[Vision2020] How many more rounds are we going to let this go on for?

[Ron Force]

You specifically asked why the present laws weren't enforced. The ATF agent provided an answer. Here's another example from "Fast and Furious":

...By January 2010 the agents had identified 20 suspects who had paid some $350,000 in cash for more than 650 guns. According to Rep. Issa's congressional committee, Group VII had enough evidence to make arrests and close the case then.
Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona
This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime."...
It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party,  sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of .intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize... 
... Several other agents speculate that Arizona's gun culture may have led to indifference. [Assistant U.S. Attorney] Hurley is an avid gun enthusiast, according to two law-enforcement sources who worked with him. One of those sources says he saw Hurley behind the counter at a gun show, helping a friend who is a weapons dealer.
Read the whole thing. It's very enlightening after all the political misinformation.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

 
Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA


________________________________
 From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] How many more rounds are we going to let this go on for?
 


Ron,

I'm talking about the purchases that were STOPPED by the "instant background checks" and violations of federal law, not Illinois state law.








On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Ron Force wrote:

Here's why they're not prosecuted:
>
>
>There is no federal law against buying a gun from a dealer one day and then selling it secondhand the next. It is only illegal when the nominal buyer never intends to own the gun and acts purely as a front. The federal form that gun purchasers must complete requires them to certify that they are the "actual buyer" of the weapon.
>"It's a really tough law to charge," said one veteran ATF agent and field supervisor, who asked not to be identified. "Basically, you have to catch somebody in the act. You see them in the gun store, see them buy the gun and then go out to the car and give it to someone else."
>"Basically, short of a confession, you won't be able to prove that case," said Mike Smith, supervisor of the gang prosecution unit in the Cook County state's attorney's office.
>http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319
>
> 
>Ron Force
>Moscow Idaho USA
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
>To: Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
>Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 1:44 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] How many more rounds are we going to let this go on for?
> 
>
>
>
>
>Saundra,
>
>As to the anti-gun rhetoric,  specifically " stronger penalties for straw purchasers", I agree. 
>
>
>Now, there were somewhere between 77,000 and 88,000 attempts by persons who are not, by law authorized to purchase firearms, and the current background checks 
>came up that they were not eligible to purchase / own firearms, and the gun dealers refused to sell them firearms. Good, great, I agree with that.  BUT, of those tens of thousands of folks who were denied firearms under the current laws, how many were prosecuted by the federal government under the laws that already exist? Best case is that there were some 44 prosecutions, so that depending on which set of figures you use, somewhere between 76, 956 and 87,956 were NOT prosecuted by the federal government for violations of currentgun-laws. 
>
>
>Now, why should there be more gun laws put on the books when the ones we have now are NOT enforced? And what about the prosecution of those federal officials that allowed and facilitated illegal firearms purchases for guns that were shipped off to Mexico? Remember "Operation Fast and Furious"? 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net/
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130412/c1bfde09/attachment.html>