBrook

        Every gun has a registration number, if not registered then the gun seller is as guilty as the perp who uses!!

        Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

        by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:20:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except he isn't. (0+ / 0-)

          Unless he knowingly sells to someone who can't legally own one.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:21:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trying to justify? (5+ / 0-)

            That's the point, every weapon is registered as it comes off the production line, who ever purchases that is put into the paperwork of the purchase, or is by law supposed to be, and if stolen reported, if sold that information follows to sold to, by law!!

            That's how, sometimes to late but on the rare occasions, the military keeps track of every weapon in their possession!

            I had an incident in 'Nam where I had to keep a fellow sailor in country an extra week or so and was ready to start paperwork to send him back stateside under military arrest because he couldn't turn in the 45cal. he had been issued, luckily he finally came up with it so I could sign him out. He never admitted but I was sure he sold it to someone, hopefully not on the black market or it would never have came back up!!

            Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

            by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:42:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, actually. (0+ / 0-)

              Manufacturer tracks to dealer. Dealer tracks to first seller. Unless there's a state requirement, there's no tracking after that unless the buyer does it on his own (like I do).

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:25:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Right (0+ / 0-)

              But the type of registration you are suggesting is not in place right now, and would require changing the Gun Control Act of 1968 to implement and would not pass at this time for the reasons I mentioned.

            •  Most states don't operate this way. Private sales (0+ / 0-)

              don't have to record anything, gifts same idea, illegal transfers....obviously have no records, nor would they ever under any law.

                Even dealers only record the first sale ....from then on it's up to the individual but not against the law unless the person you are selling to can't legally own a gun and you are aware of that fact or unless you are in one of the few states that require it.

    •  All I Kept Thinking Yesterday, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrblifil

      As the Nut case, and he is in the extreme, Lapierre and the other advocates but especially the tepub reps, kept calling out the administration on enforcement was can you imagine, what with everything else dumped into this administration as I say above, what these past four years would have been like if we were reading probably almost daily reports of on issues of guns and buyers along with busting the so called militia groups!!

      They frankly should have been praising the justice department, as I'm sure in the NRA office building they were, for making their marketing arm's work so easy by them attacking as if it were what wasn't happening on a larger scale!!

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:17:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Actually Turned Off the Hearing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie, Vetwife, SilentBrook, a2nite

    Yesterday, after nearly banging head constantly, when it got to the newest, typical, tepub super patriot chickenhawk on the hill who already showed he has No Problem spitting on us Vietnam Veterans!!

    As an ex Navy Gunnersmate, all small arms as I stationed on shore my whole four years, In Country Vietnam veteran, the Cruz came on with his presentation, graphics and all, and showed what little this new chickenhawk, of age to have joined after 9/11, nitwit even understands about guns and especially assault weapons!!

    I just couldn't take it anymore, but already had heard enough of the twisting themselves in knots and could hear just what the cheering by their supporters sounded like!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:27:06 AM PST

  •  Not to mention straw buyers (7+ / 0-)

    for the Mexican cartels buying AR-15s half a dozen at a time at shows and shops in Texas and Arizona.

    The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

    by Azazello on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:32:49 AM PST

    •  I was going to mention that, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie, Azazello, SilentBrook

      Been going on since the drug wars started, we loves our free flow of drugs coming back and the money to be made, but the above was already getting too long!

      Not just from the Southwest gun shops or shows but all the way up the West Coast and into the Mid West because of the interstates, some suspected right straight over to the East Coast especially in the Southern States.

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:45:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vetwife, SilentBrook

        This trafficker is still under investigation because of many trips to Bolivia not just one and that country is known for weapons trafficking!

        Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

        by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:48:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  O'Donnell played a Sandy Hook parent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, LilithGardener

          and victim who made so much sense with the legislation of gun ownership he got a standing ovation.   I wish I remembere his name but to have a registration on the gun once a year like a car.  Not all people remain sane or stay mentally capable of owning a firearm since registereing.   This was one awesome idea.  

          We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

          by Vetwife on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:12:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And periodic renewal could require, say vision (0+ / 0-)

            and hearing tests, and a certain level of proficiency, in order to continue lawful ownership.

            It's a jobs program!

            And the cost should be folded into the industry that makes a profit off these dangerous consumer products. Any gun owner whose gun is used in an accidental shooting should be sanctioned in some way, including a fine and "points" like one gets on a driver's license.

            Such tracking would take guns out of at least SOME of the stupid hands, houses, and vehicles, in which guns are currently found by children and used to accidentally shoot someone.

          •  The gun violence in Chicago - interesting fact (0+ / 0-)

            A study of guns recovered in Chicago between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2012.

            But the truth is most guns recovered in crimes here were originally bought in Illinois.

            More specifically, in Cook County.

            And the No. 1 supplier of those weapons is just a short drive from Chicago, Chuck’s Gun Store in south suburban Riverdale.

            From 2008 to March 2012, the police successfully traced the ownership of 1,375 guns recovered in crimes in Chicago within a year of their purchase.

            Of those guns, 268 were bought at Chuck’s — nearly one in five.

            http://www.suntimes.com/...

            This is the tip of an iceberg. In a tough economy, there are ways to make money "under the table" and buying and selling rifles and handguns is an apparently easy way for some of the population to make some untaxed and unreported income.

  •  Very good piece, jim. (5+ / 0-)

    I have republished to the new group, VAVG - Veterans Against Gun Violence

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:35:27 AM PST

  •  I think that for gun control laws to be effective (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKinTN, SilentBrook, a2nite

    they have to take into consideration everyone currently living in a household or otherwise having access to guns being purchased, or even currently owned. It should be illegal to sell certain guns (and perhaps any guns?) to people who are either severely mentally ill (I'm talking psychotic or deeply depressed), or who live with people who are--and, of course, illegal to lie about that.

    Should it emerge after a gun was purchased that the person who purchased it lied about such things, or that they or someone in their household becomes severely mentally ill--and there need to be secure federal databases to allow such cross-checking, with automatic alerts generated, that can't be abused for non-authorized purposes--then that person loses not just the gun or guns purchased, but all other guns in their possession.

    It seems to me that not only was the Newtown shooter mentally ill, but his mother may also have had some serious psychological issues. But even if she was more "eccentric" and of the Fox News alternate reality persuasion than actually mentally ill, her son, who lived with her, does appear to have been sufficiently mentally ill for there not to be guns in her house.

    Weren't the Tucson and Aurora shooters also evaluated as severely mentally ill? Why were they allowed to buy and keep their guns? I don't get it. Were I to own guns and become psychotic, I would certainly hope that my guns were taken away. And if someone I lived with became psychotic, I'm certain that I'd get rid of my guns, and if I didn't, they should be taken away.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:47:11 AM PST

    •  And Whom Diagnoses? (0+ / 0-)

      Like I tried saying to a FB friend yesterday who refused to get it and kept digging her hole deeper:

      It should be illegal to sell certain guns (and perhaps any guns?) to people who are either severely mentally ill (I'm talking psychotic or deeply depressed), or who live with people who are
      You obviously go with the blame game in the Sandy Hook shooting and others some being obvious as lone gunners others getting them from family or friends, a known troubled youngster Not getting the help he should have, and Not the certainly Not caring mother with growing paranoia and more problems who wasn't seeking help, she thought she was normal. While buying these guns and apparently hundreds, if not thousands of rounds of ammo like many of those who rush out to the shops and shows before the smoke settles from the shootings, the kid had over 30 fully loaded clips that were found at the scene!

      And as pointed out by neighbors, she wasn't apparently a friendly type.

      Would you consider her in the above?!

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:02:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No one answer to that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jimstaro, Joieau, SilentBrook, a2nite

        People who are involuntarily hospitalized due to a psychotic episode, as well as people who in the course of therapy are diagnosed as severely mentally ill. While this might discourage people who already own guns from seeking needed help, it would also prevent people who have sought help and been diagnosed thusly from being able to buy guns.

        I'm not suggesting that we force current or prospective gun owners to be evaluated, let alone empower the government for force everyone to undergo psych evals. These would be 4th amendment violations. There is no perfect solution. But to the extent that we can non-intrusively weed out people who are mentally unfit to have guns from having them, that seems logical.

        Personally, I think that people who try to buy multiple semis-autos, lots of ammo and high-capacity clips, and such, who do not have a valid reason for it, such as owning a gun range or working in security, are already putting themselves into such a suspect group. I don't think it's healthy and I think it warrants, at the very least, further investigation into their background or situation to see why they might want all this stuff, whether there's anything to disqualify them from getting it, and if they should be able to get it.

        A person who thinks that society is about to collapse, who refuses anyone into her home even though she lives in a safe area, who lives with a mentally ill son, looking to buy a small arsenal? That has red flags all over it.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:20:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Annual registration and proficiency testing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          would go a long way - and protect medical privacy.  Any home where there are no firearms, and no one seeking to purchase firearms, or store firearms need not have their medical records referenced or reviewed in any way.

          Of course, on top of universal background checks to close the large loopholes of unregistered, untaxed sale/resale of firearms.

          I would also favor a 24 hour waiting period between an initial background check and a second check, before someone can walk away with a purchase.

          That would enable detection of some patterns of someone going to multiple dealers seeking to purchase a weapon.

          •  I think that regulations intended to keep (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            ANY firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access to them are essential to decreasing gun violence, including not only the severely mentally ill but also violent felons, initiators of domestic violence, drunk drivers, people who fail firearm proficiency and safety tests, etc.

            Given the circumstances I don't think the Newtown shooter's mom should have been allowed to have so much as an antique Derringer in her house, let alone a small arsenal of weapons, for example.

            But I also think it's essential to keep certain guns, ammo and accessories from being sold to ANY civilian with certain very specific exceptions, such as owners of licensed gun ranged, licensed private security workers, etc.

            E.g. 30 round clips, cop killer bullets, semi-autos that can be modified to auto, etc. Very few people need such things, and given how dangerous they are, people merely wanting to own them isn't reason enough to let them IMO.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 12:57:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Can't tax a constitutional right (0+ / 0-)
            Of course, on top of universal background checks to close the large loopholes of unregistered, untaxed sale/resale of firearms.
            •  That's nonsense, you can tax a consumer (0+ / 0-)

              product. Are you saying there is a constitutional right to no sales tax on a hobby?

              •  Nope. I am saying you can't tax a constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                right exclusively. If you are just talking about state sales tax, then that is fine.  I thought you meant a specific, exclusive tax on just guns.

                So you are just talking about a state sales tax that is applied to everything a shop owner sells...and can apply to the seller or the purchaser or both as the main taxpayer?

                  Sometimes the seller is the one responsible for the tax, sometimes it's the purchaser and in some states, it is a combo of both.  But in all cases, it is not applied as a mandate from the government to a specific item only...like gun ownership.  Since owning a gun is a constitutional right, you can not tax it specifically and exclusively any more than the state charging for a voter ID card.

                •  I'm saying you can regulate what kind of (0+ / 0-)

                  gun, how much ammo, and how often, and for what purpose, through licensing, proficiency testing, registration, liability insurance, etc.

                  Too many people take the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment to mean that "any thing goes," anywhere, anytime, and anyone who wants to (with a few exceptions and large loopholes).

                •  Patents are in the constitution too and are highly (0+ / 0-)

                  regulated, and the products that might be made by a patent holder can be separately regulated.  See pharmaceuticals, for example.

                  •  Patents are different, as for one not under the (0+ / 0-)

                    Bill of Rights and thus not a specific right granted to the people and protection from the government....however, the bigger difference is that patents are designated as property.  So even with fees attached, the same can gain profit, be sold, lended or otherwise transferred.  A patent does not have to be used at all, if a person chooses not to protect their idea.  No rights are denied by a patent charge to process, and it is not a direct tax exclusive to a right or used in an attempt to hinder it.  

                     According to the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to secure for limited times to ... inventors the exclusive right to their ... discoveries. Therefore, patents implementing that provision would have to grant temporary rights residing only in the inventors. Patents are now treated like property rights, so profit can be gained even by the patent.  

                    In the case, Figueroa v. U.S. (2006), the plaintiff sued stating that  statutory patent fees imposed on him in 2001 and 2002 for filing his patent application and issuing his patent.  Since the Constitution allows him the right to a patent and he felt the statute was designed to generate revenue to fund federal programs other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (or basically just the needed money to process his patent and not a direct tax).....Figueroa contended that the fees constituted an exclusive tax to his right to patent and thus unconstitutional.  

                    Even though Congress has imposed fees on the grant of patent rights since the first Patent Act to process...the suit said it was a fee over and above process fees or fees to the PTO for the patent.  It was concluded that is was not a direct exclusive tax that would infringe a right or hinder it but rather a fee that, even if considered a tax, was on personal property and the rights associated with it. The fees are levied upon the acquisition and ownership of patent rights.

  •  Here is the answer (4+ / 0-)

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:47:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site