Guy Smith wrote:
However, it tends to make sense that a few bad actors with FFL's are likely
the source of many/most crime guns, just as a handful of repeat offenders
are the source of most violent crime. If so stipulated, then policy is
clear - identify and prosecute the few.
-----------------
Guy Smith
Author, Gun Facts
www.GunFacts.info
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some of you may recall about ten years ago two guys in Los Angeles who
obtained an FFL, and over the course
of a few months, ordered and transferred more than 800 guns--without
even a pretense of doing the legally
required paperwork. They were selling guns out of their van. I don't
know how common such operations
have been, either before or after the 1994 revisions to the firearms
licensing requirements. It would be very
easy for a very small number of really gross violators--or a somewhat
larger number of dealers who were
looking the other way for a little cash under the table (as news reports
suggest was happening with the gun store
in Washington that sold Malvo's rifle)--to produce a very large number
of guns going into private and criminal hands.
Of course, it might not be a dealer. When I lived in California, I was
on pretty good terms with the local indoor
shooting range, which was also a gun store. They were actually pretty
pleased when California law changed to require
private firearms transfers to be done through a police department or a
licensed dealer. The obvious explanation
was that this meant more business for them, but one of the clerks
explained that they had one customer who had
come in every week for a year, buying one handgun at a time. There was
a waiting period, of course (15 days
at the time). He passed the California DOJ background check, of
course. There was no evidence of strawman
sales-- that is to say, no one came into the store with him, and he was
always clearly paying with his own money.
But because he wasn't buying more than one handgun in five days, he
wasn't tripping the multiple handgun purchases
federal form, and apparently, the California DOJ didn't ever ask any
questions. I don't think it takes a lot of
imagination to suspect that this guy was buying handguns to resell them
to people who either did not want to, or
could not, pass the background check.
Now, there might well be reasons why someone would want a gun that did
not show up on any registration
records, and yet not be a criminal, and I am prepared to believe that
there were probably more than a few
people satisfying this under the table but otherwise lawful demand. But
I think it would be the heights of delusion
to assume that every handgun resold under such circumstances was going
to a lawful possessor.
Clayton E. Cramer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
