New information has come to light in the New Hope police shooting last Monday night. It turns out that Raymond Kmetz bought his guns online and then sent a straw buyer to the FFL to pick them up.
A 42-year-old man from Golden Valley who was an acquaintance of Kmetz picked up the guns, Stanek said. A background check was done on him. Documentation for the gun transfer shows the names of both Kmetz and the alleged straw buyer.
Troy Buchholz, owner of the gun shop, said in a phone interview Friday night that he questioned the buyer about why Kmetz’s name was on the K-Bid auction form.
The buyer told him he had used that name to protect his privacy online.
Buchholz ran a background check on the straw buyer, which came back with no problems. On the form, the buyer checked a box that said he was buying the guns for himself. He was alone, didn’t appear to have been coerced into buying the guns and paid for them, Buchholz said. Everything appeared legal.
This is the exact kind of bullshit that would have been prevented had Manchin-Toomey been made into law. A review of the bill shows that the new regulations of this bill put tighter controls on this type of transaction. Beginning on page 19 of the bill, the new law expands background checks to include gun shows and internet sales. Page 24, lines 4-22 would certainly have given Buchholz the regulation he would have needed to refuse the sale.
Of course, focusing on this one example for proving or disproving the effectiveness of new gun regulations misses a larger point. The questions that should be considered is this: would Manchin-Toomey (or some other set of new regulations on Americans who want guns) have prevented one or more of the deaths or injuries we have seen in the last year as a result of irresponsible Americans with guns?
If the answer is yes (and it obviously is), what exactly is the cost of the "sacrifice" that the Gun Cult claims will be the result? Is it human lives?
16 comments:
A straw purchase is already illegal - what do you want, to make it super-double-secret illegal?
Oh, look, M still pushes the 'make it more illegal' and it would have worked. You know you have been asked the question Juris posted many times over the years and how would it help and you have provided nothing worth a response. And you keep posting the same stupid ideas over and over! Are you that dense?
Exactly what juris said.
M-T would have change not a thing to prevent this from happening.
An illegal straw purchase was made. An illegal transfer was made. A person not allowed to have guns was still able, through VIOLATIONS of current law, able to get a gun.
Did any of you take the time to read the sections on internet sales which I noted in the post? MT expands background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.
Further, none of you answered the question I put at the end.
And?
I fail to see what you are saying.
The purchase was made through a FFL dealer and a background check was performed.
Again, nothing in M-T would have changed this.
Further, none of you answered the question I put at the end.
That's because you are so far off of reality on this one that going to this:
would Manchin-Toomey (or some other set of new regulations on Americans who want guns) have prevented one or more of the deaths or injuries we have seen in the last year as a result of irresponsible Americans with guns?
Seems silly.
If the answer is yes (and it obviously is)
Is it obvious? You seem to think that M-T would have prevented this. It wouldn't have. If you think 'something' would have prevented 'something' - perhaps you could provide and example of what something could have prevented which something.
Then we could have the opportunity of analysing whether your are as incorrect about that as you are about M-T preventing this.
Broke the rules again, GD. Ah well, at least you had one good comment:)
What this incident shows is the total lack of integrity in gun shops. The store owner who sold the gun to the straw buyer obviously knew the guy was lying, but he gave him a wink and sold it anyway. Two cops got shot and crazy guy is dead.
Straw buyers should be tried as accomplices to the crimes committed with the guns they purchase.
Gun dealers should be held responsible for selling guns that wind up in the hands of criminals and nuts who use them. This is a weaker responsibility than the straw buyer, so there should be a three-strikes policy and the loss of the license for gun stores that repeatedly sell guns that wind up in the hands of criminals.
If the gun dealer stood to lose his license by selling to fishy buyers they'll either stop or they'll go out of business. As it is now, there are just a few gun stores in the southeast US that are the source of the vast majority of all the guns used in crimes in big cities like New York.
Why is it that the right keeps yapping about responsibility, but they never hold businesses responsible for aiding and abetting killers?
Yes, selling guns to the wrong people is already illegal but there's no enforcement of the laws and everyone in politics is afraid of clamping down on these sales because they are afraid that the NRA will come gunning for them -- figuratively and literally.
Gun dealers should be held responsible for selling guns that wind up in the hands of criminals and nuts who use them.
Right, Nikto. And that's just what the sections of MT that I noted in the posts detail. The sale of guns via the internet (as this gun was purchased) would have been included in the larger umbrella of background checks. What happened here illustrates the holes in the system that MT would have improved.
The sale of guns via the internet (as this gun was purchased) would have been included in the larger umbrella of background checks.
Maybe the teacher just can't fucking read, is that the problem? The background check was made on that part of the sale chain. M-T would have had no effect.
What rule Mark?
Focusing on you? YOU are claiming something that just ain't so. We corrected you. Buy yet you act like we are wayward children and insist you are right. What else is there to do? You are not reading or comprehending the words. The problem IS you.
What happened here illustrates the holes in the system that MT would have improved.
No it wouldn't, because what actually happened was a straw purchase - which is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Making it MORE ILLEGAL wouldn't do a fucking thing in this case.
N wants to make sure that gun stores don't sell to people they don't like. That sounds like the Jim Crow South to me.
selling guns to the wrong people is already illegal but there's no enforcement of the laws and everyone in politics is afraid of clamping down on these sales because they are afraid that the NRA will come gunning for them -- figuratively and literally.
---Nikto
Apparently N is living in a different world than the rest of us.
“We have 20,000 gun laws on the books now, but the Attorney General's office has consistently refused to prosecute and consequently imprison convicted felons.They too often go through a revolving door.”
— Charlton Heston, assuming the presidency of the NRA, Sept. 23, 1998
The NRA has been exhorting the government to enforce the existing laws for a very long time.
“Senator, there needs to be a change in the culture of prosecution at the entire federal level. It's a national disgrace. The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.”
— National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jan. 30, 2013
“Criminals violate every one of these 20,000 gun laws on the books.”
— LaPierre, appearing on CBS This Morning, Oct. 1, 1993
Get that? 1993!
..and everyone in politics is afraid of clamping down on these sales because they are afraid that the NRA will come gunning for them -- figuratively and literally.
Huh, the NRA will 'literally' gun people down? That right there is some Grade A stupid.
These two morons have been sucking the tit of the Lefty media for so long, reality can't even get through any longer. Just more of the same false talking points spewed as facts. Geez, and you consider yourself objective and 'reality based'? Good one.
And Ole marxy was shown to be wrong so he just disappears. Surprise, surprise.
http://www.slideshare.net/CameronCaswellPhD/making-sense-of-adolescence-40558987
Slide #36
:)
I see.
You are still somehow too clueless to know that you are absolutely wrong in your statement that M-T would have changed a single thing about this transaction.
Apparently, as repeatedly told to you, you are still fundamentally ignorant about guns and gun laws.
Yet also somehow you seem to think that despite this fundamental ignorance you are qualified to preach about changes to those gun laws. Even explaining to you that because of that fundamental ignorance, the things that you preach don't do what you think they do doesn't penetrate enough to make you curious about what underlying principle or fact you may not understand.
You've had three people here tell you in no uncertain terms that M-T would not have changed a thing about this transaction. You've stuck to your ignorance without even so much as a question of what or where you could have been mistaken about.
I admire determination in a person. This isn't that. Bull headed stubbornness in the face of hard fact is just stupidity.
Post a Comment