Napolitano will not wait for Congress will do southbound seizures of firearms.

[jody]

Lautenberg renews push to shut gun show 'loophole' (The Hill)

Several high-ranking senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on Tuesday relaunched their push to require gun sellers to conduct background checks on purchases of all types of guns at state gun shows.

* * * * * * * * *

But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Lieberman that she could not wait for Congress to take action.

“Anecdotally a number (of the guns used in Mexico drug violence) have been purchased at (U.S.) gun shows,” she said. “The issue for me … is that we need to act now and as you know that sort of a statute would take a while to wind its way through. I (have) to play the hand of cards I have, and the hand of cards I have allows me to do southbound seizures.”

[jeepnstein]

1. What law is she going to use?

[jody]

2. Agree, if she can't wait for congress to pass a law, then by what authority does she plan to act? nt

[X_Digger]

3. SCOTUS has ruled

That you are subject to search on exiting the country as well as entering. My guess is that finding lots of guns in a vehicle heading across the border is a straw purchase scenario. Not sure what treaties or international law would apply (if the act of entering a country from the US breaks a law in that second country, do we have a duty to stop them, etc..)

[jeepnstein]

10. Yeah.

But we need some tool to use to legally detain the smuggler or seize the items. That's what I'm puzzled over. It'll be safe to assume that most gun runners will either be in the country illegally or have some kind of legal prohibition to owning a firearm.

Of course, we could just say "Oh my! It's a good thing we found these guns in your hidden compartment. They are illegal in Mexico." Make them toss the guns in a dumpster and then let them proceed. If the smugglers lose their load, then they have to explain where the money used to purchase the arms went.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Are there not some forms to fill out when taking a firearm out of country?

IIRC when a buddy of mine went on an African plains hunt he and his family had "reams" of paperwork to go through regarding the firearms. Most were for getting the rifles into and out of Africa but some were for leaving the U.S. and returning.

[jeepnstein]

20. Hmm...

Export law? Maybe she does have the tools already at her disposal.

[jeepnstein]

29. Read this.

http://www.nafr.org/PDF/p5300_18.pdf

She's got everything she needs.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. Looks like we don't need anymore laws. Just enforce what we've got.

Obama could really take it to the Bush regime here if he plays it right.

[jeepnstein]

47. It's still not too late...

to use the "Blame Bush" strategy on this one. Really, how many guns could have crossed the border since January? All the FFLs were sold out of the good stuff by then anyway.

The first few days of working this at the border crossings would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[tridim]

5. How about the common-law idea of "Quit being part of the problem..

and instead help us find a solution."

The second amendment doesn't give gun show vendors the right to be assholes and proxy international arms dealers.

[jody]

7. You do know that "gun show vendors" must comply with federal laws for all firearm sales, don't you?

[tridim]

8. I know that's what the law says..

But I also know for a fact that some don't follow Federal law.

We can either look the other way or decide to solve the problem. You know where I stand.

[jody]

9. If you "know for a fact" and don't report it, then you "look the other way". n/t

[tridim]

11. The fact I'm aware of occured in 1990

A FOAF showed me a full-auto parts kit he purchased at a gun show. I didn't report it because I didn't know it was illegal at the time.

[Raskolnik]

18. Why haven't you turned in your FOAF?

Of course, it's almost certain that what your FOAF purchased was a box of springs and metal that was far, far more likely to cause his gun to jam and/or explode than it was to convert his gun to fully automatic functioning, but the question remains: why aren't you doing something about it now?

[tridim]

23. I've described this event in detail in the gungeon

Do a search.

I barely knew the guy, I didn't know it was illegal at the time, and it happened 20 years ago.

[Raskolnik]

24. Obviously it made an impression on you, if you remember the details 20 years later.

So why haven't you called BATF any time in the last 19 years to report the incident?

[tridim]

32. For starters I don't even know the guy's last name.

It's so funny how all of you gun nuts are being so righteous about this issue now. You used to claim that full auto kits were a myth.

[Hoopla Phil]

34. Sounds like two straw men in one post there.

[Raskolnik]

62. *You* are the one that said "We can either look the other way or decide to solve the problem."

And clearly you think that these conversion kits are a problem. Whether these "kits" are actually effective or not is irrelevant. The point is that you are failing to live up to your own standard.

And let's clarify, since you seem to be confused: no one is saying that someone selling, or purporting to own, a something purporting to be a "conversion kit" is a myth. What people have pointed out to you, ad nauseum, is that these "conversion kits" are almost certainly just a bunch of semi-random springs and diagrams that are much better at parting the foolish from their money than actually converting a weapon to full auto.

If converting a weapon to full-auto was genuinely as easy as you seem to think it is, and that conversion is so deadly, can you explain the near total lack of crimes committed using a fully automatic weapon in the U.S.?

[DonP]

81. I remember your post - very noteworthy

You said you didn't really know the guy well. It was almost 20 years ago. When you weren't looking closely he bought something from under the table that was a bunch of springs and pieces of metal in a bag that he told you would make his gun go full auto. Of course you didn't turn him in.

You never saw him after that and of course never saw the gun he said he had and never saw it shoot semi or full auto.

But you are convinced that anyone can buy these under the table at most gun shows.

You don't seem to know much about how guns actually work or about the laws governing their sale either, from most of your posts.

Want to buy some magic beans? I'll sell them to you for $100 per bean.

On second though never mind, just send the money to the Brady Campaign they LOVE people like you and they need the money.

[tridim]

86. Close, I wasn't with him at the show.

I wouldn't be caught dead (ahem) at a gun show.

[DonP]

101. Huh?

So you're going by what some guy you didn't even know told you he bought?

You need to be a whole lot more cynical about those kind of claims. That's like actually believing what some guy says in a locker room about last night's date.

The shooting sports, like any other venue in life, has it's share of loudmouths and liars.

The reality is that converting a gun, of any kind, to full auto is a daunting and very dangerous, not to mention federally illegal, process. As several folks have pointed out, even accidentally owning a full auto parts kit and a semi auto version of the same rifle can get you 10 years at Club Fed from a cranky BATFE agent.

If you don't know how to adjust the timing you can wind up with a pierced ear, from one side all the way through to the other, and a face full of screaming hot metal from an out of battery explosion.

[Hoopla Phil]

33. I'll say this again. What you witnessed was NOT illegal.

[tridim]

35. It should have been, and it should be now.

[Hoopla Phil]

37. That would be a different topic. And I disagree. The law is fine

as it is. So just how many illegal full autos are used in crime?

[tridim]

38. One is too many.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. ???

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Oh how I "love" the one is too many extremist meme.

It is already illegal.

[tridim]

42. Are you saying you believe one innocent life taken with an automatic weapon is ok?

If so, Wow. :scared:

[Hoopla Phil]

44. Just like an anti to put words in someones mouth. No I'm saying the current

laws we have are sufficient. Next time read the whole post.

[tridim]

48. What's an "anti"? Is that anything like an "illegal"?

My record is very clear here, I'm not anti-gun or anti-Second Amendment. Try again straw man.

[Hoopla Phil]

51. I'd answer but the body of your post shows that you understand.

And yes you've been very clear on how you'd like to restrict people's second amendment rights.

[tridim]

55. So your measure is either all or none?

Do you believe there should be any restrictions?

If so, then you're just like me. If not, then you're nuts.

[Hoopla Phil]

104. Putting words in my mouth again? So you say I agree with you or

I'm nuts? Ha Ha Ha. What a very small would you must live in.

And like I've said SEVERAL times already, I believe the law we have is fine.

[rl6214]

52. I have seen your record here

You believe all anyone needs is a shotgun, a 22 rifle and a 38 pistol, andything more than that is overkill.

[tridim]

53. Nope, I've said I think the line should be drawn at blinged up assault weapons.

The weapons you mentioned (minus the 38) are the ones I've fired.

[rl6214]

54. I asked you in another thread

What is a blinged up weapon but you did not respond. Will you answer me here? What is a blinged up weapon?

Edit to add: You are opposed to a 38, are you opposed to all handguns? Would a .22 target pistol be acceptable? How about a .45 used for match competition?

[tridim]

57. delete

[tridim]

58. I'm not opposed to a 38, I've just never fired one.

Here is an example of a blinged up assault weapon. The legal version of the LR-300.

[inkool]

60. Ok, now we are getting somewhere'

Why should that be illegal? Please be specific as to what features you think are wrong.

[tridim]

61. Because it looks EXACTLY like the full-auto version

[Raskolnik]

64. Ah, so we should ban things based upon how they *look*

At least you're honest enough to admit it. I do give you credit for that.

[inkool]

66. So you want to ban somthing...

simply because you do not like the way it looks? What if it were painted a different color would that be ok?

[tridim]

76. No, I just don't want that gun in the hands of criminals

Do you?

[inkool]

79. Criminals are not allowed to have any guns.

I am fine with that.

[rl6214]

67. It LOOKS exactly like the full auto version?

Are you listening to what you are saying? You want to ban a weapon on LOOKS?

[slackmaster]

72. Only "EXACTLY" to someone who doesn't know much about the subject

As if that was a rational reason to ban something anyway.

:rofl:

[tridim]

74. Right, just like almost everyone except gun nuts like yourself.

That's precisely my point!

[slackmaster]

83. If gun nut means someone who isn't completely ignorant, I accept the mantle with pride

:hi:

[tridim]

88. If you ever get a legal assault weapon pulled on you..

I guess you can be proud that you're able to ID it on sight. Most people can't.

[slackmaster]

95. I wouldn't feel any differently about it than if someone pulled a flintlock pistol on me

Firearms are all deadly weapons. That's the first thing you learn in a gun safety class.

[rl6214]

84. There you go throwing out those trigger words

"Gun nuts". Someone dosen't agree with YOU so they are a gun nut. YOU are the "nut" wanting to ban a firearm because of the way it looks. That is not rational thought for anyone.

[inkool]

90. What is a "Gun Nut"?

I have read that description used may times, and have no clear idea of what exactly makes someone a gun nut.

[tridim]

94. An example is a person who stockpiles guns and ammo..

for no other reason than they believe the Democrats are going to take away their guns any day now.

Another example is people who are never happy with the reasonable line drawn on Second Ammendment rights, no matter what. They always want more.

[rl6214]

96. But you seem to believe

That anyone that wants to own an AR15 type weapon, the most popular centerfire weapon in the US, is a gun nut.

[inkool]

98. Ok am I a gun nut?

I have a few guns due to inheriting Three generations worth of them. I have a fair amount of ammunition because it is cheaper to buy in bulk.

I am ok with most of the gun laws, but feel that banning a gun based only on the way it looks to be silly.

I also feel that before new laws are made a review of existing laws should be made to determine if the desired outcome could be accomplished by enforcing the existing laws. I feel this way about all new laws regardless of the subject.

[benEzra]

93. So does a Ruger mini-14.

Because it looks EXACTLY like the full-auto version

So does a non-automatic civilian Ruger mini-14:



I'm sure you want to ban those, too.

[rl6214]

63. WOW, I have been to a lot of ranges

gun shows, gun dealers, I've even been to the SHOT SHOW, which is the largest sun industry trade show in the nation and I have NEVER seen anything like that in my travels before. Where did you find that picture?

[tridim]

77. Google

[rl6214]

87. So

you don't know anyone that has a weapon like that or actually seen anyone that has a weapon like that, you just looked up the meanest, nastiest, bling type weapon you could find and threw it out there.

I use this one for hunting coyotes. Would this be a bling weapon?

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[jeepnstein]

65. Do you even know...

what that monstrosity is? Who makes it? The barrel seems a wee bit short. How 'bout the grenade launcher? How much is one retail?

[jeepnstein]

68. Question...

What makes this one more dangerous than the example you posted? I'll give you a hint. It's all up to the person squeezing the trigger.

[rl6214]

69. Looks like an Enfield .303 or .308?

[jeepnstein]

70. Nope.

[one-eyed fat man]

73. 6.5x52 Carcano

look up Dealey Plaza

[tridim]

78. Here

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as97-e.htm

See how they all look the same? How would a layman react if the legal version was pulled?

[jeepnstein]

80. About the same as if...

you were looking down the barrels of Elmer Fudd's shotgun. That's how you'd feel.

What does feelings have to do with anything anyway?

[tridim]

82. Step outside your gun culture for a moment and you'll get it.

[slackmaster]

85. A layperson should react the same way no matter what kind of firearm is pulled on him or her

Even a toy one, that isn't obviously a toy.

[benEzra]

97. It's awfully hard to "pull" a rifle, which is why rifles are used in so FEW murders.

But if someone is walking around threateningly with a rifle, the response is and should be the same, whether by police, military, or non-LEO civilians.

Do you have any idea how BIG even a small-caliber rifle is compared to a handgun?

Here's my 1989-ish Ruger mini-14 (a very small rifle) compared to a medium sized pistol, with the rifle's stock folded for storage:



An AR-15 is even larger and far bulkier. There's a reason why the "weapons of choice of criminals" are overwhelmingly handguns.

[benEzra]

92. No, NOT civilian (Title 1) legal under the National Firearms Act, worth about 30 years in prison.

That is obviously a police/military only upper receiver (looks like a 10.5" to me). 10-year Federal felony to possess outside of police/military or their supply chain without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

That also appears to be an M203 40mm grenade launcher attached to the forend. A second 10-year Federal felony to possess without a Form 4.

Third, you can clearly see that that's a selective-fire weapon (3-position safety selector). A third 10-year felony, and since it's a post-1986, NO non-government person could get a Form 4.

Here's the non-automatic civilian model with the civilian-length upper:



which looks like a NON-automatic civilian AR-15, except for the unusual stock.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. So non blinged up assault weapons are fine?

[jody]

56. "One is too many" is a version of "ends justifies the means" Bush used to approve torture. n/t

[tridim]

59. Really? That's some interesting logic you have there.

:eyes:

[jody]

75. Not mine, talk with the author of # "38. One is too many." Oh, that's you! n/t

[jmg257]

22. I didn't think having the full-auto parts alone was illegal... Anyone? nt

[Hoopla Phil]

28. It is not. If you've ever purchased a FAL or AK parts kit you will know

that they come with the receiver cut per ATF regs with ALL the parts. That includes the "safety" sear that is used to make the gun full auto. It is Illegal to make a gun with that in it, or to make a gun that could easily accept it. Gees, why is it the anti's know almost nothing about the law with regard to that which they disdain so much?

[X_Digger]

41. And you have to replace 10 parts with those of US mfg n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Correct. Although the actual law on how many parts to replace varies

depending on the rifle. The reason is that ATF regs say the number of U.S. made parts have to be a certain percentage of all parts.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Oops, I mean the number of parts varies. Not the law of course. Ha Ha

[one-eyed fat man]

71. the ATF is pretty unclear in this area

On one hand they define a conversion kit as anything intended to make a gun fire full auto and have gone so far as to register and tax a bootlace tied a certain way as a machinegun.

Shoestring Machineguns

On the other hand, you can own a warehouse full of M16 peculiar fire control components and be perfectly legal as long as you don't own a semi-automatic AR as well.

ATF Letter M16 spare parts

You could even own a gun that breaks and as a result "doubles".i.e. shoot 2 rounds at once, and go to prison for transferring a machinegun.

"At the government’s insistence, the court refused to allow Olofson’s firearms expert to physically examine the gun; he was only allowed to observe as an ATF employee took the gun through a function check and opened the action to his view. What he saw were standard, unaltered components of the same type and configuration that were included in this particular brand of rifle from the factory over two decades ago; parts that are known by ATF to produce exactly the type of malfunction noted and in response to which ATF had once ordered a safety recall."

David Olofson

Two things are absolutely certain:

First, anyone who has dealt with the ATF on NFA matters knows that even a letter in hand that says you CAN do something is worthless as defense whenever they take a notion to change their mind.

Second, you WILL run out of money to pay your defense attorney long before they run out of OUR money to pay their lawyer.

[benEzra]

99. If they're sufficient to convert a gun to full auto (i.e., a DIAS), YES, it's a felony.

If they are just a collection of parts that are NOT capable of converting a civilian gun to full auto, then no, they're just useless parts.

I suspect the FOAF mentioned upthread was sold a collection of AK parts NOT capable of converting a post-1986 civilian AK to full auto (i.e., magic beans). If they were sufficient to do a conversion, then possession other than on a Form 4 would be as illegal as an unregistered DIAS for a pre-'86 AR-15, i.e. 10 years in Club Fed.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. If you fail to report what you know "for a fact" then YOU are "part of the common law problem"

and have violated federal law yourself.

[tridim]

14. See post 11

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Then you "fact" is wrong. Parts kits are NOT illegal.

They are considered parts only. The receiver is the gun as per the law.

[tridim]

25. If that's true then obviously gun show laws need to be revisited.

Most of your gun nut buddies claim they don't even exist.

[Raskolnik]

27. You don't take well to being contradicted by the facts, do you? n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

31. This is not a "gun show" deal. This is Federal law. It is Illegally to make a full auto

gun already. What is the problem hear? It is very difficult to make the gun full auto and illegal already.

[benEzra]

100. Full auto conversion parts are illegal IF they are actually capable of full auto conversion.

I suspect in the case of the FOAF above, they weren't. Fire-control parts from an M16 or a military AK won't convert a post-1986 civilian AR-15 or AK to full auto; they won't even fit.

[jeepnstein]

13. I am not in the practice...

of ignoring felonies. Do you mean you've witnessed crimes and chose not to report them? Wow.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeepnstein]

17. Keyboard Commando

[rl6214]

30. That's great but

don't be like the previous admin and just make up laws or ignore laws to get done what you want to get done. Don't trample on the constitution.

[tridim]

36. How does being part of the solution trample on the Constitution?

[rl6214]

49. [B]"How about the common-law idea of "Quit being part of the problem..[/B]

You need and actual law, not just a statement about the "common law idea of quit being part of the problem". What laws are going to be used to make this happen?

[tridim]

50. Whatever laws the common solution deems effective.

:shrug:

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I think there might be a law or two on the books against international arms smuggling.

[jmg257]

6. Good for her - enforce the laws already on the books. n/t

[Raskolnik]

21. If she is talking about actually enforcing existing laws, good for her. n/t

[rl6214]

26. I know the border patrol

here in El Paso are already doing southbound searches but they are very spotty and I don't think they have turned up much.

[Iktomiwicasa]

89. I won't be surprised

that when southbound searches begin in earnest, that they will recover relatively few weapons, and the administration will shuffle around with ad hoc explanations of why that is.

[rl6214]

91. Going under tunnels

going through the desert. There will be a reason.

[Iktomiwicasa]

102. or teleportation or some

other made up bullshit.