dagblog - Comments for "If owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns: how the industry doubles sales."

artappraiser, you may be

erica20 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:33:32 +0000

In reply to But yes, it would get huge

artappraiser, you may be right, and there is no way to make an impact on the gun trafficking via the courts.

But then again, you never know, and there may be other ways to do it. I got some approval a couple of weeks ago for saying that "nothing makes people change their minds about a thing like seeing other people change their minds about it."

A new frame makes for a different picture, and I think the new frame here needs to be the following:

Q: "How does the gun industry know you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals?"

A: "Because they just cashed the criminals' check!"

It's not about the president's kids. It's about the money--money that gun companies shouldn't have.

But yes, it would get huge

artappraiser — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:38:31 +0000

In reply to I'm not surprised that stop

But yes, it would get huge blowback from manufacturers.

Doesn't this article suggest you couldn't even get to that stage? Here:

The appellate ruling [pdf] killed off — once and for all, perhaps — legal efforts

That what you are suggesting has been tried, in a long campaign lasting years, and has been smacked down by high courts already? I don't know for sure, but I would think what the ruling says and what the cases were should be investigated. If the mayors group aren't suggesting what you are suggesting, with Bloomberg at their head, then maybe they know going this route is a dead end, can't be feasibly done--been there, tried that, won't work, let's try something else?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I was also suggesting that maybe "stop and frisk" was developed once they knew that going the manufacturers/dealers route was a fail. The timeline in NYC seems like that to me: first there was the big brouhaha discussion about going after dealers and manufacturers regarding illegal guns and straw buyers, then after a break of a few years, they started "stop and frisk." It was like they were waiting on one thing, finally gave up on it and decided to try something else.

Yes. It's a licence to be in

erica20 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:44:26 +0000

In reply to Thanks. So technically an FFL

Yes. It's a licence to be in some aspect of the gun business. I think they do call them FFLs; I'm not creative enough to make something like that up.

It seems to me, however, that

Verified Atheist — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:48:14 +0000

In reply to Erica, it's been in the back

It seems to me, however, that the lawsuit applies to manufactures and not to the retail dealers. The latter could still be sued, presumably.

Thanks. So technically an FFL

Verified Atheist — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:45:54 +0000

In reply to VA, I looked it up now, found

Thanks. So technically an FFL is the license, not the license holder, but it's easy to imagine a language adaptation over the years where the term has also come to be applied to the holder - or it might just be an invention of Erica, which is perfectly fine by me as well.

These cars are easy to steal,

erica20 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:01:02 +0000

In reply to And we are talking about

These cars are easy to steal, which is why they are stolen. Reasonable manufacturers, I believe, changed the ignition design so that they would not be so easy to steal.

It's not a useful example--because the guns in question here are being paid for, which stolen cars are not.

I'm not surprised that stop

erica20 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:57:33 +0000

In reply to And a side note--it's because

I'm not surprised that stop and frisk is challenged.

I think there may be another try to make a difference on the trafficking front. But yes, it would get huge blowback from manufacturers.

VA, I looked it up now, found

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:14:02 +0000

In reply to You keep using the

VA, I looked it up now, found it's the common usage for "Federal Firearms License"; here from a very old Frontline program on handguns--

(I don't know how old so beware the details and laws stated may have changed:

What is an FFL?

A Federal Firearms License is required to allow a person or company to sell or manufacture firearms. There are 11 categories of FFLs, including dealer, importer, manufacturer, and collector. All but about 20,000 of the 124,000 FFL holders in the US are gun dealers. FFLs are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

What is required to obtain a FFL?

Until the 1994 Crime Bill was passed, it was easier to obtain an FFL than a driver's license. The process is more stringent today. Now, potential dealers must be photographed and fingerprinted, have an interview with an ATF inspector, prove they have a place of business, notify the chief law enforcement officer in the area they intend to sell or manufacture guns, certify compliance with all state and local laws, pass a background check, and pay $200.00.

And a side note--it's because

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:11:06 +0000

In reply to Erica, it's been in the back

And a side note--it's because of the NYPD's longtime desire to get those illegal guns off the street that "Stop and Frisk" was initially developed, and it is constantly challenged in the courts:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/stop_and_...

Erica, it's been in the back

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:04:15 +0000

In reply to If owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns: how the industry doubles sales.

Erica, it's been in the back of my mind when I've see your comments on this point is that I know NYC has been on this issue for a long time, I could vaguely recall something about Guiliani when he was mayor (or maybe even when he was a federal prosecutor!) I even remember it at length, like on a TV or radio talk show, and talk about about how NYC knows where most he illegal guns are coming from, like along these lines: it's from this gun shop in PA and this other one in another state and we're trying to do something about it but we can't

It was driving me nuts, and I finally figured out some good search keywords and I found this, and it doesn't look too good for your point;

my bold to point that I did remember the big discussion and that it was in Mayor Guilani's time that it started, and then further down to point out to you that Bloomberg picked it up as trying to get at the manufacturers:

April 30, 2008, 12:34 pm

U.S. Court Rejects New York Gun Lawsuit

By ALAN FEUER,

New York Times

A federal appeals court dismissed New York City’s blanket lawsuit against the gun industry on Wednesday, ruling that a relatively new federal law protects gunmakers against third-party litigation.

The appellate ruling [pdf] killed off — once and for all, perhaps — legal efforts by the city to charge gunmakers and distributors with knowingly flooding illicit, underground markets with their weapons. The suit, initially filed in 2000, was debated so much nationally that former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was even criticized during his presidential campaign for having initially supported it.

In December 2005, Judge Jack B. Weinstein, of United States District Court in Brooklyn, allowed the suit to move forward despite protests by gunmakers like Beretta U.S.A., Browning Arms, Colt Manufacturing, Glock and Smith & Wesson, which pointed to a federal law passed two months earlier in October. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, banned all third-party suits against the gun industry except for those in which a plaintiff could prove that gunmakers had violated other state or federal statutes in their sales and marketing practices.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration argued that the gun manufacturers, by failing to monitor retail dealers closely enough, allowed guns to end up in the hands of criminals. As a result, the manufacturers created a “condition that negatively affects the public health or safety,” the city said and, thus, violated New York State’s public nuisance law.

But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, ruling that the state nuisance law did not constitute a permissible exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.