Amid ATF Fast And Furious Scandal, House Democrats Point To Weak Gun Laws

[SecularMotion]

A new report from the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee points to the difficulties that weak gun laws pose for federal agents trying to stop gun trafficking on the Mexican border.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is holding a forum on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss how low penalties for gun-trafficking violations are hampering the government’s efforts to prevent weapons from flowing across the border.

The report, released Thursday, recommends that Congress increase the penalties for illegal “straw” purchases, enact a separate firearms trafficking statute and allow ATF to implement a requirement for federally licensed firearms dealers to report sales of multiple “long guns” preferred by Mexican drug cartels.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/amid_atf_fast_and_furious_scandal_house_democrats_point_to_weak_gun_laws.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TPMmuckraker+%28TPMmuckraker%29

[Remmah2]

1. Weak gun laws or weak enforcement of gun laws?

There is a difference.

[Glassunion]

2. +1

[Simo 1939_1940]

3. Great. Just what we need with November rapidly approaching.

Let's remind the nation that we can't discern the difference.

[Lionessa]

4. Plus it feeds into the FNC conspiracy theory that F&F was an attempt

to use ATF F&F guns crossing the border and the havoc they wreak and the as a way to enact tougher gun laws.

[ManiacJoe]

5. Definitely weak enforcement.

Weak gun laws or weak enforcement of gun laws?
There is a difference.

[Remmah2]

6. I sometimes wonder if weak enforcement is intentional?

To set the stage for worse gun laws?

[spin]

65. I hate to think that this is a possibility ...

as, if true, then some in the administration must feel that the end justifies the means.

This issue will not be all that important for this Presidential election as the main stream media has and is largely ignoring it. The investigation and resolution of this possible scandal can be delayed until well after the election. Of course if the Democratic party regains control of the House and keeps control of the Senate, Fast and Furious will only be a curious footnote in history and the subject of conspiracy theories.

The problem may become far more important in Obama's second term if the issue is not resolved now and the Republicans keep control of the House.

Watergate had no real impact on Nixon's reelection but it brought him down during his second term.

With the help of the media, Nixon won a second term in one of the biggest landslide election in the U.S. history. He won all the States except for Massachusetts. However, the euphoria did not last long. The administration was soon forced to answer question about the Watergate scandal, which was dismissed as third rate burglary until two reporters from Washington Post discovered the burglars connection with the Republican National Committee and the Nixon re-election committee CREEP. The administration tried to stop Woodward and Bernstein from investigating the scandal by threatening the Washington Post not to renew the company’s television station license unless they ceased reporting on the burglary. When the administration threatened the Washington Post for reporting the burglary, it picked the interest of other reporters and the burglary soon turned into scandal and forced the sitting President to resign under a threat of impeachment.
http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1972.html

I should clearly state that I do not believe that Fast and Furious will rise to the level of Watergate but it can turn into a serious stain on the reputation of Obama's administration and will lead to an even greater impasse between Congress and the administration resulting in even more tooth and nail fights over important issue that face our nation. This we don't need if we are ever to recover from the economic disaster caused by the last Republican administration.

To me it is surprising that if Obama and Holder had no knowledge of the operation that they would be unwilling to cooperate in the congressional investigation to find who signed off on the plan by turning over the relevant documents that would reveal this information. It does lead me to suspect that there is something far more damaging that has to be concealed at all costs. I have no idea of what this could be but merely admitting that some officials made a foolish mistake seems to be the best and wisest course for an administration that promised far more transparency then we have seen in the recent past from other administrations. The American public is willing to accept that mistakes can be made but does expect and has a right to know the details on how they were made and who was responsible.

I definitely feel that Darrell Issa has used Fast and Furious to launch a witch hunt. Unfortunately the refusal to hand over documents that would show who signed off and approved this ill conceived program has actually allowed Obama's opponents to pose embarrassing questions and has also added a certain amount of legitimacy to Issa's investigation.

Of course politics is a complicated game and perhaps all the furor over Fast and Furious will actually benefit Democrats in the upcoming race as it distracts from the Republican's strongest issue which is the state of the recovery.

Since I am a Democrat, I tend to hold my party to a far higher standard than I do Republicans who have earned my distrust over the years. I wish to be able to point out to my Republican acquaintances that Democrats have far more integrity and honesty than Republicans without being ridiculed and laughed at. Am I wrong to feel this way?

[MicaelS]

7. What fucking good is "increasing the penalties"

If the current laws aren't enforced?

[slackmaster]

9. It's just as good as adding a bunch of new laws

...that don't get enforced, and costs a little less.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Gentlemen!

We gotta protect our phony baloney jobs.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Obviously, the gun laws were too weak to prevent the ATF from doing what it did.

If the ATF was exercising good judgment and doing a great job in allowing guns to be transferred to known drug criminals, they should be commended for their good work.

If not, someone or a number of someones should be held accountable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. It is ALREADY illegal to traffic arms to mexico or anywhere else.

I don't see how laws are the problem since it's alreaady against the law. Well, unless they plan to make mexican gun running double-super-secret-illegal... that'll convince criminals to stop breaking the laws we already have.

We need MORE ENFORCEMENT... not more laws that go unenforced.

[DanTex]

11. Sorry, your NRA talking points are wrong (again...).

There'e no specific gun trafficking statute. The only law that straw purchasers can be hit with is "lying and buying". As many people, including ATF agents, have pointed out, "lying and buying" is difficult to prosecute and doesn't carry a minimum sentence, which is why a law specifically against trafficking guns is needed.

Here's a report, presented by the Democrats on Issa's committee.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/firearms_report_063011.pdf

Enactment of Illegal Firearms Trafficking Statute

Multiple law enforcement agents who appeared before the Committee stated that their efforts to combat international drug cartels would be strengthened through the enactment of a federal statute specifically designed to criminalize the trafficking of firearms. Currently, there is no federal statute that specifically prohibits firearms trafficking. Instead, prosecutors attempt to charge traffickers with “paperwork violations,” such as dealing in firearms without a license.

Special Agent Carlos Canino, the acting ATF attaché to Mexico, stated during his transcribed interview that there is an “epidemic” of illegal firearms trafficking to Mexico, and a “trafficking statute would be helpful.” He added: “What we want to do is we want to stop otherwise legal guns from getting into an illegal secondary market. You know, we want to stop these guys, violent criminals, from hurting people.”

Committee staff also conducted a transcribed interview of William Newell, the former Special Agent-in-Charge of the Phoenix Field Division. He stated: “not having a statute that would address a pattern of activity by a group of individuals that are engaged in some form of diversion of firearms from legal to illegal creates a situation for us where we have to go and look at each individual transaction.”

Special Agent Casa reiterated this view during his transcribed interview. He stated: “There is really no trafficking, firearms trafficking statute, per se. It would be nice to have a trafficking statute per se or to enhance some of the penalties on even, on the straw purchasers, just to be a deterrent effect … so we can really hammer these people and just put them in jail.”

[gejohnston]

12. not exactly

lying and buying is a 10 year sentence. The fact that prosecutors plead away or ignore federal gun charges is the issue. I totally agree with Cease Fire PA on this:
http://www.womeningovernment.org/files/CeaseFirePA_Statement_-_Jan_31_2011_-_Prosecutors_Should_Strictly_EnforceLaws_Against_Straw_Purchasing_DRAFT-1.pdf

There is also the Arms Export Act. Of course there are Mexican laws.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/policy-procedure-aeca.html

While I don't think it is a "conspiracy", such stupidity within the ATF or any other agency should not be tolerated by Holder. The agents involved and dreamed up "let's let them go without any way to track them" should be fired at the very least. If Mexico wants to prosecute them, by all means extradite them.

[DanTex]

17. Actually, there is no minimum sentence for lying and buying.

Also, it's hard to prosecute, for example, you have to prove the person had the intent to lie when they filled out the form. This is pretty much what all the ATF agents testifying in front of the committee were saying.

On the other hand, can anyone possible come up with any reason that there shouldn't be a specific firearms trafficking statute?

[gejohnston]

23. had the intent to lie?

Sorry, not washing. He could say, but I sold it a couple of days later. I could see that. That could be a problem with the commerce clause because it concerns intra state private sales.

[Clames]

13. That's because one is specifically not needed.

You see, if you did your research here, you'd know that there are already several Federal laws that are broken in the course of trafficking firearms across international borders. A trafficking statute would do nothing since breaking the law in respect to many of these provisions already sets stiff mandatory and progressive penalties up to life sentences.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) & (n)
18 U.S.C. § 922(d)
18 U.S.C. § 922(j)(u) & (l)
18 U.S.C. § 924(c).


So yes, the obvious answer is better enforcement of existing laws.

[DanTex]

16. The cluelessness...

I wonder if you are equally opposed to any stronger regulations on Wall Street banks. After all, fraud is already illegal! No need for any stronger laws!

Of course, anyone with the slightest clue will realize that the effectiveness of any regulation, be it on Wall Street or on guns, depends on how easy it is to catch criminals, prosecute, and whether there are stiff sentences.

There no minimum sentence for "lying and buying", and without a specific gun trafficking law, it is in fact hard to prosecute straw purchasers. But don't listen to me, instead listen to multiple ATF agents, who's whole job it is to stop gun trafficking, testifying in front of congress.

Sometimes I wonder whether there is ever a point where the pro-gunner ideology will give way to an ounce of reason. But the more I read posts like these, the more it looks like the head will never come out of the sand.

[gejohnston]

19. Like William Newell?

He is one of the idiots. He looks old enough to be part of the initial cadre of ATF when it became a separate agency. Before then, the IRS used that section as a dumping ground for their racists, sexists, dim wits, and other "problem children". The website cleanupatf began way before FF, their main focus was eeo and morale problems within ATF.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/07/gunwalker-william-newell-circles-wagons.html
http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/35-eeoc-complaints/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-05-07/news/1993127130_1_atf-raid-sexual-harassment-complaint

[DanTex]

20. And Carlos Canillo, Lee Casa, William Forcelli...

Meaning pretty much all the agents that were asked to testify in front of congress.

Is there anyone with half a clue who actually doesn't think a gun trafficking law would be helpful? Is there any reason to oppose this other than ideology? I still haven't heard one...

[gejohnston]

22. how would it be written?

How would it be defined compared to say, an honest private sale? I'm betting none of those agents are the younger more competent agents. It might be helpful, but since current laws are not prosecuted and are the first to be plead away, I'm curious to see how the new law would be any different. Is there anyone with half a clue and not motivated by ideology who can give an intelligent explanation?

[DanTex]

24. Like this...

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MALONE_080_xml.pdf

[gejohnston]

31. outside of organizer and conspiracy

that is already the law under Federal Firearms of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968. That includes the sentencing. Being a felon in possession is already a mandatory min. of five years. How many actually go to federal prison? Tell you what, amend it to add a "mandatory min" and a requirement that all felon in possession be turned over to the feds, then you have a deal.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. That law would not apply to intrastate manufactured firearms.

If I wanted to machine the firearm receivers myself and then assemble the rest of the compnents in a single state... that law does not appear to govern such firearms - as such a firearm would not have "been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce". Remember, the only component of a firearm that is considered a firearm in and of itself is the receiver/frame.

Furthermore the purchase of 80% receivers, firearm receivers that are not completely finished machined and thus no considered firearms, can be freely bought and shipped across the US without infringement because they are not legally considered firearms.

a) Mail order AR15 80% receivers (no background check, no restrictions)
b) Finish receivers using common tools (legal)
c) Mail order the rest of the firearm compnents (legal)
d) Assemble & test firearms (legal)
e) Sell to whomever I want (not restricted under the Maloney/Cummings proposed legislation)

Evidently, this proposed law is easily rendered impotent.

[DanTex]

36. Of course, "easily rendered impotent"... LOL

Funny how all gun regulations they are either draconian or impotent!
Never mind the fact the people who's job it is to combat gun trafficking, who have experience with watching cases go to trial, have repeatedly pointed out that this is what they need. We've got the DU Gungeon Legal Team here to tell you that all the experts are wrong, and the NRA is right!

Nobody will fight harder against any kind of regulation than an industry lobby and it's sycophants!

[Clames]

42. ...infests the anti-gun/pro-gun-control extremist.

Certainly, facts don't often get in their way nor do they take kindly to their lack of researching skills being pointed out.

And I would stay well away from assumptions on were I think stronger regulations are needed. You just make yourself look ill-equipped to handle discussion of the current topic, which is NOT Wall Street btw.

There no minimum sentence for "lying and buying", and without a specific gun trafficking law, it is in fact hard to prosecute straw purchasers.

No, you are quite wrong as per usual. I'll quote the necessary sections directly from ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part I:

First paragraph of the form:

WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm. Certain violation of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C 921 et seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.

Section 11a (this is the first question asked is this section):

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you acquiring the firearms(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearms(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.


Since straw purchasers are violating Federal laws by lying on the very first question they have to answer on this form I'm not quite sure how you can assert they are hard to prosecute if they are caught. Now, since adding a specific trafficking law will do absolutely nothing to impact enforcement of the several other laws involved here I'd love to see you try and explain why better enforcement is not the better course of action.

No, I don't listen to you. Not much of a reason to until you start educating yourself on the laws involved and cease parroting Brady Campaign/VPC/MAIG talking points. Is that sand making your scalp itch enough yet?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. How in the world wouldn't ITAR cover people driving guns into mexico?

I work for a defense contractor. We have all sorts of training involving import/export laws and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The notion that exporting firearms (most certainly a USML item) is not illegal definitely raises alarms. A quick google yields the following information:

ITAR Operational Constraints (per wiki):

All U.S. manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of defense articles, defense services, or related technical data, as defined on the USML, are required to register with U.S. Department of State. Registration is primarily a means to provide the U.S. Government with necessary information on who is involved in certain manufacturing and exporting activities. Registration does not confer any export rights or privileges, but is a precondition for the issuance of any license or other approval for export. Registration fees start at US$2,250 per year. Under ITAR, a “US person” who wants to export USML items to a “foreign person” must obtain authorization from the U.S. Department of State before the export can take place.

A "U.S. person" can be

> a U.S. citizen;
> a permanent resident who does not work for a foreign company, a foreign government, or a foreign governmental agency/organization;
> a political asylee;
> a part of the U.S. government, or
> a corporation, business, organization, or group that is incorporated in the United States under U.S. law.

...

So why cant US/Mexican gun runners (ctizens) be prosocuted under breach of ITAR?

[DanTex]

18. First, it's not just a question of whether something is illegal.

It's also a question of how effective the laws are in terms of catching and prosecuting criminals.

Second, the statute in question is not about international gun running. It is about gun trafficking within the US -- straw purchasing, basically. Right now, straw purchasing is prosecuted as "lying and buying" -- that is, lying on the form when you purchase the gun. The penalties are weak, and it is not easy to prosecute:

Straw purchasers themselves are typically prosecuted for what's known as "lying and buying": making a false statement on the federal documentation they fill out when purchasing a gun by claiming they are the actual intended possessor when, in fact, the gun is for someone else. But even in those cases, courts have held that the evidence must show the gun was purchased on behalf of a "prohibited possessor" – a felon, for example.

All of these things can be tough to prove, and several cases had been tossed over lack of evidence. Most notable was one of the last big cases the Phoenix ATF investigated before Fast and Furious – the widely publicized probe of gun shop owner George Iknadosian, who was accused of knowingly selling hundreds of guns to straw buyers.

In March 2009, a judge threw out the case against Iknadosian, noting that the weapons were purchased legally and there was no proof that they ultimately wound up in the hands of unlawful possessors. It was a hard pill to swallow, and the lead agent on that case, ATF special agent Hope MacAllister, would go on to become the lead case agent for Fast and Furious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/atf-fast-and-furious-gun-trafficking_n_914064.html

The statute that the Democrats are proposing would make it explicitly illegal to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who cannot legally possess one. As I've said above, given that several ATF agents have commented that this would be a useful tool for them, I really don't get where the resistance is coming from.

[gejohnston]

21. because it is already the law

The statute that the Democrats are proposing would make it explicitly illegal to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who cannot legally possess one.

that has been the law since the 1960s. There is a ten year penalty for that. If federal prosecutors don't prosecute, what is the point of a redundant law? Gun charges are almost always the ones that disappear in plea bargains. Make current law mandatory minimums.

[PavePusher]

25. LAws don't "catch and prosecute" anyone.

People do that. The laws set the scope, limits and penalties involved.

People do all the rest.

And citing Huff'n'Puff as a legal source? Really?

Dropping all pretense at following the Fourth Amendment would also be "a useful tool for them". But, as has been stated here by your side many times "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

[DanTex]

27. Pay close attention now!

Yes, people catch and prosecute. And the way laws are written changes how difficult the catching and the prosecuting is! Is this mindbogglingly complicated or what!

[PavePusher]

28. For some, apparently. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. LOL, I think your word salad is a little ripe/stale...

It is 100% about whether their actions are illegal.

Lying and buying is illegal, reselling them to non-US citizens in America is illegal, taking them across the border is illegal (againt both US and Mexican law), and using them yourself to aid the drugwar is going to be illegal. Even supplying a firearm to a known prohibited person is expressly illegal (see below DOJ explanation GCA of 1968).

EVERY PART of using us guns to fuel the drug war is illegal. It's impossible to do so without breaking some laws.
What's so hard about prosocuting criminals that break these existing laws? Forget fast & furious; maybe Holder should be kicked to the curb just for the inability to simply enforce the gaggle of laws already being broken.

http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm

Prohibiting Certain Transfers and Possession
The GCA made it unlawful for certain persons to receive firearms, and made it a felony for an FFL to transfer a firearm knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the transferee is prohibited from receiving the firearm. Subsequent amendments made it unlawful for any person to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, and made it unlawful for the following categories of prohibited persons to possess a firearm:
Felons;
Fugitives;
Drug addicts or unlawful drug users;
Persons committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as "mentally defective";
Persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces;
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Illegal or nonimmigrant aliens;
Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders; and
Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.

[gejohnston]

32. add to that

selling one to a resident of a different state than you are without being brokered by an FFL in the buyer's state is also illegal.

[DanTex]

33. Head in the sand...

OK, one more time. It's not just a question of whether something is "illegal", it's also a question of how the law is worded, and whether it's easy to prosecute, and carries mandatory penalties, etc. Pretty much every ATF agent that was asked about this has pointed out that the existing laws are not strong enough, and an explicit firearms trafficking law is needed.

Like I said above, fraud is already illegal, but that doesn't mean we don't need any new wall street regulations. If someone had told me that I really would have to explain this this many times, I would never have believed them...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. If an attorney (or AG) can't prosocute expressly illegal behaviour under clearly worded laws...

perhaps they should be shown the door. These simple laws have sufficed for the past 40+ years. This is a failure in execution and enforcement. If people can't perform their job then the need to leave - any simpleton can understand this (well, apparently almost any simplton).

What evidence do you have that these new laws (forbidding the same behaviour) would help our inept prosecutors perform better? Because they look like they cover the SAME illegal behaviour to me.

[DanTex]

38. Except the simple laws have obviously not sufficed.

That's the whole point. They've sufficed from your point of view, because you could care less about gun trafficking and you are afraid that Eric Holder is coming for your guns.

I'll repeat again. The argument you are making is equivalent to saying that "fraud is already illegal" so we don't need any more Wall Street regulations.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. I understand your argument, "The old laws don't or aren't working"...

Either because they are difficult to convict on or because they aren't strong enough, our current anti-trafficing laws don't work.
That much I have gathered from your statements - Is this a fair representation (am I correctly understanding you)?

What I don't understand is why *specifically* are the current laws inadequate?
What *specifically* are they lacking or why are they difficult to enforce?
Given the flaws of current regulations, how *specifically* would the new law enable more effective enforcement/conviction?

To be honest, I don't see how restating several current laws in one place together on a shiney new piece of paper makes enforcing those laws any easier... simply restating the current laws does not make them work any better. UNLESS!!... the new legislation regulates differently somehow or covers different behaviours & legal reprocussions. Could you please explain how new legislation could address the shortcomings of the old legislation so as to be more enforcable?

[DanTex]

40. Yes, I can be very specific.

The new legislation would look like this:
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MALONE_080_xml.pdf

The current laws are inadequate because there is no specific statute against firearms trafficking, which means that traffickers are prosecuted for paperwork violations like "lying and buying". According to many experts, like the ones I've quoted above, having a law that specifically makes gun trafficking a crime, like this one, would make it easier to prosecute and convict gun traffickers. So, apparently, this law is actually not simply a restatement of current law.

If you think this is no different from current law, then maybe you would like to point to the statute currently in place that is identical to this one, and then go on to explain why whatever statute you have in mind is not actually being used to prosecute gun traffickers, and then explain why so many experts seem to think that having an explicit gun trafficking law would be so helpful.

[ManiacJoe]

43. That PDF is not a bad start.

However, some of the language needs to be tightened up else you end up with "lying and selling" just like the current "lying and buying".

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. The 1968 GCA expressly forbids nonlicensed civilians from exporting/importing firearms

It also forbids nonlicensed civilians from transferring firearms to prohibited persons (ie: nonresident mexicans). It also forbids "engaging in the business" of either act... meaning no participation is allowed whether you're organizing the unlawful acts or comitting them on another's behalf. Despite being spread out in the 1968 GCA and worded a bit differently, the statutes are there and pretty clear as to what is not allowed.

Of course, exporting of firearms & amunition as well as transfer to prohibited indivuals by licensed entities (manufacturers and gun shops) is expressly illegal and forbidden as part of their licensing proceedure and regulated ATF/ICE oversight. So below are sections dealing mostly with the private citizen aspect of the discussion. And the last excerpt would seem expressly prohibit the export of guns by licensed persons to Mexico and there are other references in the 1968 GCA restricting licensed entities as well.

1968 GCA, 18 USC § 922 ...

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; or

(B) except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;

...

(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary consistent with public safety and necessity;

...

(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; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

...

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver --
...
(2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery or other disposition, unless the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance;

I suggest referencing the government's 2009 GAO-09-709 Firearms Trafficking report as to a reason why enforcement has been difficult. It sounds to me, straight from the horses' mouths, that poor communication and poor interdepartment strategies are hindering effective solutions to combating gun trafficking.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf

ATF and ICE officials we interviewed had differing views of their respective roles and responsibilities for addressing arms trafficking to Mexico. ATF officials stated ATF’s relative experience on firearms issues and broad range of relevant authorities under which it operates—including its role in tracing crime guns and regulating the firearms industry—make it the logical U.S. agency to lead efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico. ...

...

Although ICE officials acknowledged ATF had more years of experience on firearms issues, they told us they viewed ATF’s role as focused on firearms trafficking on the U.S. side of the border, while ICE has the primary role in cases involving firearms smuggled across the U.S. border into Mexico. ICE enforces provisions related to the illegal export or smuggling of goods, including firearms and ammunition, from the United States into Mexico in the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 and its implementing regulations, the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations; the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005; and the Export Administration Act and its implementing regulations, Export Administration Regulations; among other authorities.
In the locations we visited during our audit work, officials cited examples of how unclear roles and responsibilities have hindered communication and cooperation during some operations. Examples are as follows:

• Several officials told us they felt the agencies were not taking sufficient advantage of each other’s expertise to more effectively carry out operations, such as ATF’s expertise in firearms identification and procedures for conducting surveillance at gun shows, and ICE’s experience dealing with export violations and combating money laundering and alien smuggling, which ICE officials noted also may be relevant to cases of arms trafficking.

...

As to why so many experts, politicians, and bureaucrats want more laws and power... well because the people in power almost invariably seek to expand their power. Adding more laws is no different.

[DanTex]

46. In other words, you were wrong: there is no law explicitly against gun trafficking.

Regardless as to what you think is "pretty clear" and "spread out" and "worded a bit differently", the passages you have highlighted are not redundant with the proposed arms trafficking law. Also, the trafficking statute is not about exporting weapons, it is about trafficking guns within the US.

As I've pointed out I don't know how many times, the fact that something is technically illegal, or that it is "pretty clearly" illegal doesn't mean it's easy to prosecute. That's why the experts agree that having one specific firearms trafficking law with stiff penalties would make a big difference in the fight against traffickers and smugglers.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. Then let them have their redundant law.

It will change nothing because the actions they are legislating are already illegal. Just because the current law is not verbatim with some other fantasy trafficking legislation does not mean the current legislation is not explicitly clear and easily prosecutable. Let me distill the fluff out for you and make it so easy, even our Attorney General could interpret it:

(1A) It shall be unlawful for any person in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;

(1B) It shall be unlawful for any person in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;

(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle...

(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the State in which the transferor resides

What the hell is so difficult to prosecute about those statues?!?

These four statutes, distilled from the complete text, are completely clear in their meaning. And directly contrary to your post #46, the articles above DO address trafficking within the US, as noted by the bold words. (Protip: That word 'interstate'... that's what that means; "within the United States". And 'foreign' just happens to mean "outside the United States". )

My guess as to your "experts" opinions... Do you really think the proponents of the law are going to put forward any experts' dissenting opinions? NO! They'll find "experts" that back their own position and say, "See, look at what the 'experts' say!" Unless you're honestly naive enough to believe no politician would ever manipulate people/facts to sway a debate in their favor.

Seriously.. I'm done with this line of discussion. Let them have their redundant laws.
When nothing changes in trafficking, they can always try to republish other law already on the books.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. Also, just to be clear, I don't find that proposed legislation to be lacking or bad.

It's pretty clear, common-sense, thorough and concise and does not appear to hinder any American's rights. Generally, that is the kind of law I can support - laws that offer a benefit to society with little or no burden to our individual freedoms. My only objection is that, despite the law being unobtrusive and burden-free, I also feel it offers nothing we didn't already have.

So I don't oppose the legislation example you provided on merit. Not at all the case. A law like you posted does not worry me and I'd lose no sleep if it were passed tomorrow. I only oppose it on principal that it is "feel good" legislation. You're not getting anything substantive that you didn't already have. And in the end our leadership can hold up their new law and say "look what we did, see how good we are"... and when it changes nothing in the real world we're back to square one.

[DanTex]

47. If a bunch of people regulating Wall Street banks were to say...

..."we need such and such to be explicitly illegal because the wording of current statutes is vague and makes it difficult to prosecute white collar criminals", and the lobbyists for the big banks replied by saying "fraud is already illegal, just enforce the laws on the books", would you feel the same way?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. Apples to oranges.

The 1968 GCA is not "vauge".

Since you so vehemently claim that it is "difficult to prosecute" under current statutes... Provide proof of your statement. If it is so difficult to prosocute gun trafficking that there must be stacks of case law where plaintiffs have walked due to the difficulty of proving such a case.

Provide me a few. I'll wait.

[DanTex]

51. Only because you are in favor of one right-wing industry lobby and not the other.

Other than that, it's basically the same story. Yes, the GCA is vague, that's why you still haven't been able to find the part where it explicitly prohibits arms trafficking. The best you can come up with is that it is "pretty clear" and "spread out" and then you highlight parts of the law that don't actually say what you claim they do.

The evidence that it is difficult to prosecute is in the form of expert opinions and sworn testimony from ATF agents in front of congress. Also, it is a fact that many of the successful prosecutions have been for "lying and buying", and not for arms trafficking. No, I'm not going to go digging through case law. If you want to believe that the agents and experts are lying and the NRA is right, then you'll be in the company of plenty of other loons.

[gejohnston]

52. So, why no federal prosecuters?

Just members of ATF management? Selected members of ATF management? Sounds more like they are trying to explain away their own ineptitude and laziness more than anything else. Umm, no GCA is not vague. It is quite specific. If I sell spin a gun, that is a legal private sale. If I sell GSC or PP a gun without being brokered by an FFL in Texas and Vermont respectively, I go to federal prison. That is pretty specific.
lying and buying is a form of trafficking. Possessing stolen firearms is also a federal crime.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. No proof of YOUR claims? That's what I thought.

Does the 1968 GCA specifically say "trafficking"? No. You're right, i guess it's not "explicit".
It actually say's: "...ship, transport, or receive any firearm/ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce"

Well holy mackarel... shur soundz an aw full lot like dat der gunz trafficking tuh meh, hurr durr...

You know, I'm starting to understand why the bulk of your lot can't correctly read the single god damn sentence that comprises the Second Ammendment. Maybe my expectation of your reading comprehension is the actual misunderstanding we have here.

[DanTex]

55. For the 50th time...

The gun trafficking statute is not about international trafficking. It is about trafficking guns to people in the US who are not allowed by law to possess a firearm, as in:

IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any per-
3 son, regardless of whether anything of value is exchanged,
4 to receive, or to transfer or otherwise dispose of to 1 or
5 more individuals, 2 or more firearms that have been
6 shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,
7 knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such
8 conduct will result in the disposing of 1 or more such fire-
9 arms to an individual—
10 ‘‘(1) whose possession or receipt of the firearm
11 would be unlawful; or
12 ‘‘(2) who intends to or will use, carry, possess,
13 or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.

It's funny. Sometimes I wonder if gun loons are just plain dumber than regular people. Then I read some gungeon posts. After that I don't wonder any more.

[gejohnston]

56. and once again, the GCA deals with

exactly what it lists above. The GCA deals with trafficking withing the US. Notice the word "interstate". There is no difference between what you put above and what is covered in FFA and GCA.

It's funny. Sometimes I wonder if gun loons are just plain dumber than regular people. Then I read some gungeon posts. After that I don't wonder any more.

On the contrary, I tend to think antis have questionable critical thinking skills.
As for the Wall Street analogy, the biggest problem from what I can tell is the revolving door and poor enforcement.

[DanTex]

57. And once again, not it doesn't, as evidenced by the inability of anyone to...

...point to where it actually says the things you guys keep claiming it says.

[gejohnston]

59. we have.

once again.

IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any per-
3 son, regardless of whether anything of value is exchanged,
4 to receive, or to transfer or otherwise dispose of to 1 or
5 more individuals, 2 or more firearms that have been

6 shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,
7 knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such
8 conduct will result in the disposing of 1 or more such fire-
9 arms to an individual—
10 ‘‘(1) whose possession or receipt of the firearm
11 would be unlawful; or
12 ‘‘(2) who intends to or will use, carry, possess,
13 or dispose of the firearm unlawfully.

The GCA does not allow any interstate commerce between non FFL holders. Once again, the GCA bans all interstate commerce between individuals without FFL regardless if that person may have a gun or not. Under current law, I can not legally sell you a gun. I can not go to a gun store in another state and walk out the door with it. It must be shipped to an FFL in Florida. Under the CGA, it does not matter if it is for a legal purpose or not. That makes the above law laxer than current law, and nice harmless theater.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. Go read the 18 USC § 922... I promise you it's already illegal.

Knowingly giving/lending/selling just one firearm to a prohibitied person (intrastate or interstate) is not lawful - let alone giving several firearms to such a person. Whether they do it one at a time or several at a time... it's illegal. If you don't belive me, quit your day job and traffic arms "legally" within the US.

Nevertheless, I'm done... I resign... I forfeit... Pass your precious law.
It only affects people who were already criminals anyways.

[DanTex]

60. Round and round we go! OK, guys, I'm done trying to reason with y'all.

Only in the gungeon...

Always a good time!

[gejohnston]

61. come with an open mind next time while we explain

what actual current laws are. Also, just because some clown has a badge and a gun doesn't make him an expert. It might make him a dumbass CYA or it might make him an authoritarian.

[Straw Man]

62. Mighty rich ...

It's funny. Sometimes I wonder if gun loons are just plain dumber than regular people. Then I read some gungeon posts. After that I don't wonder any more.

... coming from someone who doesn't realize that in a US context, "interstate" commerce isn't international ...

But don't listen to me, instead listen to multiple ATF agents, who's whole job it is to stop gun trafficking, testifying in front of congress.

Nobody will fight harder against any kind of regulation than an industry lobby and it's sycophants!

... and who doesn't know the difference between whose and who's or it's and its. Cheap shot, yes, but your pomposity makes it irresistible.

[gejohnston]

64. I just noticed something

The ATF's whole job is not just guns. They chase after tobacco smuggling across state lines and approve wine bottle labels, or did all of that change after they left Treasury?

[aikoaiko]

54. Isnt the prohibited end user at the heart of the Malone bill too?

Wouldn't you still have the same problems?

[oneshooter]

48. The law makes it damned difficult to even legally export to a "friendly" country.

It took me nearly six months to send a 1755 flint musket to a museum in Canada.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Marinedem]

14. Yep. Not enough laws. That has to be it. NT.

[PavePusher]

29. More! Harder! Faster! Deeper!!!

Ye-e-e-e-e-e-ssssssssss!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. The GC&RKBA SOP does not support non-gun porn.

[PavePusher]

35. Porn?!

I was talking about laws!1!!1!



(Just in case...)

[virginia mountainman]

63. This thread is epic...

It is amazing how some people REFUSE to see the forest for the trees, even when it is pointed out to them repeatedly in BOLD print. It is almost like willful blindness. How some just keep on and on about how their needs to be a law, and when shown that it is not needed, with supporting laws already on the books, they just keep going on and on about how there "needs to be a law".

We need to learn how to effectively reach people that have this condition. Or are they already too far gone?

Or are we wasting our time on them? Should we concentrate our collective efforts on those minds that are open, and not already completely closed? Where our arguments and statement of facts, have a consistent track record of success?

Or should we just stand back, and let them keep on, and on, and on, and on, and use them as examples of a factual train wreck, when they are decimated in open debate, for all to see?

[Spoonman]

66. At some point the stupidity must be pointed out

Let's send an FBI agent into a bank to rob it, then demand harsher penalties for bank robbery!