Crime Federal report finds 68,000 guns were illegally trafficked through unlicensed dealers over 5 years

[Poon Goon]

Choosing to not report something like a firearm as stolen should probably warrant a fine at the very least.

I can't understand why someone who legally owns a gun wouldn't want to report the theft. I keep serial numbers and all other info logged that way I can accurately report any theft. I can't imagine just saying "oh well" if my shit got stolen.

 

[pinger]

Gun rights should also come with basic gun
responsibilities.

Legal purchase, legal use and storage, and legal disposal should be the absolute minimum requirements.

 

[icemun]

BY LINDSAY WHITEHURST AND ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
Updated 6:32 PM BRT, April 4, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 68,000 illegally trafficked firearms in the U.S. came through unlicensed dealers who aren’t required to perform background checks over a five-year period, according to new data released Thursday by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives.

That represents 54% of the illegally trafficked firearms in the U.S. between 2017 and 2021, Justice Department officials said. The guns were used in 368 shooting cases, which are harder to investigate because unlicensed dealers aren’t required to keep records of their sales that could allow federal agents to trace the weapon back to the original buyer, said ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.

The report ordered by Attorney General Merrick Garland is the first in-depth analysis of firearm trafficking investigations in more than 20 years. It examined more than 9,700 closed ATF firearm trafficking investigations that began between 2017 and 2021. Firearms trafficking is when guns are purposely moved into the illegal market for a criminal purpose or possession.

The second-highest share of firearm-trafficking cases investigated by ATF was straw purchases, when someone buys a gun for a person who can’t get it legally themselves.

The report also shows that the recipients of trafficked firearms were people who had previously been convicted of a felony in almost 60 percent of the cases in which investigators were able to identify the background of the recipient. Furthermore, trafficked firearms were used to commit additional crimes in almost 25 percent of the cases, Dettelbach said. That includes more than 260 murders and more than 220 attempted murders, according to the report.

“The data shows, therefore, that those who illegally traffic firearms whether its out of a trunk, at a gun show or online are responsible for real violence in this nation,” Dettelbach said. “In short, you can’t illegally help to arm nonviolent people and not be responsible for the violence that follows,” he said.

The report found the average number of guns trafficked per case was 16. People who got them through unlicensed dealers bought 20 weapons on average, compared to 11 guns for straw buyers, according to the report.

The Biden administration has separately proposed a rule that would require thousands more gun sellers to get licensed and run background checks. The Justice Department says it’s aimed at sellers who are in the business of firearm sales, but the proposal quickly drew protest from gun-rights groups who contend it could ensnare regular people who sometimes sell their own guns.

https://apnews.com/article/firearms...s-unlicensed-fd07592977bf4512e742513bb68aea7f

Cool.
More people can get instead of going all the way to Wallmart

Thoughts and prayers answered!!

 

[spamking]

I can't understand why someone who legally owns a gun wouldn't want to report the theft. I keep serial numbers and all other info logged that way I can accurately report any theft. I can't imagine just saying "oh well" if my shit got stolen.

Doesn't make any sense to me either.

 

[terrapin]

Gun rights should also come with basic gunresponsibilities.

Legal purchase, legal use and storage, and legal disposal should be the absolute minimum requirements.

I agree with that totally.

 

[panamaican]

I'm sure many collectors don't have an FFL and buy/sell/trade quite often. Some never sell and some get bored and trade with friends or a dealer to get something different.



The infringement comes with the enforcement of something like this . . . it really can't be done without a National registry.



I don't know of anyone (not saying they don't exist) who keeps track of the appreciation or depreciation of their gun collection. And probably fewer who keep records to the point of keeping track of profit/loss for tax purposes. If they're doing that they might as well get the FFL and reap the other benefits.

You're not really saying anything that undermines my point. Lots of people don't report their income on their income tax...it doesn't matter because when Uncle Sam finds out, they're going to get in trouble. "No one else reported it" has never been a defense.

And this doesn't require a national registry of people. The only national recording that I stated was at the initial manufacturing of the gun. At every stage after that, the onus is on the owner to keep clean records of who they sold their firearm to in order to properly shift liability to the next owner.

To walk you through it: Manufacturer A produces a gun. They register the gun and serial number with the government. When they sell the gun to major dealer, they record the information of the dealer (name, address, etc.). They don't have to register that information, just keep the record. If the dealer sells it on to Buyer1, the dealer records the information of Buyer1, the dealer doesn't have to register that information, just keep the record. If Buyer1 sells the gun to Buyer2, same thing, record the information and store it.

It doesn't matter if Buyer1 is FFL or a one time seller. They record the information of the buyer.

If the gun is used in a crime, the government has the serial number. They contact the manufacturer who tells them who bought it. The dealer tells them who it was sold for. Buyer1 tells them about Buyer2. Buyer2 is charged with the gun crime. If Buyer2 claims that he sold it to Buyer3, he should have the contact info to prove it. If he has the info, feds move on to Buyer3. If he doesn't, he gets charged.

If Buyer2 claims it was stolen then Buyer3 gets charged with theft and will gladly tell the cops that he didn't steal the gun, he bought it from a straw buyer. If he can prove that, the straw buyer gets charged along with Buyer3.

This whole sequence encourages Buyer2 to only sell his guns to people that he can verify the contact information for. It also makes it a real problem for straw buyers who won't be able to prove that the guns they bought for crooks ever left their possession because they won't have sales information. Straw buyers end up in jail with greater frequency.

Nothing past the manufacturer requires a national registry. Each seller maintains their own records so that if they're ever asked, they can shift liability to the appropriate subsequent owner.

There's nothing objectionable in there unless the belief is that absolutely nothing should ever be recorded as it relates to firearms. And that's absurd since, as I pointed out, sellers are already legally obligated to keep track of the profits and losses on their sales for tax purposes (non-enforcement doesn't make something legal).

 

[spamking]

You're not really saying anything that undermines my point. Lots of people don't report their income on their income tax...it doesn't matter because when Uncle Sam finds out, they're going to get in trouble. "No one else reported it" has never been a defense.

I wasn't trying to undermine your point. I was just posting my thoughts on your comments.

And this doesn't require a national registry of people. The only national recording that I stated was at the initial manufacturing of the gun. At every stage after that, the onus is on the owner to keep clean records of who they sold their firearm to in order to properly shift liability to the next owner.

I suspect for your idea to work it would require that national registry to include people. I don't have any confidence that anyone but the most meticulous person would do something like this.

To walk you through it: Manufacturer A produces a gun. They register the gun and serial number with the government. When they sell the gun to major dealer, they record the information of the dealer (name, address, etc.). They don't have to register that information, just keep the record. If the dealer sells it on to Buyer1, the dealer records the information of Buyer1, the dealer doesn't have to register that information, just keep the record. If Buyer1 sells the gun to Buyer2, same thing, record the information and store it.

It doesn't matter if Buyer1 is FFL or a one time seller. They record the information of the buyer.

I understood what you were saying earlier.

If the gun is used in a crime, the government has the serial number. They contact the manufacturer who tells them who bought it. The dealer tells them who it was sold for. Buyer1 tells them about Buyer2. Buyer2 is charged with the gun crime. If Buyer2 claims that he sold it to Buyer3, he should have the contact info to prove it. If he has the info, feds move on to Buyer3. If he doesn't, he gets charged.

Nothing past the manufacturer requires a national registry. Each seller maintains their own records so that if they're ever asked, they can shift liability to the appropriate subsequent owner.

There's nothing objectionable in there unless the belief is that absolutely nothing should ever be recorded as it relates to firearms. And that's absurd since, as I pointed out, sellers are already legally obligated to keep track of the profits and losses on their sales for tax purposes (non-enforcement doesn't make something legal).

There is plenty of documentation going on now as it relates to firearms. Holding non-FFLs to the same recordkeeping requirements as an FFL seems a bit much to me though.

 

[BearGrounds]

It's military, CIA, and politicians bringing in the drugs and guns. That's what was happening at Mena airport.



But they want you to focus on the small fry dealers who gat their hands on a few once they're already here.

 

[panamaican]

There is plenty of documentation going on now as it relates to firearms. Holding non-FFLs to the same recordkeeping requirements as an FFL seems a bit much to me though.

Why? It's at the non-FFL level that the malfeasance is happening. To me, it suggests that criminals are exploiting the looser reqs for non-FFLs and since this wouldn't be creating something new, only extending an existing system to people already in the market, I think it's a fairly reasonable add-on.

But if there's a better way to force criminal liability onto those people, I'm interested.