Article-Man gets prison sentence for helping buy firearms that went to Mexico drug cartels

[Xela]

This is where and how our resources should be spent...enforcing current gun laws.

Xela

--------article----------

HOUSTON – A Houston man was sentenced Friday to just over eight years in prison for helping buy more than 100 military-style firearms, some of which ended up in the hands of Mexico's violent drug cartels.

Prosecutors say John Phillip Hernandez was one of the main members of an organization of 23 people who purchased 339 weapons in a 15-month period. At least 40 of the weapons have been recovered in Mexico and three have been found in Guatemala, according to court documents.

(snip)

Prosecutor Mark White said Hernandez knew that the guns he bought, or had others buy for him, at Houston-area gun dealers in 2006 and 2007 were going to Mexican drug cartel members. Informants indicated Hernandez told them the guns would be going to Mexico and that they overheard him talking about the Zetas, the Gulf cartel's infamous hit men, White said.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began investigating Hernandez in January 2007 after a routine inspection of records from a Houston gun dealer identified several people who had made suspicious purchases of large numbers of military-style firearms.

Link to full article:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-gunsmuggling_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.4a9cb02.html

[rl6214]

1. So it took over two years to move on this guy?

That's why there are so many criminals running around out there with guns. The ATF won't get off their asses to bust the the criminals.

[old mark]

2. A few years ago they sentenced a guy who was buying large

for resale to various thugs, one of whom used his gun to kill a cop. The seller got 20 years, and everyone acted like this was a great new idea.
Should have been doint this all along.

mark

[FunkyLeprechaun]

3. I really do think there should be tougher regulation

In how people can purchase firearms. This guy probably had all the background checks okayed before he purchased these guns. In the UK, you have to go through an interview process and they will try to make sure that you're a person they can trust with a firearm (they also check if your home is suitable for a firearm and the licensing process takes about a month)

If you think you're a SAFE gun-owner, why not let the government trust you to own guns? I realise that guns will never go away but I really do think the mindset should be changed about the 2nd amendment (people don't read it properly) and stricter background checks to prevent another Columbine or Virginia Tech.

I also think if you're trusted you should have a limit of how many guns you own..... I keep seeing posts from people who have 50-100 guns in their collection, which is a bit much. I think 5 is a nice round number.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

4. Also,

This is probably why Calderon asked Obama to review the gun laws in the US. Just had a read of the other thread.

[intheb0x]

5. ummmm no

We are NOT the UK.

so we should NOT be doing what the UK does.

do you actually understand that the chances to own a gun in the UK is SLIM TO NONE??

great job trying to stomp all over out second amendment.


heres a little info on what needs to happen to ATTEMPT to get a fire arm.

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed, will a licence be issued.


heres some food for thought from above...


"Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun."

im sorry i do not want some BUREAUCRAT determining if i should be "trusted" with a gun.

some people are firearms collectors, so they have large collections, nothing wrong with that, but i think their is some type of rule of owning so many, if not perhaps a collectors license should be required, but that government TRUST crap is just out of line.

so how do they tell if your home is "suitable" to own a gun? a gun can be placed ANYWHERE so their should be NO requirements.

all those steps listed above are so people DO NOT own firearms, because any little thing a bureaucrat finds they dont like, its NO you cannot own this.


also safe gun owners need to take a backround check, with handguns its 48hrs, long guns you get the same day, in these checks they check for felonies and other things, thats basically the government trusting you to own a gun, perhaps a tier should be added to throw a NO hit if a mental health issues was known or things like that, but adding longer wait times and things like that do NOTHING.

the criminals will always get the guns, without a wait, illegally, when law abiding citizens will not be getting them or having to wait to get them.

we cant even trust our government, so why should we give them the right to decide if they trust us??

im tired of this, lets be more like europe, this and that. WE ARE NOT EUROPE, OR THE UK, WE ARE THE UNITED STATES.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

7. There is such a thing of learning what other countries do

Such as the NHS, no death penalty and even gun control issues. The US needs all three and then some really badly.

Go with that flow, don't write such convoluted posts.

[bossy22]

14. agreed

but the US is also a different country. In the US, there is a right to gun ownership....which is not prevelant in many other european countries. You want to change that, fine, you have a right to attempt to amend the constitution...but until that happens in america...you have a right to own a gun...that does not mean that government can't regulate it in some matter, but that government doesnt have free will on how to regulate and that some regulations are "off the table" even if there is a legitimate government interest involved.

Many countries control handguns very strictly...usually not allowing ownership for self-defense, but the court in the US said that government must allow handgun ownership for self-defense.

So yes we can and should learn from other countries, but we must also realize that we are different.


if anything this can be seen in our handling of our respective constitutional jurisprudence. Many european courts use a "flexible constitutional intepretation" technique. This means that they view their respective constitutions as strong suggestions and that government has a wide lattitude when "flexing" the boundries of the constitution. In lay mens terms, it means that government is allowed more authority to violate the constitution (or similiar charter). Sort of like a rational basis test. In the US, its mostly the opposite. US courts usually adopt some form of stricter scrutiny and are less reluctant to deny the governments request...this can be seen in our protection of free speech...which when compared to other countries is basically unviolated. Where many countries that have freedom of speech protections have allowed some form of regultion such as prohibition on "hate speech" or "discriminatory speech", the US courts have nocked down such laws as violating free speech

so we need to take many things into perspective

[FunkyLeprechaun]

15. Look...

The thing with the UK and of course it is a different country, so is Australia. In the UK it took two gun massacres (Hungerford and Dunblane) to give way to tougher gun laws.

In the US, however, there is another story. Gun massacres like Virginia Tech and Columbine? Gun laws have to go out of the window, make it easier to buy guns!! Teachers should be armed!

It seems to me that when something like that happens in the US, the answer seems to be more guns.

Heller (the guy who you're quoting) may have won the right to own a handgun but he needed the permit (to own a gun) and DC refused to give it to him, which was the icing on the cake.

[bossy22]

16. oy...you need to read

"Heller (the guy who you're quoting) may have won the right to own a handgun but he needed the permit (to own a gun) and DC refused to give it to him, which was the icing on the cake."

you have a thick skull....he eventually got a permit, the denied him originally for a permit for his semi-auto (his revolver they gave him one) do to the confusion over legislation....it is now legal to own semi-autos in the district and heller has registered his

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071801212.html?hpid=moreheadlines

here is the article that explains what i said earlier
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=74036&catid=158

here is another article explaining further what i said
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/loophole-lets-15-semiautomatics-in-dc-for-3-years/

[bossy22]

6. everyone is entitled to their own opinion

but current court rulings state the 2nd amendment is an individual right....

sorry, UK style licensing is not going to work here, plus it would be ruled unconstitutional

also 5 guns???? shows how much you know....i personally own 20....all different calibres and style

in actuality the mindset on the 2nd amendment is changing...but not in the way you were hoping for...more and more support for the individual rights model (which is now considered law) is coming to bear....sanford levinson has some good work on this changing thought

[FunkyLeprechaun]

8. How do you know?

It's time for regulations. Why is a man in Texas buying guns to give to drug lords in Mexico? Why did a guy who was declared mentally ill able to buy two handguns and shoot dead 32 people at his university? Why did a man shoot dead his family and then commit suicide? And so on and so on.

I swear that every time something like this happens I keep hoping some people would see sense but what do I see? "I want to buy MORE guns!"

I do not mind guns at all but I'm sick of people saying it's their right to own one when it is not. Look at Heller, he won the case but DC denied him a gun permit so he couldn't buy one.

[pipoman]

12. There are already over

20,000 regulations already on the book. The tired meme of "we need more regulations" are largely based on lack of knowledge of existing law. I would venture to say that most regulation proposed by people who are not educated on the subject would be redundant. A prime example is enforcement of NICS violations. The National Instant Check System was established to identify and deny purchases by people who are prohibited from possessing firearms (supported by the NRA by the way). The process requires any person buying a gun from a gun dealer to fill out a federal form under penalty of perjury. This system was signed into law by Bill Clinton. During the Clinton administration and the * administration less than 1% of attempted purchases by prohibited persons were even investigated. These are people who are obviously actively trying to buy guns. Some of the denials are mistakes many are not. Doubtless some of the denyed attempts are by convicted violent felons or people who have long histories of mental illness, yet are not even investigated after attempting to purchase a firearm and committing perjury in filling out their federal form. The fact these people filled out the form dishonestly would seem to be grounds for issuance of a search warrant?

Proposals for new redundant or unconstitutional restrictions are going to be heavily opposed by most people until existing laws are enforced, at which time additional laws will not be needed.

Look at Heller, he won the case but DC denied him a gun permit so he couldn't buy one.

Let us wait and see how the courts treat the City on this issue. They are fixing to be fixed.

[bossy22]

13. let me answer a few of your questions

Why is a man in Texas buying guns to give to drug lords in Mexico?

because he probably wants to turn a profit...im not saying thats right..but that is probably his motive

Why did a guy who was declared mentally ill able to buy two handguns and shoot dead 32 people at his university?

because, due to lack of funds the state of virginia never transfered the info to the database...so though technically he wasnt allowed to own a gun, that info was never transfered to the system...

I do not mind guns at all but I'm sick of people saying it's their right to own one when it is not. Look at Heller, he won the case but DC denied him a gun permit so he couldn't buy one.

ehhhh....still wrong...he actually was awarded a gun permit eventually...ill tell the story...ok when heller won the case the court stated that the 2A was an individual right...it also stated that the city must issue Mr. Heller a permit for the weapon. Now the city didnt have any emergency legislation in place in case of this, so what happened is they removed the prohibition on registration of handguns leaving most of the 1976 law intact. What this meant was that semi-automatic guns (which heller had) were banned and only revolvers were allowed. Mr. Heller was able to register his revolver but when he went to register his semi-auto, the registration was denied because at the time registration of semi-auto pistols was against the law. The city at this time was in a state of change...the old 1976 law banning pistols wasnt going to be permanent was planned to be eventually replaced with a newer law allowing registration of semi-autos...but at this time this legislation was not proposed yet. Mr. Heller brought suit against the city again. The city legal office advised the mayor to enact "emergency legislation" allowing this because they knew that there chances of winning the suit would be slim to none and the city didnt want to foot another large legal bill. So a week later the city passed a peice of emergency legislation allowing the registration of semi-auto pistols

btw Heller never challenged the constitutionality of the licensing and registration system...it could be that in the future, a court finds this system unconstitutional...but that is for a future date

[X_Digger]

9. Err, no.

It's great that you want to 'do something' about the violent crime committed with a firearm, but I'm not trusting a bureaucrat to tell me if I can own a firearm based on 'need'. Would you be okay with the government telling you who's qualified to write for a newspaper? Post to the internet? How about having to justify why you should have a jury trial? Explaining to the cops why you should not be randomly searched?

If you're willing to throw out the second amendment, why not throw out the first, fourth, and sixth?

[jmg257]

11. SO if 'I have nothing to hide', why not let the govt violate several of my rights?

Thanks, George, but I will pass.

Ya know why, right? It is not a matter of the govt trusting ME with guns, it is a matter of me trusting the GOV'T with power...that those in charge will not abuse it. Especially those who think they know better, and think they know more about me...than me.

No, thank you.

And what the hell about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so god-damn difficult to read, and understand??? Pretty straight forward. It turns out it means just what is says.

[X_Digger]

10. THIS is what 'enforcing the laws already on the books' means.

Good work, now keep it up!

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Good. Straw purchases are illegal. We do not need more gun laws

on this issue, just enforcement.