Gun Show Undercover

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.

Visit http://www.nyc.gov/gunshow.

 

Comments

[satanlite]

Ending gun shows, period, seems to be a very easy and workable solution. No one needs them. Not really.

[fishyjay]

satanlite: "Ending gun shows, period, seems to be a very easy and workable solution. No one needs them. Not really."


Many gunowners know that this is the eventual goal of gun control advocates. It becomes even more evident when places that already require bckground checks for all sales at gun shows continue to try to ban or otherwise harass gun shows.

Satanlite shows us why gunowners who would otherwise accept gun show regulation continue to be so resistant.

[satanlite]

Show me a list of positive things gun shows provide for our socieyt aside from making money of the ability to sell guns to anyone, including criminals. Then you may have a better standing. Celebrating the ability to sell guns to criminals is not a reason to have gun shows. Is it?

[ButlerReprt]

I attended a gun show in West Palm Beach on Sunday. County law bans the sale of private firearms without the purchaser having a Concealed Carry Permit. Otherwise the sale must be made using a dealer as a middleman who will run a background check on the purchaser and a 5 day wait. No new laws necessary; Bloomberg should have enforced the existing ones in having the dealers mentioned above arrested.

[OdinsEye]

1) Bloomberg could not have them arrested without risking his own investigators being arrested.

2) They were not dealers. Dealers are FFLs.

3) The vendors may or may not have broken the law.

4) While you are correct that county laws require 5 day waits as opposed the the state's 3 day wait, and the county requires all transfers to have a NICS/FDLE check, the county does not ban the sale to people who do not have concealed carry permits. The requirement for a check and waiting period do not apply if a person has a CCW permit.

[sykesth]

Putting aside the issue of the 2nd amendment that Americans have a right to bear arms, let's reconsider whether that is a skillful thing. A lot of arguments about the right to bear arms begins with "because the 2nd amendment says so." But let's question that assumption even further. Let's question whether the 2nd amendment statement about gun control is correct. After all, we don't have to take the constitution for "granted" as if it's set in stone. Don't forget that when originally written, the constitution's discussion of rights was for white male property owners. Obviously we don't follow that any more!

So, stepping away from the idea that we should be allowed to own our own guns "because the constitution said so" what about thinking if that is a skillful thing?

I'd much rather the constitution say we have a right to proper healthcare than something as silly, to me, as right to bear arms. Back then, it made sense to say bearing arms was a right. Now, it's a bit less so.

[JimInHouston]

Because the right to bear arms is intimately tied with the right to exist.

[kevinabt]

People still have the exact same need for arms as they did 230 years ago. The same dangers from criminals exist and need to be guarded against. The same danger of a tyrannical government which works against the best interests of the people still exists. The general population, if it wishes to keep what political influence it has, has to retain the ability to remove any government which takes root and acts against the general population. If the government feels it can act unopposed and unresisted it will take and do anything it wants to. With the very real possibility of effective resistance the government has to think very carefully about what actions it will try to carry out and what the results of those actions will be.

[JamesinDentonTX]

The 2nd amendment waschiefly to protect us from a tyrannical government, right? I have news for you, no citizen will ever have a big enough pile of pistols and long guns to fend off Uncle Sam. We can take that one off the table.

[RonGallion]

If it was not for the 2nd Amendment you would not have been able to spew the foolery you just did. Way more damage comes from Congress than the 2nd Amendment in the form of policies they conger. You never hear how many crimes were averted, how many lives were saved, how many women were saved from attacks and men self protecting themselves and their families from criminals. I can cite many crimes that would not had a tragic end if the victim had a gun. It's a pipe dream to think if we had no guns we would have no crime, simply not the case.

[satanlite]

A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)

[legaleagle 45]

sykesth wrote: "After all, we don't have to take the constitution for "granted" as if it's set in stone."

True, we can amend it.

sykesth wrote: "Don't forget that when originally written, the constitution's discussion of rights was for white male property owners. Obviously we don't follow that any more!"

Thanks to amendments to the constitution such as the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendment.

sykesth wrote: "I'd much rather the constitution say we have a right to proper healthcare than something as silly, to me, as right to bear arms."

You are free to try to amend the constituion so as to eliminate the 2nd and insert a new one that provides for health care, if you so desire. What you are not free to do is to ignore portions of the Constituion that you do not like, make up new provisions of the Constituion that you do like and proceed merrily along without benefit of Constitutional amendment. If you do that, then you are merely authorizing others to use the same methodology so as to ignore provisions of the Constitution that they do not like but which you may like and make up new proviosions that they like but which you may not. In short, such a methodology actually is an assertion that we should ignore the Constituion alltogether and make up the rules as we go along.

[PavePusher]

The Constitution no longer implies "white male property owners" because there is a process for ammending it, and that process was used as designed.

If you think there is a problem with the Second Amendment, use the process, don't simply try to ignore it and pass legislation contrary to it. That will result in automatic and expensive failure.

[satanlite]

Without a doubt, tighter controls on gun ownership is necessary in this country. We're not discussing beer, or cigarettes, but an object you can put in yoiur pocket that when used kills other human beings around you. It doesn't care who that person is. The sole intent of the obect you want to carry around like jewelry is to KILL other human beings. By accident or intent.

A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

I am a gun owner. I grew up with guns. But we have a problem with them in this country and need sane, strict gun laws concerning who we trust to carry them and we need registration. Iconvenience be dammed.

[TanzaniteDiamonds]

Now, that comment got my attention. Interesting points.

For you -- as a gun owner -- may I please ask if you own more than one gun?

Out of all the gun owners I've ever known (yes, I do believe that there are some responsible gun owners out there), I've always noticed that they own several guns, or make a hobby of out "collecting" guns. But why the NEED for so many guns?

[kevinabt]

The use for those extra guns would be to give to non-gun owners should they need them.

[CollegeConservative86]

Do you own more than one TV? Why do you NEED all those TVs? It's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Read the 2nd Amendment- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It's none of your business how many guns I have, what sexual partner I chose, what light bulbs I use, what kind of car I drive (it's not a hybrid!), or anything else. My right to throw my fist, ENDS at your face. Until then, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

[JimInHouston]

As a gun owner, you should know better than to spout the thoroughly discredited "statistics" from Kellermann.

[JamesinDentonTX]

I think most people, including gun owners and dealers, agree with you. I don't buy the "slippery slope" type of arguments, no matter where they are applied. I applaud the gun owners on this blog that talk about responsibility and proficiency with weapons, NOT the ones who talk about how many times they have "needed" their guns. That kind of argument will only result in more gun control.

[JimInHouston]

"NOT the ones who talk about how many times they have "needed" their guns. That kind of argument will only result in more gun control."

I don't understand this comment. Why do you disrespect people who have used guns to save their own lives or the lives of others? Is that your meaning?

Why would successful defensive uses of guns lead to more gun control? I would think it would lead to less. Do I misunderstand your meaning?

[kevinabt]

One question I'd have for all of you that want to force everyone to pass federal screening before exercising their second amendment rights is this. What criminal behavior nullifies a person's rights?

Is there any crime that you can commit which would cause you to lose your right to choose your own religion or to make a public speech? Is there any crime which would allow the government to then quarter soldiers in your home? What the right to a jury trial, is there any crime a person can commit which will cause them to lose their right to a trial by a jury of their peers for the rest of their life? What about the 2nd amendment rights makes them different from all the other ones that makes you all think you can only allow certain people to have it?

[Knute]

Sure. Here goes:

1. Felons aren't allowed to vote. Argument over.
2. Sex offenders have their freedom of movement limited (stay away from schools and parks please).

In fact, rights are NEVER absolute. They are limited and balanced all the time when in conflict with competing rights, such as the right to LIFE. For example, the language of the 1st Amendment is absolute, but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to broadcast the movement of U.S. troops, or to publish instructions on how to produce a nuclear weapon (another form of "arms" you don't have the right to bear, BTW).

And what is different about the 2nd Amendment? Maybe the clear meaning of the words: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seriously. I guess "Original Intenters" only follow the clear words of the Constitution when you agree with them.

[kevinabt]

Bearing arms is a right of the people. A well regulated militia is something which is necessary for the security of a free state. Says right there. I don't know how you can twist logic to read that as only well regulated militias have the right to bear arms. It is the people who have a right to bear arms.

Keeping and bearing arms is a critical element of preserving your life. It is self defense. How can you have the right to life but not the means to protect your life? That would be like if you were allowed freedom of the press but movable type and paper were outlawed.

By the way, none of the rights in the bill of rights can be taken away. People can be punished for misusing them, but they cannot be taken away as a means of prior restraint. Not allowing certain people into parks or schools is different, those are pieces of property owned by some one or some group. It is up to the managers of those properties to decide who can enter or not and under what conditions.

I don't agree with disenfranchising felons their right to have a say in government either.

[OdinsEye]

"1. Felons aren't allowed to vote. Argument over."

Depends on the state.

"Maybe the clear meaning of the words: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"

The phrase that is the first 13 words of the Second Amendment show a reason why the right should not be infringed, not a reason why or when the right exists.

[redhook916]

"1. Felons aren't allowed to vote. Argument over."

How does this end the argument? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to vote, what it does say is that you cannot be barred from voting based on gender or race. Perhaps you should try reading the Constitution sometime.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

[JamesinDentonTX]

Stick with the self defense argument. This one is full of holes.

[TXfemmom]

If no law-abiding citizen wants criminals to be able to buy gungs like this at gun shows, does that make the entire NRA non-law-abiding citizens, because they fight for this to be legal?

[HeimeBach]

Did you read my entire post?

[Romeover]

No, TX, it does not make them "non-law-abiding citizens".

It does indicate that they are paranoid, illogical, or unconcerned about the proliferation of illegal weapons and their attendant violence.

[OdinsEye]

The NRA does not want criminals to be able to buy guns at gun shows.

The NRA takes issue to false assertions that gun shows are a major source of firearms for criminals since the DoJ says only about 2% of firearms used in crimes are purchased at gun shows.

The NRA takes issue with the term "gun show loophole" since sales at gun shows are subject to the exact same rules as sales elsewhere and there is no loophole concerning gun shows. Gun control groups are often deliberately misleading in order to garner support for their efforts and calling it a "gun show loophole" is such a deception. Another is that the gun control groups deliberately blur the lines between dealers (FFLs) and non-dealers.

The NRA recognizes that requiring background checks at gun shows simply leads to more work for the law abiding while the non-law abiding will take their business outside or arrange for strawman sales.

The NRA sees background checks at gun shows as being a "foot in the door" strategy since when thee background checks at gun shows fails to have the desired results, the next step will be background checks for every sale everywhere and when that fails, mandatory registration will follow.

[NightOwlCafe]

what is wrong with registration and background checks? if the buyer is not a criminal and is a "responsible user and owner" of a firearm why would that be considered a problem by the nra?

[satanlite]

No, they might not specifically WANT criminals who flock to gun shows to be able to buy guns, but they are ok with it. It would cost them money to prevent it. That's bad.

[JimInHouston]

"because they fight for this to be legal"

FALSE.

I challenge you to find any quotation from the NRA supporting the rights of felons to own guns.

We'll all wait.

[Kalie]

Good job New York!! Keep it up!

[HeimeBach]

No law abiding gun owner wants criminals to obtain a firearm. There are possibly some gun laws that gun owners would support if they could be certain that, after implemented. would be the end of the march towards disarming americans. But we can't. The individlals and movement that Mr. Bloomberg is associating with is deeply dedicated to the ultimate goal of eliminating private gun ownership. We know, they know it and they know we know it. Any gun control measure that is presented short of their ultimate goal is nothing more than an incremental step,
Therefore we must be as absolute and as resolute as possible in denying them that opportunity.
I have always thought that the idea of self defense and perserving ones life was instinctive. How did we get to a place in society where elites have managed to convince some people that it is a disorder?

[DonCosenza]

So, instead of supporting legislation that could prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals while at the most inconveniencing legal gun owners with a background check (and probably a nominal fee), you'd rather support nothing until every other gun control demand is dropped? And the public is supposed to consider your position a reasonable one?

In fact, I say that by taking a real effort to tie up these loopholes, gun rights advocates would be doing themselves a favor by demonstrating that they do support reasonable controls. Even when a background check requirement is in place at all gun shows, there will be those who are not satisfied until handgun ownership is eradicated. But their position will be weaker, because gun rights advocates will have demonstrated their willingness to take reasonable action themselves.

Instead, by stubbornly refusing to put in place reasonable precautions, gun-rights advocates undermine their own position. Gun control advocates can point to issues like this and say "see? gun owners don't care whether guns get into criminals' hands... this is why we have to regulate them more."

[JimInHouston]

"So, instead of supporting legislation that could prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals"

It won't do this as almost all criminals get their guns from the black market anyway. Read the DOJ statistics showing that only 1-2% of criminals get their guns from gun shows.

"while at the most inconveniencing legal gun owners with a background check (and probably a nominal fee),"

So the only persons being inconvenienced and paying a useless fee are the legal gun owners.

Thanks for putting another onus on the lawful while accomplishing nothing.

[Berettasskeeter]

So, gun owners must compromise, on the premise that anti-gunners MIGHT then consider compromise? Sorry, it doesn't work that way, as 50 years of anti-gun history in this country proves. You'll have to do better than that.
Semper fi

[Thirdpower]

So how much of this evidence of illegal activities was supplied to local law enforcement for arrest and prosecution of the perpetrators?

[richsmith]

None, because it was under cover and because most of the local yahoo law enforcement personnel of those places couldn't care less and because the NRA couldn't care less as long as the gun bazaars continue to function the way they do now.

[JohnJudy]

But, but second amend... God-given.... cold dead...!

(head explodes)

[fijisailor]

I grew up with guns and owned them and used them for hunting and still do. I was also trained in their use in the military when I served. To me it is very clear. The sole purpose of most pistols is to kill human beings. For this reason I oppose their sale and ownership. They should be severely regulated or banned. Rifles on the other hand are primarily used for hunting so I believe the regulations should remain as is with them.

[OdinsEye]

"The sole purpose of most pistols is to kill human beings. "

Then 99.9999% of them are being misused.

"Rifles on the other hand are primarily used for hunting "

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

[ABSORB]

Exactly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting

[Robster]

First off, your under cover officers were operating illegally in other states- if I, as a regular show attender saw what I was sure was one of your officers I'd would confront and physically restrain him/her till authorties came.

Second off, NYC has more of a terrorist/airplane problem than a handgun problem.

[NeoLiberal]

Would have to respectfully disagree with that.

Check out the ATF's tracking webpages for crimes committed with guns in NYC from Jan-Dec 2008:

Over 4400!

That's just in one year alone.

[magen]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Not from NYC are ya bro???????????

There's handgun crime here EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!!!!!!

The terrorist/airplane thingie that you speak of happened a total of ONCE-----several YEARS ago!!!!!

Your comment is ridiculous.

[TeejMan]

That's a lot of hot air.

[Azsin]

i recal the terroist took off from boston
which is beside the point

he poijnted out a loophole in law that worse than "acorn" in vestigation
its a simple loophole to fix
and it wil not hurt hunters or gun nuts
just elk and wabbits!

[JohnJudy]

Confront and physically restrain a New York City cop?

Fantastic! Let me know how that works out for you!

And provide video please because nothing is funnier than watching natural selection in action!

[northstar11]

isnt it easier and cheaper mr bloomberg for the state , federal or city government to buy all guns on offer than to deal with the crimes committed with them after the fact

[Balzac]

Tell 'em Mike.

[fishyjay]

While there are many gunowners who oppose more regulation on rights grounds, there are also many gunowers like me who are willing to compromise on a system that would enable and require private sellers to access the background check system at gun shows. The main obtacle to such compromise has been the intrangience and extremism of gun control advocates. For example: I would consider legislation giving private sellers at gun shows access to the current instant background check system, but gun control advocates want to ABOLISH the instant background check system and replace it with a mandatory waiting period system of 5 days or more, which is unacceptable to gunowners. Also, in some of those states which HAVE required checks at gun shows, gun control advocates have CONTINUED to attack gun showns there by attempting to ban them in the most popular (or sometimes only) locations. This recently occurred in California, and is obviously unacceptable to gunowners. Moderate gunowners are open to reasonable compromise: Background checks for sales by private sellers at gun shows IF gun control advocates agree to NOT abolish the instant check system and NOT continue to attack gun shows. But gun control advocates have NOT been open to reasonable compromise.

[JimInHouston]

The other problem is that your compromise gives up some of our rights in exchange for NOTHING from the other side. Will the antis give up one of their restrictions for the sake of this compromise?

I really doubt it.

I am afraid that your "compromise" is yet another click in the gun control ratchet. They make huge demands. We offer half way. They take the compromise, giving up exactly nothing. Return to step 1.

This is the slippery slope at work and why we fight so hard against it.

My idea of a compromise is the repeal of half the gun laws in the country. They we can talk.

[csavage]

"Other side"?

We are fueling the drug war in Mexico with both our insatiable desire for drugs and our unchecked importation of guns into Mexico. It's only a matter of time until that problem is a problem in Houston. Just like we have drinking and driving laws to catch irresponsible drivers, we have gun sale laws to stop irresponsible owners. Until gun nuts like you can prove YOU are policing your own, the government will have to do it for you. I'd like the NRA to come down with some highly publicized statements about these irresponsible dealers, but they won't because they "worship" guns. The NRA represents only a fraction of gun owners and, as long as they marginalize themselves with their extremist stances, they'll find themselves with fewer and fewer members over time