

Have guns, will travel


At a recent press conference South Carolina’s spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms said “”We want to stop the gun traffickers. It makes the legal gun owners look bad.”

South Carolina ranks sixth in the country for firearms trafficking.

Meanwhile New York City has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. In fact over 85 percent of guns used in crimes in NYC were purchased in other states. Many of them in South Carolina

In 2006 NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg induced the city to sue a South Carolina pawnshop owner for illegal gun sales. He was one of a dozen gun dealers NYC sued under those charges. Ultimately most plead guilty and were given probation.

Then in October 2012, the New York Police Department pulled off a major bust and over a hundred guns were seized. According to the the District Attorney’s office many of the guns came from straw sales, retail outlets and guns shows in South Carolina.

This is same problem that other high crime areas are experiencing. Chicago for instance. Liberal gun laws in adjourning states – only a short drive away – serve as open markets for guns that are illegal in their home state.

This disparity of enforcement, duality of controls and liberal gun laws facilitates the criminal’s need to get arms and for that reason it must be stopped. The proposed federal regulations calling for more effective background checks, an end to straw sales, and closing the gun show loophole will likely have a profound effect on the illegal arms under-world and in turn lower the number of gun violence victims.

Categories: General
Lawrence White

Leave a Reply

49 Responses

  1. Bart says:

    Who buys these guns and from whom? Somewhere along the line a legal weapon, purchased new, broke bad. With no national database of gun purchases and registration system tracking subsequent private resales, law enforcement cannot hope to find the criminal link in the chain. Until we have those lunatics who think that national firearm registration is a pretext to confiscation of firearms abandon their NRA-induced paranoia, there will be no end to gun violence. If EVERY firearm is registered, and every sale is registered in the name of the new owner, the underground trafficking of once-legal firearms will be significantly reduced.

    Of course, that will allow the UN stormtroopers in black Helios to locate firearm owners in a massive sweep to confiscate their weapons and send the owners to Obama’s FEMA re-education camps. What was I thinking?

  2. Mickie Lynn says:

    Lawrence White, Thanks for the more detailed description about how lax gun laws in some locations can threaten people in other geographic areas even if they have stronger laws for the prevention of gun violence.

    This article is very helpful to me in my own thinking about what’s necessary to curtail the current level of gun violence that we are experiencing in the United States. It’s also non-partisan and ends with some good suggestions for measures that could help to decrease gun violence.

  3. Albert J says:

    Although mocking serious concerns represented by alternate positions and potential solutions seems to be a recurring tactic in recent political debates and discussion, they haven’t yet produced any improvement in the rate of discovery of consensus solutions, that portent dealing with continuing problems.

    The volume of worthless opinion offered by those with little expertise and/or experience in rationally dealing with the actual problems we all face is producing little more than useless fog that serves only to obfuscate and confuse.

    Perhaps what is most essential for the necessary and inevitble debate and discussion to produce a workable and lasting set of solutions is simply for both extremes to recognize and seriously consider the concerns of the other side and treat those concerns with the same amount of respect they demand for their own positions.

    If nothing else, it would save a lot of time and reduce the level of BS.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Albert J

      Please refer your comment to the weapons industry and their paid propaganda satellite the NRA. They could not care less about a civil debate. Their motive is pure profit alone and their main tool is the most noxious form of BS possible.

  4. LOVE your work Lawrence and Micky Lynn
    Keep it coming.

    Are we alone here?

  5. realist says:

    lawrence, are you and iknowtruthismine one and the same?

  6. iknowtruthismine says:

    Oh Albert, another of your manipulative arguments to, in relation to the status quo, show that all we have to do is nothing at all, so your side can get its way. Albert’s message, as always, “Only you have the power to make no difference at all.”, as he tries to lead us into his fog bank.

  7. iknowtruthismine says:

    Damn, finally after all edgar’s rubbish, he gives me a compliment, in post #7.

  8. Albert J says:

    Shame on you Lawrence, lack of a cogent response is always better answered with silence, that resorting to really stupid insult. You should be warned that even being casually confused with INTIM should serve as a dire warning that you’ve drifted into really muddy water.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @Albert J
      My response was not meant to be an insult towards you Albert. However it is clear from the unyielding white hot rhetoric and absolute unwillingness to come forward with a reasonable agenda that my comment about the weapons industry and the NRA was spot-on.

  9. Mickie Lynn says:

    Dear “Mayor Poppins”, aka “The lonely conservative.” Sarcasm doesn’t become you — or add anything positive to the conversation.

    There isn’t much that I agree with Mayor Bloomberg about — but I do believe that we need to work together to solve the increasing problem of gun violence, in our state, and in the entire country.

    And no, a spoon full of sugar doesn’t make unregulated gun availability go down any better.

    I couldn’t believe that you were “for real” because Mary Poppins used to be one of my early childhood heroines. It’s insulting to call her a mere “nanny” when she was practically a demigoddess. Perhaps we could use some of her magical connections to actually get a constructive conversation started on the topic of reducing gun violence.

    You might want to read the books. You could learn something about how to treat other people. Although the lessons are filtered through early 20th century ambiance in a very class conscious society [the UK].

  10. jakester says:

    This post shows explicitly how inept the liberal justice system is, yet some people only see it as proof that guns are bad, how naieve.

    If it is illegal to sell these guns, bring them across state lines, resell them to use in a crime, then the people involved should be incarcerated, for a long long long time… instead they’re given probation… but then somehow you’re upset with the liberal GUN laws? REALLY ???

    Mickie Lynn, to me, the only real way to get a legitimate conversation STARTED on the reducing gun violence is first, to address it at the correct segment of society… the criminals, gang members and those who commit 90% of the violent crime.
    Right now it’s being directed at legal gun owners and thus, impotent.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jakester
      You lust for uncontrolled weaponry in our society is not realistic yet you keep posting comments indicating that this is your goal. It is clear you will continue to be disappointed.

  11. Albert J says:

    For what it’s worth, Lawrence, assessments of any comment or observation as being “spot on” only have value when they are offered by someone other than the original author talking about themself.

  12. Bob says:

    It seems to me logically that things that are illegal are harder to get – not impossible. Controlling the sales of guns and outlawing some altogether makes it less likely a non law abiding person gets their hands on them. I’m sorry some have been brainwashed to believe this is the first step to tyranny – that is laughable. You all came up with that idea on your own?
    The constitution was intentionally written to be modified (we call them amendments) to appropriately reflect our current culture. The NRA does not care about any of us just like the big banks, big oil, big automakers dont care about any of us. We let them tell us what to believe, we salute, and bow down to the money.
    If you want to use your guns appropriately, go put a bullet in your TV. Then we can start thinking for ourselves rather than being told what to believe.

  13. Jeff G says:

    If over 85% of guns used in crimes come from out of state, why are NYS legal gun owners being made criminals if they load 8 bullets into their magazine?

    Again, you have shown that the unconstitutional NYSafe act does nothing to address crime, but that it only takes away the freedoms of law abiding people.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jeff G
      Your freedoms are not removed under the SAFE act. There are still plenty of weapons to purchase and fire. However it does make it less likely that a criminal will get a gun. If that is not good enough for you I don’t care. I do care that it will bring down the number of gun violence victims. That is the goal.

  14. Lisa says:

    Kirsten Gillibrand co sponsored a bill, The gun trafficking prevention act, to help address this issue..I’m amazed that this has not been addressed in the past.

  15. Tony says:

    How does the NY SAFE Act make it less likely that a criminal will obtain a gun?

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Tony

      I am not certain how sincere your question is since we have gone over this endlessly. However it is clear that more effective background checks plus stronger enforcement on straw sales and gun shows will make it less likely a criminal will get a gun.

  16. Jeff G says:

    Your own data is showing the vast majority of guns used in crimes comes from out of state, and that the NYSafe act will have no affect on crimes and will only take freedoms away from law abiding citizens. Leave good people alone, stop trying to make senseless laws that restrict their freedoms, and instead work to lock up violent criminals. We could work together and save lives if only you’d stop trying to ban legally owned guns.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jeff G

      A very large percentage of guns used in crimes are acquired through straw sales and gun shows. Many trafficers cross state lines to gain access to these weapons. That is why so many good people are responding positively to the new laws. Well over 60% approval in NY State for our new regulations and about the same percentage – if not more – at the federal level. People are over the weapons industry’s sales charade cynically dressed-up as a constitutional right.

      Unlimited access to guns is not going to be the status quo anymore. The massacre of children and their teachers at Sandy Hook School pointed out the problem with liberal gun laws in a way that is impossible to deny.

      Even though the polarity of the situation has shifted 180 degrees since that bloody day, your right to own guns and protect your home will remain intact. However American citizen’s rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has taken precedent over unlimited gun rights. Change is here Jeff and you will have to learn how to adjust to it.

  17. jakester says:

    Lawrence, you’re totally naieve… no criominals go through background checks. If you and Cuomo knew anything about it you would already know you can not purchase a gun in nys witout a background check and filling out paperwork for the ATF.

    Yes, technically, if you eliminate all legal guns it will be more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. You will have to eliminate
    all guns in north america.

    In your zeal to advance the liberal agenda you assume you speak for us all, you don’t. As for uncontrolled weaponry, please, stop it, you’re making youself look pretty silly trying to accuse me of saying things I’ve never said. I am for extremely tight gun control for criminals and most liberals. I am however far more focused about enforcing laws to the fullest extent, especially for violent gun crimes.
    You think I’ll be disappointed, maybe, won’t be the first time or last time, especially in this state with these politicians.

    So far, I still have all my rifles, handguns and ammo… legally,
    while you’ve got what ? An unconstitutional law passed by cowards in the middle of the night that’s being legally challenged by almost half the counties in the state and growing…

    Crowing about passing liberal laws in a totally liberal state says a lot about you… and your mindset.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jakester

      Allowing straw sales and gun show loopholes to exist is a lame excuse to provide the weapons industry continuing profit at our expense. It is no wonder that public opinion has turned away from those who cry out for more ultra liberal access to weapons.

      You say you have your guns but I have nothing. Actually we have is a democratic republic. The vote for new gun laws was overwhelming and a long time coming. You can all it anything you want but the fact is that you will have to get used to the liberal gun laws in America being a little less liberal from now on. Change is here.

  18. Raphael Kramden says:

    @Tony, if I may try to respond to your question regarding how NY SAFE Act makes it less likely a criminal will obtain a gun?

    Your question contains a small ambiguity in that by “criminal” it’s unclear whether you mean someoby who is already in the NICS system, or somebody who is not in NICS, but who is planning on commiting a crime. Either way, here are some sincere thoughts:

    Stricter assault weapons ban – if it can’t be sold, it cannot be bought.

    Permit recert every 5 years – can catch somebody who committed crime after initial permit issued.

    Background Checks on all gun transfers – responsible gun owners can’t be duped into selling to NICS rejects.

    Mental Health Mandatory Reporting – unstable person goes into the system and is prohibted from getting a gun.

    Orders of protection include weapons – won’t stop the obtaining, but can prevent the use of a gun in anger.

    And the increased penalties for murder of a 1st responder, for firearm possession on schools and for illegal gun use should keep more bad guys behind bars for longer terms, which prevents them from getting guns. .

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Raphael Kramden

      Excellent synopsis Raphael. Thank you.

      Another major change being proposed is the closing of the notorious “gun show loophole.” This purposeful glitch in the law is responsible for a large portion of illegal gun sales. Right now individuals “not engaged in the business” of being an actual arms dealer, or who is involved only in the “occasional” gun sale have no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. This unregulated path to gun ownership allows unqualified people like convicted felons the opportunity to evade background checks entirely. Closing the gun show loophole by requiring effective background checks on all purchases will eliminate this gaping outlet for illegal gun sales.

  19. Jeff G says:

    The only thing good, as long as not abused by the state is the mental health stuff. But if those people are dangerous they should be yanked off the streets anyway and put in a secure facility.

    Background checks are already done for permit holders, and if they commit a crime they lose their permit.

    Assault weapon is a word applied to some some semi-autos but not others that are functionally the same, so no affect their accept to limit freedom of choice.

    Background check only affects the law abiding, so no affect there.

    Order of protection hopefully not abused by the state, and if someone is dangerous put them in jail, as there are lots of kinds of weapons.

    All just a big anti-gun sham, with no effort to go after violent criminals.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jeff G

      Yanking people off the streets are we Jeff? Putting them away? With you calling this shots, or would that be a government decision? This is your brave new free world where the government chooses between fee people with mandatory guns and the other people who are in jail.

      Nice call Jeff. I believe the popularity of your plan for social order would fall well somewhere below the popularity of a plan to give hedge fund mangers in Aruba a bonus with our tax money.

  20. Raphael Kramden says:

    You’re welcome Mr. White. It was an interesting thought exercise to work through that.

    One thing on your #29 post, I was under the impression that, in NYS, the gun show loophole had already been addressed, and the Universal Background Check requirement in NYSAFE was to cover private sales outside of guns shows. If my understanding was incorrect, please let me know.

    Also, have you looked at the 10th Circuit decision yesterday regarding No 2A right to CCW. Very interesting stuff. The case is Peterson v. Martinez.

    Keep up your good work, sir.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Raphael Kramden

      You are correct about NY Law. However the federal law would have the widest implications and would effectively end illegal interstate trade from the gun show source. The 10th circuit decision will likely be heard in the Supreme Court. It will be closely watched. That is for sure.

  21. Raphael Kramden says:

    @Jeff, you’re missing the point of a background check. It is to snag those that cannot be lawful gun owners due to previous bad behavior. Even if 99% of BC’s come back clean, you still caught over 100,000 bad guys every year trying to get a gun they should not obtain.

    And maybe they could get it elsewhere, but it’s incomprehensible why anyone would want make it easier for bad guys to get guns.

    How much of an inconvenience are BC’s to your firearms purchases? And how often are you inconvenienced?

  22. Sentinel says:

    Jakester, Jeff G, and all who oppose the universal background check should take your arguments over to Daniel’s blog postings and ask him why he supports supports it. You’ll find no compassion for your extremest views here.

    Indeed, thank you, Raphael.

  23. Jeff G says:

    The background check is not effective and is easily side stepped and wastes money. Is that the kind of law you want to support? The even more serious problem for freedom is universal registration that some people want background checks to become.

    The real solution is to get violent criminals off the streets, but the anti-gun people are not interested in stopping criminals. Instead they only want to stop legal gun owners from having guns.

  24. Bart says:

    The 10th Circuit decision re-affirmed Heller also in that the government has every right to put restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms. Way to go 10th Circuit. I read the decision last night, they took every NRA lovin’ pseudo-constiutional expert down a few notches.

  25. jakester says:

    Laerence, I guess you must think, NYS where we both live had “liberal” gun laws… we both know we don’t and still crime pushes
    on… your typical liberal assessment of problems is to pass more meaningless laws and stick your heads back in the sand. Crime and the justice system are part the problems not legal gun owners.

    Yes, we have a democratic republic and we’re leaning heavily towards taxations without representation. You don’t want to amend the constitution you want to rewrite it to your liking. Can it happen, maybe as evidenced by the entitlement vote electing a socialist.
    Only the future will tell… but so far we’re in no better shape, no safer, “crime wise” than before Cuomo’s desperate attempt to grag the headlines and politicize a tragedy.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jakester
      The Courts disagree with your assessment of the situation and so do a vast majority of the people in our country.

  26. Tony says:

    #28, Raphael,
    Agree with all your points except for the “assault weapons” ban and the five year re-certification on handgun permits.

    Unless the Federal Government is successfully able to confiscate every so called “assault weapon” from all law abiding and non-law abiding citizens in the U.S., and stop the manufacture, importation, and sale of same in the entire country, the result of this SAFE Act provision is to remove certain modern firearms that look “scary” from the hands of law abiding citizens. The likelihood of a complete and total ban of so called “assault weapons” from circulation would be, in my opinion, practically impossible to achieve. I will grant you that national universal back ground checks for dealer and private sales and tighter national straw man prohibitions could have the desired effect of making it harder for criminals to access firearms illegally.

    On the five year re-certification, as far as I know, if you find yourself in the criminal justice system for something as simple as a DUI, you can have your pistol permit revoked by a judge and the local police requiring you to surrender your handguns. Convicted felons obviously lose their permit and firearms as well. So I am not seeing how this adds anything except additional time and cost to both the permit holder and the taxpayers.

  27. Joseph Cea says:

    The NRA has pushed reciprocity several times arguing that the second amendment is federal and doesn’t stop at state lines, nor do criminals and although the vote is close the liberal left are holding it up. Why do I mention this because if the dems had half a brain they could use reciprocity in reverse to prosecute criminals that cross state lines to buy firearms – thus cutting down straw purchases considerably – that of course depends on the willingness to prosecute as well.

    Also I don’t recall who mentioned it – maybe another article even but there was the suggestion that just failing the background check would be a crime which wouldn’t necessarily being a bad idea except for any “false positives” due to same names etc..but possession of a firearms after failing a background check would be better. Problem would be that criminals wouldn’t seek a background check unless you made possession of a firearm without a background check also a crime.

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Joseph Cea

      The idea of the law is that it would be so strong that criminals will not even try.

  28. jakester says:

    That liberal courts appointed by liberal politicians disagree with me and hundreds of millions of others Americans makes me only more resolved to support and elect non-liberals.

    Sentinel, again you both put your on spin on it… I’ve never said I don’t support backgroud checks. However, I don’t see criminals actually going to Dicks and trying to pass a background check OR gong to a gin show and trying to buy a gun. Even the mentally ill guy, who was parolled by our NY state liberal justice system for murdering his own grandmother with a hammer, knew enough to have a neighbor ILLEGALLY but him a rifle because SHE COULD PASS A BACKGRUND CHECK.
    Criminals are going to buy illegal guns out on the street ,from the trunk of a car etc etc etc. Unless one of the thugs selling them has an app on his GalazyIII guess what, no paperwork. Any law you can pass
    is circumvented. I’ve always laughed at the ATF forms you have to fill out to purchase a gun anyway. ALl you have to do is LIE ON THE FORM, which we all know a criminal would never do, right…

    • Lawrence White says:

      @ Jakester

      Bias against liberals coming from someone who enjoys some of the most liberal gun laws in the world, and wants them to be even more liberal.

  29. Raphael Kramden says:

    @Tony, thank you for your responsive and thought-provoking post. I understand your point about the assault weapon ban, that weapons banned from sale can migrate across State borders. It makes sense that lack of Federal action on this matter renders State action ineffective.

    The 5-year permit re-cert is more interesting. Yes, judges can revoke permits, if they choose. But I suspect that all judges do not conduct their Courts in the same manner. Nor do they remember to revoke permits for those who are convicted of felonies unrelated to weapons. So the periodic, global review of all permits still has a value in catching felons whose permits may not have been revoked during their previous adjudication. As Mr. White indicated, we will only know the value of this “catch-all” after it has been implemented for a few years.

  30. jakester says:

    Liberal gun laws in the world, yep like, Germany, Russia, China, North Korea all those great places with fantastic histories of freedom and human rights. Gimme a break!