Bloomberg's new tactic-May be very effective

[el gringo loco]

Michael Bloomberg, former Republican and mayor of NYC just posted this article on Huffington Post.

Ever wonder how criminals are able to get guns so easily? It's depressingly simple. On any given weekend, at dozens of gun shows held in states across the country -- criminals can buy guns from "private sellers" who are not required to perform background checks.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has identified gun shows as the source of more than 30% of all illegally trafficked guns in the country. Those are the guns most likely to be used in crimes -- and to kill innocent people, including police officers.
Today, New York City is releasing the results of a multi-state investigation into this activity: "Gun Show Undercover." We sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and we found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.


Our investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.
Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Our investigator tells a seller that he "probably couldn't pass" a background check and tests a gun.
These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what we found. We found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

At 2 p.m. today, you can watch our hidden camera videos and learn more about our investigation at www.nyc.gov/gunshow.
Now, why is the Mayor of New York City investigating gun shows in places like Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada? Good question. And the answer is: because I have no other choice.
Even though New York is the safest big city in the country, and safer than most mid-sized cities, and even though we have the nation's toughest law against illegal possession of a loaded handgun, drug dealers and criminals continue to obtain guns from inter-state traffickers.
According to ATF, 89% of guns used in crimes in New York City last year originated out of state. Many cities around the country find themselves in the same situation. It is clear that we can't solve this problem by working only within our state. We need leadership from Washington to close loopholes that criminals exploit, and we need stronger enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Our investigator tests a gun just before having a another investigator "do some paperwork" for him.
Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.
The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/gun-show-undercover_b_312339.html

This will not affect those of us who live in Oregon too much as we have already closed the so-called "gun show loophole." However, I think that Bloomberg has discovered what will prove to be a very effective tactic. As gun-ownership is not a club where we get to pick the members, but rather a club that anyone can choose to join, we have to contend with those morons out there who will do what they think they can get away with, no follow the law. The NRA continually talks about gun show attendees being lawful gun owners engaging in free assembly. However, there are those people who believe that a FTF transaction will provide enough plausible deniability that they can just make the sale.

Before someone tries to turn this into a thread where people just complain about "those darn gun-grabbing libtards," I would like to point out that this particular tactic was created in conservative circles. This is the exact same tactic that was used, with great effect, to attack ACORN. This is not a thread to complain about gun grabbers or how under-handed this was or how this is not a fair representation of gun owners. I want to talk media tactics, PR, etc. This is a strategy session.

SO......I would like to know:

1. How effective do you think this tactic will be?
2. How do you think this tactic is best combatted?
3. What, if any, concessions or compromises do you think we should make?
4. Would you have fallen for this?

Read More

 

[Jamie6.5]

It may turn out to be very effective. It depends on how many people take these statements to be the whole truth.
For instance:

According to ATF, 89% of guns used in crimes in New York City last year originated out of state.

No mention of how many were obtained illegally. Knowing Bloomie, he's being vague purposely. I'd be willing to bet over 70% of the 89% were obtained illegally. More laws won't help this. We already know that much.

Combatting it will require the research time and effort to discern whether the sources were legal in the various states or not.

No compromises or concessions. City-states like NYC, Chicago, SF etc. have their own rules. And that's fine for those that choose to live there, under those circumstances. Vote to change them or move if they don't like it. Heck, hire the NRA to help change the laws if you are so inclined. Personally, I would like to see every anti gun law in the country challenged. The Brady Bunch have been making it more expensive to own guns for years. It's time the tables were turned.

No I wouldn't/haven't fallen for this.


Beware the subtlety of today's tyranny

 

[Chee-to]

OK, what's next, the classified section in NWFA ?

 

[Gunner3456]

OK, what's next, the classified section in NWFA ?

Maybe. I believe that the feds think all firearms and ammunition belong under the "interstate commerce" rules. Montana is fighting that for guns which are wholly made there, but note that they are having to fight it.

I can see a day coming where all firearms transfers might have to go through an FFL and be registered.

Even with states, look at Kalifornicate - those guys can't even buy about half of the guns on the market. I don't know if they can own them under any "grandfather" clause, but they sure can't buy them.

??

 

[theLEMband]

Michael Bloomberg, former Republican and mayor of NYC just posted this article on Huffington Post.


Before someone tries to turn this into a thread where people just complain about "those darn gun-grabbing libtards," I would like to point out that this particular tactic was created in conservative circles. This is the exact same tactic that was used, with great effect, to attack ACORN.

Created by conservatives? That statement exposes your biases and is inaccurate. The numerous criminal investigations (launched by Democrats in many cases) at the state level were what prompted further exposure of ACORN by private individuals. They just used the act of going undercover, which was not 'created' by either conservatives or liberals as a result of their ideology. It has been around much longer than the recent Acorn exposure.

Back to what was the stated original topic:
It is an effective tactic for anyone wanting to expose the underbelly of the opposing side of an argument. It leads people to say "hey that ain't right." It can be just a surface argument, but that is all that is needed to convince most folks. Consider the minimum wage laws: On the surface, it seems like this law would be helping "the little guy." But what business does the government have in interfering with an agreement between two private parties. It is a question of basic liberty. If someone doesn't want to work for a particular amount no one is forcing them to. Aside from the problem with goverment interjecting itself into a private transaction, minimum wage laws also have negative side effects, such as higher entry-level unemployment, discourages hiring of teens, stifles businesses that use unskilled labour, adds to inflationary pressure, etc. But these are arguments that have to be investigated to be understood and are not as easy to see as "Hey, the little guy should get more money."

The problem in the gun show instance is that a basic liberty (the right to defend oneself) is being infringed upon for the 'safety' of society. There are a minority of criminals and wackos that are fodder for the media to say "guns = bad." And it is always easier for the average person to believe the media than to actually investigate. Who is going to report on the rapes and murders prevented by armed citizens defending themselves? So again, it is effective. It props up a gun control advocates postion, possibly helping them raise more funds. Especially in a place like the Huffington Post, where a majority people will most likely lean in that direction to start with. By the way, I believe most gun control advocates have the best of intentions and are not 'evil.'

The fact is that the sellers in this case were in the wrong, according to current laws. I'm not sure how that leads one to believe that more laws will help, but I did take logic in college.

I wouldn't have fallen for it, as I can't bring myself to sell my guns.

The best way I can see to combat it is to spread accurate information in the short term, and teach of liberty to the younger generation in the long term.

 

[Chee-to]

Is this the future for all of us ?

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 11, CHAPTER 13.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS ON
NON-DEALER SALES OR TRANSFERS OF FIREARMS THROUGH
LICENSEES OR DEALERS AND ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF
ELIGIBILITY PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTIONS 12070, 12071,
12071.1, AND 12082
Article 1.
§ 982. Transfers of Concealable Firearms.
Except as provided in Penal Code Sections 12078 and 12084, no person shall sell, lease or
transfer any firearm to a person who is not a dealer unless the transaction is processed by a
dealer pursuant to Penal Code Section 12082.

You also must possess a CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY to buy or sell if a non FFL

 

[Benny503]

This is what I call a few bad apples ruined the tree. Just because some private dealers ignored the laws then they decide to come down to all private dealers? What about smoking and drinking? There are kids under 18 smoking everywhere tell me you dont see that Does that mean they need to shut down all the stores that sell cigarettes and all the place that sell alcohols to kids? No they don't, they make those places pay huge fines. This will be a fair thing to do for all private dealers..... Just my 1.5 cents he he he

 

[dario541]

I believe that less than 1 person out of 10,000 misuses firearms. As a class, I believe that the overwhelming majority of us are decent and trustful citizens. But, the power hungry tyrants who want to control America (and the world) are using that one person's criminal actions to paint all of us black! They say that they are acting in the interest of safety (that is what they really want people to believe) but their main interest is consolidating their choke-hold on America. Anti-gun people like Bloomberg, McCain, Schwartzenagger and Guliani prove that The Republican Party is NOT neccessarily our friends. We cannot count on anybody, Democrat or Republican, who consider themselves "Elitists" to protect our Rights as spelled out in the Constitution.
Another thing: You read about the pro football player who was carrying a handgun in New York and accidentally shot himself. You would think that getting shot would be punishment enough for his stupid handling of a firearm. However, in New York, getting caught with a gun in your possession gets you 2 years in prison and a life time felony record. The people of America are all supposed to be created equal. Is New York still a part of this country?

 

[Chee-to]

They closed the gun show loophole here in Oregon back in 2000. Riddle me this, not a day passes by without a gang shooting in Portland, Woodburn, Salem etc. at lest according to local news. How can this be ?

 

[torpedoman]

It may turn out to be very effective. It depends on how many people take these statements to be the whole truth.
For instance:
No mention of how many were obtained illegally. Knowing Bloomie, he's being vague purposely. I'd be willing to bet over 70% of the 89% were obtained illegally. More laws won't help this. We already know that much.

Combatting it will require the research time and effort to discern whether the sources were legal in the various states or not.

No compromises or concessions. City-states like NYC, Chicago, SF etc. have their own rules. And that's fine for those that choose to live there, under those circumstances. Vote to change them or move if they don't like it. Heck, hire the NRA to help change the laws if you are so inclined. Personally, I would like to see every anti gun law in the country challenged. The Brady Bunch have been making it more expensive to own guns for years. It's time the tables were turned.

No I wouldn't/haven't fallen for this.


Beware the subtlety of today's tyranny

probably more than that "originated outside" of new york", after all how many gun makers are in new york?

 

[el gringo loco]

Created by conservatives? That statement exposes your biases and is inaccurate. The numerous criminal investigations (launched by Democrats in many cases) at the state level were what prompted further exposure of ACORN by private individuals. They just used the act of going undercover, which was not 'created' by either conservatives or liberals as a result of their ideology. It has been around much longer than the recent Acorn exposure.

Sorry, my statement was poorly worded. The tactic was recently put to use with great effect by conservatives. What I was referring to was not so much the act of going undercover but the overall approach involving the undercover work, selection of targets, and the media release with You Tube, etc.

 

[Trlsmn]

3. What, if any, concessions or compromises do you think we should make?

Easy answer! No concessions or compromises should ever be made!

 

[Karma]

Easy answer! No concessions or compromises should ever be made!

That is exactly right! We cannot let our RIGHTS to be eroded! The second amendment was written for us to protect ourselves from an out of control government. Why would we ever let them control anything to do with guns? Makes no sense to me.

 

[dario541]

I think that the Founding Fathers felt that the First Ammendment was the MOST important and that the Second Ammendment was SECOND MOST important and that is why they placed them in that order!

 

[el gringo loco]

Easy answer! No concessions or compromises should ever be made!

So, if you were a Senator and you were horse-trading with another Senator and a bill "closing the gun show loophole" was introduced-and remember that these sort of incremental gun control bills tend to squeak through-would you not consider supporting the bill if it provided for national CHL reciprocity? Or how about providing an avenue for Joe citizen to buy newly manufactured selectfire weapons. If you live in Oregon, the bill changes nothing for you....

My point in asking that question was not for people to re-affirm their gun-owner creds, but to look at the whole issue strategically. Sometimes you have to get what gains you can and retreat, sacrificing a battle to win the war. I personally don't find the idea of no FTF transactions at a gun show so distasteful that I wouldn't consider trading it away to gain something else. Others would choose to fight the battle to the bitter end, no matter what, no compromises, even if it meant risking an outright loss on the issue. I was just curious if someone had any interesting proposals the could give both sides a win.

 

[Cougfan2]

The problem with those that think that requiring background checks for private sales isn't so bad is that history has taught us that it won't end there.

I guarantee you, the minute they get some kind of nation-wide gun show loophole bill passed, there will already be legislation written and ready to be proposed to eliminate all FTF sales even outside of gun shows. Next comes registration, and on, and on, and on, until we're looking at an empty gun safe wondering what happened.

 

[Trlsmn]

So, if you were a Senator and you were horse-trading with another Senator and a bill "closing the gun show loophole" was introduced-and remember that these sort of incremental gun control bills tend to squeak through-would you not consider supporting the bill if it provided for national CHL reciprocity? Or how about providing an avenue for Joe citizen to buy newly manufactured selectfire weapons.

I have a zero compromise policy so my answer is no to the carrot and stick because the end goal is always a net loss. The government can't give me the 2nd amendment rights that already belong to me, they can only take them away!

If you live in Oregon, the bill changes nothing for you....

2nd amendment rights are equal to all US citizens the inequalities are unconstitutional. Your reasoning is full of fail!

My point in asking that question was not for people to re-affirm their gun-owner creds, but to look at the whole issue strategically. Sometimes you have to get what gains you can and retreat, sacrificing a battle to win the war.

An offensive fight is a strategy. Unfortunately history has shown that compromise equals loss. My point is for gun owners to stand up and reverse all unconstitutional 2nd amendment legislation, not bargain away what we have left.

I personally don't find the idea of no FTF transactions at a gun show so distasteful that I wouldn't consider trading it away to gain something else. Others would choose to fight the battle to the bitter end, no matter what, no compromises, even if it meant risking an outright loss on the issue. I was just curious if someone had any interesting proposals the could give both sides a win.

And thus you reaffirm my earlier post to you below.

Trlsmn quote..
You know "El green go loco" you are the kind of gun owner that I as an activist don't want speaking up for our gun rights. You are willing to give up a little here and a little there until we have no gun rights at all.

 

[theLEMband]

So, if you were a Senator and you were horse-trading with another Senator and a bill "closing the gun show loophole" was introduced-and remember that these sort of incremental gun control bills tend to squeak through-would you not consider supporting the bill if it provided for national CHL reciprocity? Or how about providing an avenue for Joe citizen to buy newly manufactured selectfire weapons. If you live in Oregon, the bill changes nothing for you....

My point in asking that question was not for people to re-affirm their gun-owner creds, but to look at the whole issue strategically. Sometimes you have to get what gains you can and retreat, sacrificing a battle to win the war. I personally don't find the idea of no FTF transactions at a gun show so distasteful that I wouldn't consider trading it away to gain something else. Others would choose to fight the battle to the bitter end, no matter what, no compromises, even if it meant risking an outright loss on the issue. I was just curious if someone had any interesting proposals the could give both sides a win.

As soon as that "loophole" is legislatively closed, all the people that set up tables at a gun show will still display, but set up private meetings to exchange goods, instead of doing it at the gun show. Problem solved right? Nope, the gun restrictors will call that the "private sale loophole" that people are using to get around the new law and will use that as a reason for restricting all private sales.

 

[Chee-to]

Remember this, Measure 5 passed by a large majority, by popular vote...
We can thank the good citizens of Oregon..

http://oregonvotes.org/nov72000/guide/mea/m5/m5.htm

Article: HCI: Colorado and Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Close Gun-Show Loophole: Major Victory For Sensible Gun Laws

Article from:
U.S. Newswire
Article date:
November 7, 2000 CopyrightCopyright 2000 U.S. Newswire. Provided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by Handgun Control Inc.:

Voters in two western states with high rates of gun ownership voted overwhelmingly to close the gun-show loophole, despite the best efforts of the National Rifle Association and its local allies to keep those loopholes open. Colorado and Oregon voters, defying state legislatures where similar measures had been narrowly defeated by gun lobby pressure, were the only citizens asked to directly decide gun control measures on the ballot this year. Both Colorado's Amendment 22 and Oregon's Measure 5 passed by impressive margins. The NRA and other pro-gun groups spent nearly $2 million but lost.......

 

[el gringo loco]

An offensive fight is a strategy. Unfortunately history has shown that compromise equals loss. My point is for gun owners to stand up and reverse all unconstitutional 2nd amendment legislation, not bargain away what we have left.

My point was that sometimes, if you think you are going to lose, you take what victories you can and then fight another day. I think that you need people who hold the line fast (as you would) to keep perspective on the overall issue. However, in Oregon, direct opposition to this issue got you this:

Remember this, Measure 5 passed by a large majority, by popular vote...
We can thank the good citizens of Oregon..

http://oregonvotes.org/nov72000/guide/mea/m5/m5.htm

Article: HCI: Colorado and Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Close Gun-Show Loophole: Major Victory For Sensible Gun Laws

Article from:
U.S. Newswire
Article date:
November 7, 2000 CopyrightCopyright 2000 U.S. Newswire. Provided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by Handgun Control Inc.:

Voters in two western states with high rates of gun ownership voted overwhelmingly to close the gun-show loophole, despite the best efforts of the National Rifle Association and its local allies to keep those loopholes open. Colorado and Oregon voters, defying state legislatures where similar measures had been narrowly defeated by gun lobby pressure, were the only citizens asked to directly decide gun control measures on the ballot this year. Both Colorado's Amendment 22 and Oregon's Measure 5 passed by impressive margins. The NRA and other pro-gun groups spent nearly $2 million but lost.......

I would walk away from some fights to make substantial gains in others. True, folks that are anti-gun are not going to stop and will be back at it again a few months after a deal is reached, but that is not going change regardless of if a deal is made. Just as, regardless of the results of any fight over this issue, you are not going to stop pushing back on this issue. What I would like to see vs. what I could live with are two very different things.

The folks on the other side of the argument (Bloomberg, Brady campaign, etc.) have decided on an incremental approach. They frame the debate as they want it on a specific issue and then go for very small gains. Part of that overall strategy is based on the assumption that the other side will fight tooth and nail and give no compromise. The American public, right or wrong, tends to split the difference on issues, trying to find middle ground where both sides can come to a "reasonable compromise." When this happens, our side can consider this a loss and the anti-gun side can interpret this as a gain because anything that moves the debate into our half of the field is a win. I was simply stating that if I thought I was going to lose ground on an issue, I would try to make it up somewhere else.

My original point of this post was to see this new approach by Bloomberg as he sees it: a political battle. The debate is not going to be won or lost on a forum like this surrounded by like-minded people. Bloomberg was able to directly "disprove" an NRA talking point (paraphrased below):

A private seller at a gun show engages in a practice that occurs in homes, VFW halls, and parking lots across America every day. That gun shows are an expression of the right of free assembly of like minded individuals. That the vast majority of FTF transactions are done by law-abiding citizens and that gun shows are not a significant source of guns obtained by criminals.

In media terms, perception is reality. By carefully selecting his targets and by framing the terms of the debate, Bloomberg has put our side on the defensive. It does not matter if the video "evidence" is representative of gun owners or not. It does not matter if the so-called "gun show loophole" is really a source of illegal guns for his state or not. The media and the American public eat this sort of thing up. It does not matter that there probably were no actual criminals at the gun show trying to buy guns. Bloomberg can now claim that when he sent someone to try to "illegally" obtain a gun at a gun-show, almost two out of three sellers sold him the gun. Oh, and look, it's right here on video. And (BONUS TIME) the NRA and the gun lobby says this sort of thing happens all the time without a gun show.

By bringing up this issue, or debating an issue, I try to avoid having a discussion in an echo chamber where someone casts an assertion and everyone else says; "Yep", "Oh, you're totally right", "Same here." Is that what you want to hear? The folks on this forum skew right and tend to represent the hard and fast no compromise portion of the gun owning community. I would say that this is a representation of only a fraction of the gun-owning community. There are lots of gun owners that own a rifle or a shotgun and are who you need to convince in order to get over that fifty yard line to win on an issue. This thread was about trying to combat a media strategy in order to win over those people.

According to ATF, 89% of guns used in crimes in New York City last year originated out of state.

I believe this statistic is probably correct or close to it. I used to live in New York and it is very difficult to legally obtain a gun (compare to obtaining an NFA weapon without the trust option). The simple fact is that a gun is probably much more easily obtained by a criminal by driving an hour or two and stealing a gun or engaging a straw purchase in a nearby state. The number, however, probably includes guns where the crime was the mere possession of the gun (non-permitted, ex-con in possession) not that it was actively being used in the commission of a crime.