NYC sues national gun dealers - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-16-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

MIKE HITS GUN SLINGERS
By DAVID SEIFMAN and STEPHANIE GASKELL
LINK
May 16, 2006 -- Accusing federal officials of shirking their duty to halt illegal weapon sales, Mayor Bloomberg filed the city's own lawsuit yesterday against 15 gun dealers nationwide that have "New Yorkers' blood on their hands."

"These dealers are the worst of the worst," declared Bloomberg in announcing the suit, which will use evidence from an undercover video sting operation.

He said more than 500 guns recovered at crime scenes here between 1994 and 2001 were traced back to the "rogue" dealers.

John Feinblatt, the mayor's criminal-justice coordinator, didn't hold back as he explained why the city was taking matters into its own hands.

"Plain and simple, these dealers have New Yorkers' blood on their hands," he charged.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the body count exacted by the out-of-state arms bazaar is clearly evident.

"The price that New Yorkers pay for illegal guns on the street was captured last week by the front-page picture of the New York Post," he said. "It showed a New York City police sergeant desperately trying to save the life of a dying 3-year-old."

Kelly said the gun used to kill that Brooklyn toddler, Tajmere Clark, was made in Germany, transported to Florida and then shipped to a gun dealer in South Carolina. Authorities are investigating how it wound up in New York.

And the mayor came armed with a litany of grief, too - an extensive list of crimes linked to guns sold by each dealer - as proof of the damage suffered by New Yorkers at the hands of the out-of-state dealers.

Guns tracked from one dealer, Woody's Pawnshop in Orangeburg, S.C., were tied to 98 separate crimes, including the November 2001 murder of a 31-year-old Brooklyn man found with multiple gunshot wounds.

In another instance, a gun from A-1 Jewelry & Pawn of Augusta, Ga., was linked to the attempted murder of two cops on Aug. 17, 2001 in Queens. The suspect, a 28-year-old Bronx man, fired at the uniformed officers and was charged with attempted murder.

A gun that was sold at the Mickalis Pawn Shop in Summerville, S.C. wound up in the hands of a 12-year-old boy, who accidentally shot someone in the chest on Jan. 7, 2001 in Manhattan.

Kelly said he and the mayor had visited too many shot cops at hospitals.

"We've seen uniforms totally drenched in blood to the point where they're unrecognizable," Kelly said.

The city's lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn federal court, also cited seven gun-related incidents published in The Post's Police Blotter between April 1 and April 5.

City officials hired teams of private investigators from the James Mintz Group to pose as gun buyers in five states - Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Georgia - that supply half the illegal weapons grabbed here.

With a hidden video camera rolling, the male investigator would ask about a gun, ply the dealer with questions and when it came time to make the purchase ask his female partner to fill out the paperwork.

Bloomberg said that constitutes a "straw purchase," which is illegal because federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to people the dealer has a "reasonable belief" aren't the intended end user.

The targeted dealers insisted they abide by the law.

Gun dealers argue that they shouldn't be held to account for weapons after they leave their shops, in the same way that auto dealers aren't blamed when vehicles they sell get into accidents.

Eric Wallace of Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna, Ga. - cited as the source of 21 guns used in crimes here - said he's sold about 70,000 guns in the last 10 years.

"The mayor is painting a picture with a very broad brush," he said. "It's a shame. I don't think the mayor has done his homework."

The city is asking for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages that Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo said would easily runs into the millions of dollars.

To prevent further illegal sales, the city also wants a monitor named to oversee each of the 15 shops.

The data released by the city came from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, an agency the mayor accused of falling down on the job.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It to me means that people will be able to one day sue car dealers for selling cars to drunk drivers.

dksuddeth · 05-16-2006, 01:25 PM

Did anyone notice that Bloomberg and Kelly stressed the tragedy of the death of a 3 year old, the accidental shooting by the 12 year old, and the attempted murder of two police officers (while also stressing that they'd visited too many shot cops in the hospital) but not a single word about the number of unarmed and defenseless victims killed by hoodlums in their city? Or that the only criminal they acknowledge prosecuting was the one that shot at the cops?

cj2112 · 05-16-2006, 03:52 PM

If they can show that these gun sales were illegal to begin with then they are on the right track. I would think that if they could produce such evidence that they would be pursuing criminal prosecution of the dealers, if they can't produce this evidence then they need stfu.

Spanxxx · 05-16-2006, 10:04 PM

Sounds to me like a PR stunt and nothing else. Bloomberg is trying to save some face.

If the dealers sold the weapons illegally, hunt 'em down. Sure. If you think that's the real problem, go right ahead. However, what they didn't give the statistics for were the rest of the people killed in NYC with illegal guns and where those guns come from. 500 guns? I mean really... 500? That's all? They are tracking 500 and want to justify THAT as their crackdown? I know they've probably recovered or pulled in the 10000s of guns off the streets of NYC during that same time period. Of those, what percentage came from INSIDE New York, or rather, they just can't FIND where they came from. The bottom line is, they managed to track down a tiny percentage of the guns, found a few anomalies in the data, and are using it to their advantage.

Xazy · 05-17-2006, 03:30 AM

This to me makes more sense then people sueing Rockstar games, for gun violence.

If there is a case I feel they should go for it.

The_Dunedan · 05-17-2006, 10:23 AM

Oh Lord, not THIS crap again...

Look, this is no different from suing a Chevvy dealership because a number of their cars got used in bank robberies.

I work in a gunshop on weekends. The line you always walk is this:

Let's say a "straw buyer" connected with some gangbangers walks into my store. In all likelihood, he's a gangbanger himself, but just happens to have a clean criminal record, permitting him to pass the NICS background check. Dispensing with the bullshit, we all know that this person is, probably, going to be dressed and talking a certain way. In my area he's probably going to be either Caucasian or Hispanic, so "race" is a much less important factor, but the gang culture does have an unmistakeable way of branding its' members.

If I refuse to sell a weapon to this person, after they have completed and passed the NICS check, I stand a good chance of being sued. If this person takes it into his head to do so, he could sue the store, me personally, and my boss personally for "racial profiling" or some other such crap. Worse yet, there's a chance he might WIN, since he -did- pass the NICS check, and my refusal was based upon him fitting a "profile" ( gangbanger ) with which I was uncomfortable.

Such a thing puts retailers between a rock and a hard place in regards to refusing sales.

Finally, what happens with a product after it has left the store is not the dealers responsibility. Again, back to my car-dealer anaology; it's as if someone was sueing Rooster Bush Chevrolet because two of their cars got used to rob a bank. Once an item is removed from your ability to physically control it, you are relieved of your responsibility for its' use. I am not responsible if one of my personal weapons is stolen and used to commit a crime; nor am I responsible if some asshole takes a legal product, purchased in accordance with the law, and breaks the law with it.

dksuddeth · 05-17-2006, 10:36 AM

maybe an even better analogy would be something like suing chevy because they make a car thats more attractive to carjackers, thereby creating more crime.

flstf · 05-17-2006, 10:52 AM

Just seems like more of the sue happy nonsense we are caught up in. Sue the cigarette companies because some people can't handle smoking, sue McDonald's because some people get fat, sue the police because some people run from them and crash. If they haven't already, I'm sure they will get around to sueing the beer and liquor companies.

The_Dunedan · 05-17-2006, 10:57 AM

Oh, the lawsuits against booze will start soon, I'm sure. Some whackjob is trying to pass a law in Shreveport, Louisiana, of all places, banning the public consumption of any alchoholic beverage. LOUISIANA, for God's sake!

Willravel · 05-17-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It to me means that people will be able to one day sue car dealers for selling cars to drunk drivers.

I don't know if I'd agree with that comparison. I'd say it's more like NYC is holding gun dealers responsible for who they sell their guns to. Cars are primarily used for transportation, guns are primarily used as a weapon (whether for hunting, or protecting one's home). The reason this is happening is that guns are still killing people, and no one knows how to stop it. Gun control hasn't worked, less gun control hasn't worked, and no gun control hasn't worked. Maybe it's a move of desperation on the part of NYC, but I can't blame them.

I think the bottom line is that some people earn the right to own a gun, and others don't. How can we have a fundamental right for just the responsible people? Is it worth it to let the responsible people own arms if it also means arming the irresponsible? I wish I knew that answer.

At the end of the day, this move won't solve anything. It's probably an attepmt for good PR, anyway.

What would you guys do to lower gun injuries and homicides in NYC?

dksuddeth · 05-17-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe it's a move of desperation on the part of NYC, but I can't blame them.

NYC has had gun control since 1911. If it hasn't worked by now, it never will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What would you guys do to lower gun injuries and homicides in NYC?

First off, change the way gun crimes are dealt with. No more plea bargains. You do a gun crime, you do the maximum. That means if nobody is killed during the comission, then you serve life without parole. If someone is killed during the comission, lethal injection. (I know you don't agree with the death penalty, but you can't escape the benefit of permanently removing a violent murderer.)
Second, NYC HAS to go 'shall-issue'. This 'may issue' crap is whats getting innocent people killed, they aren't allowed to carry because only the rich and famous get to carry there.

Willravel · 05-17-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

NYC has had gun control since 1911. If it hasn't worked by now, it never will.

What I mean to say is that there are no places in the US that are gun crime free. Anyone involved in matters of guns has to know that, including NYC officials. Nothing works completly, so they pick a side and stick with it. I don't agree with it, but I can understand why they'd do it. They're frustrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

First off, change the way gun crimes are dealt with. No more plea bargains. You do a gun crime, you do the maximum. That means if nobody is killed during the comission, then you serve life without parole. If someone is killed during the comission, lethal injection. (I know you don't agree with the death penalty, but you can't escape the benefit of permanently removing a violent murderer.)

Fair enough about the plea bargins. I agree. As for leathal injection, why not beat the snot out of them instead? The death penalty obviously isn't an effctive deterrant (which has nothing to do with my personal feelings about the death penalty). Why not have these people put into a room and have them cained daily 4-5 hours at a time for several weeks? Prisons may be dangerous, but it's usually dangerous from other inmates. If a professional (someone who has been screened by a decent psych profile and background check) can simply beat the tar out of someone for using a gun, they'll think twice when they get out. For repeat offenders, castration is an option. I know it's cruel, but so is shooting someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Second, NYC HAS to go 'shall-issue'. This 'may issue' crap is whats getting innocent people killed, they aren't allowed to carry because only the rich and famous get to carry there.

Agree to disagree.

dksuddeth · 05-17-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What I mean to say is that there are no places in the US that are gun crime free. Anyone involved in matters of guns has to know that, including NYC officials. Nothing works completly, so they pick a side and stick with it. I don't agree with it, but I can understand why they'd do it. They're frustrated.

ever heard of kennesaw, georgia? very interesting city of close to 30,000 people. Implemented a new law mandating gun ownership for the head of each household and saw a near 89% drop in property crime alone.

MSD · 05-18-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What would you guys do to lower gun injuries and homicides in NYC?

The first thing I'd do is change the concealed carry laws to somethig along the lines of what we have in CT. If you're an upstanding citizen (no violent crimes or felonies, no forced institutionalization in the past 20 years, no other-than-honorable discharge from the military, you've completed the safety classes,) you may apply for a permit to carry on a shall-issue basis. You will not have to worry about being sued by the families of criminals who try to attack you because there will be no duty to retreat before using deadly force, if the use of deadly force is an appropriate response to the action taken against you (threat of severe harm, rape, death, etc.)

On the criminals' side, whether or not you use it, if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, or if you are in posession of a firearm while committing a violent crime or felony, you are going to prisoin for a long time. I think that an additional sentence of 7 years for a non-violent crime, 14 for a violent one is reasonable, non-suspendable and no possibility of parole for that part of the sentence. Once you're released, you are no longer welcome in the state of New York; you have to have court approval to come back. If you are caught in the state, you're back in prison for a year (longer for subsequent offenses.) If you're there with clear criminal intent (committing a crime other than coming back after being booted,) it's 3 years (more for subsequent offenses.)

If you negligently or maliciously provide a gun to a criminal, you get tagged as an accessory. None of this bullshit from Bloomberg that makes him look good in the eyes of the ignorant masses but does jack shit to stop crime.

dksuddeth · 05-18-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

The first thing I'd do is change the concealed carry laws to somethig along the lines of what we have in CT. If you're an upstanding citizen (no violent crimes or felonies, no forced institutionalization in the past 20 years, no other-than-honorable discharge from the military, you've completed the safety classes,) you may apply for a permit to carry on a shall-issue basis. You will not have to worry about being sued by the families of criminals who try to attack you because there will be no duty to retreat before using deadly force, if the use of deadly force is an appropriate response to the action taken against you (threat of severe harm, rape, death, etc.)

the only issue I have with your requirements is the 'other than honorable discharge'. Lots of ex military have been discharged with general discharges that are not honorable, nor are they dishonorable. If you feel that a discharge requirement should be met, might I suggest that a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge would then disqualify you from carrying, but not owning for your home. Unless of course those discharges are the results of a felony.

MSD · 05-22-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the only issue I have with your requirements is the 'other than honorable discharge'. Lots of ex military have been discharged with general discharges that are not honorable, nor are they dishonorable. If you feel that a discharge requirement should be met, might I suggest that a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge would then disqualify you from carrying, but not owning for your home. Unless of course those discharges are the results of a felony.

I don't know much about the military discharge system, but if there are legitimate reasons for an other-than-honorable discharge, then I'm fine with them having guns, too.

05-16-2006, 01:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Did anyone notice that Bloomberg and Kelly stressed the tragedy of the death of a 3 year old, the accidental shooting by the 12 year old, and the attempted murder of two police officers (while also stressing that they'd visited too many shot cops in the hospital) but not a single word about the number of unarmed and defenseless victims killed by hoodlums in their city? Or that the only criminal they acknowledge prosecuting was the one that shot at the cops? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-16-2006, 10:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
Spanxxx Psycho Location: Under my roof	Sounds to me like a PR stunt and nothing else. Bloomberg is trying to save some face. If the dealers sold the weapons illegally, hunt 'em down. Sure. If you think that's the real problem, go right ahead. However, what they didn't give the statistics for were the rest of the people killed in NYC with illegal guns and where those guns come from. 500 guns? I mean really... 500? That's all? They are tracking 500 and want to justify THAT as their crackdown? I know they've probably recovered or pulled in the 10000s of guns off the streets of NYC during that same time period. Of those, what percentage came from INSIDE New York, or rather, they just can't FIND where they came from. The bottom line is, they managed to track down a tiny percentage of the guns, found a few anomalies in the data, and are using it to their advantage. __________________ I think that's what they mean by "nickels a day can feed a child." I thought, "How could food be so cheap over there?" It's not, they just eat nickels. - (supposedly) Peter Nguyen, internet hero

05-17-2006, 10:36 AM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	maybe an even better analogy would be something like suing chevy because they make a car thats more attractive to carjackers, thereby creating more crime. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-16-2006, 03:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	If they can show that these gun sales were illegal to begin with then they are on the right track. I would think that if they could produce such evidence that they would be pursuing criminal prosecution of the dealers, if they can't produce this evidence then they need stfu.

05-17-2006, 03:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	This to me makes more sense then people sueing Rockstar games, for gun violence. If there is a case I feel they should go for it.

05-17-2006, 10:23 AM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Oh Lord, not THIS crap again... Look, this is no different from suing a Chevvy dealership because a number of their cars got used in bank robberies. I work in a gunshop on weekends. The line you always walk is this: Let's say a "straw buyer" connected with some gangbangers walks into my store. In all likelihood, he's a gangbanger himself, but just happens to have a clean criminal record, permitting him to pass the NICS background check. Dispensing with the bullshit, we all know that this person is, probably, going to be dressed and talking a certain way. In my area he's probably going to be either Caucasian or Hispanic, so "race" is a much less important factor, but the gang culture does have an unmistakeable way of branding its' members. If I refuse to sell a weapon to this person, after they have completed and passed the NICS check, I stand a good chance of being sued. If this person takes it into his head to do so, he could sue the store, me personally, and my boss personally for "racial profiling" or some other such crap. Worse yet, there's a chance he might WIN, since he -did- pass the NICS check, and my refusal was based upon him fitting a "profile" ( gangbanger ) with which I was uncomfortable. Such a thing puts retailers between a rock and a hard place in regards to refusing sales. Finally, what happens with a product after it has left the store is not the dealers responsibility. Again, back to my car-dealer anaology; it's as if someone was sueing Rooster Bush Chevrolet because two of their cars got used to rob a bank. Once an item is removed from your ability to physically control it, you are relieved of your responsibility for its' use. I am not responsible if one of my personal weapons is stolen and used to commit a crime; nor am I responsible if some asshole takes a legal product, purchased in accordance with the law, and breaks the law with it.

05-17-2006, 10:52 AM	#8 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Just seems like more of the sue happy nonsense we are caught up in. Sue the cigarette companies because some people can't handle smoking, sue McDonald's because some people get fat, sue the police because some people run from them and crash. If they haven't already, I'm sure they will get around to sueing the beer and liquor companies.

05-17-2006, 10:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Oh, the lawsuits against booze will start soon, I'm sure. Some whackjob is trying to pass a law in Shreveport, Louisiana, of all places, banning the public consumption of any alchoholic beverage. LOUISIANA, for God's sake!