Gun Trafficking Ring Busted

I mean, the indictment is downloadable for anyone that wants to read it. People are just making up excuses if they claim it's tough to find info on this case. They were finding guns at crime scenes in Philly purchased days or weeks before in Atlanta, with several of the purchases coming from the same guy over a short time period (146 firearms in 6 months to be exact). They had a shared email account set up between purchasers in the South and a designated group of buyers up north. This is about as open and shut as possible. I think pretty much everyone for or against any form of firearm legislation should agree that these people should get the book thrown at them.
 
I mean, the indictment is downloadable for anyone that wants to read it. People are just making up excuses if they claim it's tough to find info on this case. They were finding guns at crime scenes in Philly purchased days or weeks before in Atlanta, with several of the purchases coming from the same guy over a short time period (146 firearms in 6 months to be exact). They had a shared email account set up between purchasers in the South and a designated group of buyers up north. This is about as open and shut as possible. I think pretty much everyone for or against any form of firearm legislation should agree that these people should get the book thrown at them.
Was it posted here? I don’t see the indictment. What you describe is case closed felonies for all.
 
Curious how these super high tech investigations make phones record better data because my phone sure doesn't perform like that when it thinks i'm on the frontage road 70 yards away while driving down the Interstate or when OnX or similar apps thinks i'm walking around in 20 yard circles when standing still.

I suspect it's the difference between GPS and triangulation from towers. The scary thing is that the data is recorded and available to people.
 
First - I'm for the second amendment. I want to protect my wife and home. Period. I've hunted all my life.
Many pro-gun folks say to use existing laws on the books to prosecute the people breaking those laws. I'm for that. So when a bust of something that's illegal happens, you want to let them OFF?????????? Sorry - I don't understand that thinking. If an amateur rapper in Atlanta is making straw purchases for someone in Philadelphia using a number of people to transfer the guns (which were mostly semi-auto handguns) ......... and the guns end up with people who ARE NOT allowed to have guns (felons) - how is that OK??? Those guns were used to commit other crimes in the Philly region. Laws on the books say that's illegal.

Illegal guys like this are making life tougher for law-abiding gun owners. Many elected officials have said "prosecute crooks / crimes involving guns using the laws on the books." So what's wrong with busting this illegal ring??? The guns were used to commit crimes.

It wasn't an uncle giving / selling a gun to his nephew.

Gun running isn't new - but it's illegal.

As for "fake news" .... here's one. -------- The "job creators" were going to bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs to the U.S. Don't hold your breath - unless world affairs / war make it absolutely necessary for our national security. 40+ years ago our U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff sounded the alarm over moving our cutting-edge engineering / electronic / tooling manufacturing offshore because it would jeopardize national security in the event of a war. (I remember their warnings coming out back then). Now we're in the situation of having to wait on ships & barges to bring us cutting-edge components for our military hardware. HOW'S THAT for being short-sighted??? Communist Chinese government has had easy access to stealing our tech secrets when it's in their factories.

Awww - I know ....... I'm just making all this up.
It sounds like you are in favor of firearm ownership with restrictions. That is not the same as being for the second amendment because it requires infringement of some rights.

Your straw man "many pro-gun folks" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. I am one who says to use the (just) laws on the books to punish criminals. The laws to be used are the ones that define a victim and a perpetrator who is liable for violating the rights of the victim. When a known object is transfered from one consenting adult to another, no rights have been violated. The transferee chooses how to use the object and any liability for violating another's rights with that object. Doesn't matter if it's a firearm, edged weapon, club, baby ducks, car, rock, blanket, cow, rope, pointed stick, pillow, sack of oranges, etc. The object is not the criminal act of violating another's rights. The firearm laws are unnecessary and I believe unconstitutional because they infringe on an individuals right to personal autonomy in which they have not infringed on the rights of another.
 
It sounds like you are in favor of firearm ownership with restrictions. That is not the same as being for the second amendment because it requires infringement of some rights.

Your straw man "many pro-gun folks" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. I am one who says to use the (just) laws on the books to punish criminals. The laws to be used are the ones that define a victim and a perpetrator who is liable for violating the rights of the victim. When a known object is transfered from one consenting adult to another, no rights have been violated. The transferee chooses how to use the object and any liability for violating another's rights with that object. Doesn't matter if it's a firearm, edged weapon, club, baby ducks, car, rock, blanket, cow, rope, pointed stick, pillow, sack of oranges, etc. The object is not the criminal act of violating another's rights. The firearm laws are unnecessary and I believe unconstitutional because they infringe on an individuals right to personal autonomy in which they have not infringed on the rights of another.
Except if you are a felon.
 
Except if you are a felon.
That is a partially correct statement. More appropriately it would be, except if you are a felon who has not had their rights restored.
That is a whole other discussion on when or through what process rights are restored. I'm definitely in favor of judicial reform. However, that is not directly a 2A issue.
 
In some peoples eyes, only the government is allowed to transfer ownership of guns to people that wouldn't pass a background check. Operation Fast and Furious wasn't the first, nor the last time our government illegally gave guns to known criminals, in fact Operation Fast and Furious was a small part of a bigger project called Project Gunrunner.
Remember when our government traded guns to the Contras in the 80's for cocaine that was turned into crack to start a new deadly epidemic? Ever heard of Operation Cyclone where the CIA funded the Mujahideen and one of the Mujahid factions (probably spelled wrong) that would go on to become the Taliban? At the head of the Taliban was Bin Laden that we killed for leading the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a decade later we handed the Taliban a country (Afghanistan) fully stocked with Billions of dollars in our military weapons.

I grew up in a world where Americans freely traded and sold guns amongst ourselves without knowing or questioning the buyers criminal history. Gun crime wasn't any more, or less, than it is today with all these restrictive gun laws on you and I. We even had a widely circulating public newspaper called the Swap Sheet here in Liberal NY where I legally purchased several guns in my 20's. Today that is a felony, gun deaths haven't slowed down because I now have to register guns, pass background checks and they abolished the Swap Sheet. It certainly doesn't stop criminals from getting guns in the end, it just makes it a longer and tougher process to acquire a gun for those of us that would never use a gun for nefarious reasons in the first place. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores and laws don't stop criminals from getting them in the end.

In the story you started this thread about, do you feel confident that the FBI stopping this gun transfer permanently stopped the people that would have acquired them from getting guns in the end? If the answer is yes then I would celebrate this arrest along side you. I'm sure most here won't agree but in my eyes every American should be able to freely buy/own/trade/sell guns as stated on our Constitution, until they commit a crime with a gun and that's when the hammer should come down, and it should come down hard at that point.
 
I suspect it's the difference between GPS and triangulation from towers. The scary thing is that the data is recorded and available to people.

[Apologies first for the thread diversion] - I was of the assumption that location is always via GPS. I use phone GPS all the time in airplane mode while out west hunting where service doesn't exist and it acts the same as when i have service. That is a topic of a lot of interest for now in relation to hunting out west on public near private borders. It is generally accepted that a cell phone GPS is not nearly accurate enough to keep you from trespassing.

Article about a case I've been following closely related to this: https://wyofile.com/hunters-allege-illegal-harassment-in-corner-crossing-case/

and coming full circle to True the Vote - the landowner pressing charges in WY sued True the Vote for his $2.5 million contribution back :
 
In some peoples eyes, only the government is allowed to transfer ownership of guns to people that wouldn't pass a background check. Operation Fast and Furious wasn't the first, nor the last time our government illegally gave guns to known criminals, in fact Operation Fast and Furious was a small part of a bigger project called Project Gunrunner.
Remember when our government traded guns to the Contras in the 80's for cocaine that was turned into crack to start a new deadly epidemic? Ever heard of Operation Cyclone where the CIA funded the Mujahideen and one of the Mujahid factions (probably spelled wrong) that would go on to become the Taliban? At the head of the Taliban was Bin Laden that we killed for leading the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a decade later we handed the Taliban a country (Afghanistan) fully stocked with Billions of dollars in our military weapons.

I grew up in a world where Americans freely traded and sold guns amongst ourselves without knowing or questioning the buyers criminal history. Gun crime wasn't any more, or less, than it is today with all these restrictive gun laws on you and I. We even had a widely circulating public newspaper called the Swap Sheet here in Liberal NY where I legally purchased several guns in my 20's. Today that is a felony, gun deaths haven't slowed down because I now have to register guns, pass background checks and they abolished the Swap Sheet. It certainly doesn't stop criminals from getting guns in the end, it just makes it a longer and tougher process to acquire a gun for those of us that would never use a gun for nefarious reasons in the first place. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores and laws don't stop criminals from getting them in the end.

In the story you started this thread about, do you feel confident that the FBI stopping this gun transfer permanently stopped the people that would have acquired them from getting guns in the end? If the answer is yes then I would celebrate this arrest along side you. I'm sure most here won't agree but in my eyes every American should be able to freely buy/own/trade/sell guns as stated on our Constitution, until they commit a crime with a gun and that's when the hammer should come down, and it should come down hard at that point.
So you want to be able to sell guns to gang members with felonies? I guess since it is racist to lock them up perhaps you should be able to. I change my mind, guns for all. If they are going to get them anyway what difference does it make.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
 
So you want to be able to sell guns to gang members with felonies? I guess since it is racist to lock them up perhaps you should be able to. I change my mind, guns for all. If they are going to get them anyway what difference does it make.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Nice your coming around now to reality.
 
So you want to be able to sell guns to gang members with felonies? I guess since it is racist to lock them up perhaps you should be able to. I change my mind, guns for all. If they are going to get them anyway what difference does it make.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
With all the gun laws created since the days of the Swap Sheet 25'ish years ago, gun crime and death hasn't lowered so why not? Gang Bangers need to defend themselves too lol Seriously though, how do you make a law that actually keeps guns out of the hands of bad people like gangs or career criminals? Make a law saying you have to pass a background check to buy a gun, gang bangers don't buy guns in stores and still get them one way or the other, it just slows the process for people that follow the laws to get one. Limit the magazine to 7 shots, criminals, the military and law enforcement can have them but not you and I that would never cause harm to begin with can't? You could make a law that says anyone with a felony can't buy a gun, my brother that got 3 DWI's within 10 years got charged and convicted of a felony and spent 2 years in prison for it. For context, he didn't cause any crashes or hurt anyone, just pulled over after drinking in his late 20's and early 30's like an dumbass. My brother would never use a gun nefariously, neither would people like accountants convicted of fraud or money laundering. If they defined it so only violent felons or violent criminals couldn't buy a gun I would be more agreeable but lets be honest, if any criminal wants a gun they will get one and it likely wouldn't be from a gun shop in the first place so really it would again just delay law abiding people like you and I from getting a gun.

You are a NY'er so I have to ask, how many lives were saved because of the Safe Act? AR part restrictions, gun registration for all your owned guns, limited magazine capacity are all moot laws that don't stop nefarious gun crimes. In my opinion any law that is applied to US citizens, especially ones that alter Constitutional Rights, should have to be justified with statistics a couple years after it was created to prove it works to keep it on the books. Granted there would likely be shenanigans with the numbers, like how some cities changed paramaters of gun statistics to include any bullet that enters a school zone to be counted as a "school shooting". For example, a gang fight happens 4 blocks away on a Saturday night when not even the janitor is in the school but one of the stray bullets hits the school. Is that really a "school shooting"? That isn't a made up scenario, it happens today and is directly the reason "school shooting" numbers have spiked recently. Have there been more school shootings in recent times? Absolutely, but no where near the actual number they claim.

Sorry I made this long winded but I think it would surprise most people to know that with all the laws and restrictions on buying/owning/transporting guns do you think it is worth the few lives it has alleged to have saved? Does making schools gun free zones stop guns from getting into schools?

Some numbers to consider: 2018 was the latest year we have numbers for until they are recounted and published this year by the CDC, I don't know why they are responsible for tracking the data but even the FBI uses their numbers as well as places that compile statistical data like Pew Research. In 2018 there were a total of 38,390 deaths in the US by firearms (roughly 70% were handgun deaths) 24,432 were suicides. A majority of the remaining 13,958 gun deaths were murder/homicide, but that number includes everything else like home defenders, police shootings, hunting accidents etc.

On the other end of the stick, under Democrat President Bill Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, most agree that is an overestimate by an average of 10% making the lowest estimate at 1.35 million times per year. I didn't cherry pick this source, there isn't much reliable data collected on this topic (intentional?). Some other sources put it at 800,000 times per year people have defended themselves with a gun, you can use that and I am ok with it because it still shows that guns save many times more lives than they take nefariously.

36,000 people died last year in vehicle accidents and there is no Constitutional rights to a vehicle. I could go on and on about smoking deaths, diabetes etc. but I think I said too much already lol
 
With all the gun laws created since the days of the Swap Sheet 25'ish years ago, gun crime and death hasn't lowered so why not? Gang Bangers need to defend themselves too lol Seriously though, how do you make a law that actually keeps guns out of the hands of bad people like gangs or career criminals? Make a law saying you have to pass a background check to buy a gun, gang bangers don't buy guns in stores and still get them one way or the other, it just slows the process for people that follow the laws to get one. Limit the magazine to 7 shots, criminals, the military and law enforcement can have them but not you and I that would never cause harm to begin with can't? You could make a law that says anyone with a felony can't buy a gun, my brother that got 3 DWI's within 10 years got charged and convicted of a felony and spent 2 years in prison for it. For context, he didn't cause any crashes or hurt anyone, just pulled over after drinking in his late 20's and early 30's like an dumbass. My brother would never use a gun nefariously, neither would people like accountants convicted of fraud or money laundering. If they defined it so only violent felons or violent criminals couldn't buy a gun I would be more agreeable but lets be honest, if any criminal wants a gun they will get one and it likely wouldn't be from a gun shop in the first place so really it would again just delay law abiding people like you and I from getting a gun.

You are a NY'er so I have to ask, how many lives were saved because of the Safe Act? AR part restrictions, gun registration for all your owned guns, limited magazine capacity are all moot laws that don't stop nefarious gun crimes. In my opinion any law that is applied to US citizens, especially ones that alter Constitutional Rights, should have to be justified with statistics a couple years after it was created to prove it works to keep it on the books. Granted there would likely be shenanigans with the numbers, like how some cities changed paramaters of gun statistics to include any bullet that enters a school zone to be counted as a "school shooting". For example, a gang fight happens 4 blocks away on a Saturday night when not even the janitor is in the school but one of the stray bullets hits the school. Is that really a "school shooting"? That isn't a made up scenario, it happens today and is directly the reason "school shooting" numbers have spiked recently. Have there been more school shootings in recent times? Absolutely, but no where near the actual number they claim.

Sorry I made this long winded but I think it would surprise most people to know that with all the laws and restrictions on buying/owning/transporting guns do you think it is worth the few lives it has alleged to have saved? Does making schools gun free zones stop guns from getting into schools?

Some numbers to consider: 2018 was the latest year we have numbers for until they are recounted and published this year by the CDC, I don't know why they are responsible for tracking the data but even the FBI uses their numbers as well as places that compile statistical data like Pew Research. In 2018 there were a total of 38,390 deaths in the US by firearms (roughly 70% were handgun deaths) 24,432 were suicides. A majority of the remaining 13,958 gun deaths were murder/homicide, but that number includes everything else like home defenders, police shootings, hunting accidents etc.

On the other end of the stick, under Democrat President Bill Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year, most agree that is an overestimate by an average of 10% making the lowest estimate at 1.35 million times per year. I didn't cherry pick this source, there isn't much reliable data collected on this topic (intentional?). Some other sources put it at 800,000 times per year people have defended themselves with a gun, you can use that and I am ok with it because it still shows that guns save many times more lives than they take nefariously.

36,000 people died last year in vehicle accidents and there is no Constitutional rights to a vehicle. I could go on and on about smoking deaths, diabetes etc. but I think I said too much already lol
To answer the NY question. Probably 0. NYC allows no guns for any reason to be carried. How is that working out for them. The problem is no one is prosecuted for breaking the laws and these criminals eventually graduate into gun crimes.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
 
Definitely agree Chummer! Like Bill pointed out earlier, DA's muddy the issue by letting career criminals walk away from serious charges with some of these ridiculous police reforms. In the end they just blame the gun, not the person and you and I get more restrictions in the end.
I don't mean to minimize horrible things people do with guns like school shootings, I hope I didn't come off that way. For the most part, laws don't stop criminals from doing crimes and only law abiding folks obey them.
 
To answer the NY question. Probably 0. NYC allows no guns for any reason to be carried. How is that working out for them. The problem is no one is prosecuted for breaking the laws and these criminals eventually graduate into gun crimes.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
That sounds like an argument for a change in judicial practices, not gun control.
 
Top