Gun Traffickers Indicted After Three Month Investigation

So, yet again, Mayor Bloomberg puts lives at risk in multiple states by having NYPD ordering straw purchases in other states to be brought to New York for a big photo op.

What ever happened to the “Operation Tripod” gang?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html

That was over 100 guns ordered by NYPD broudht to new York from Ohio.

Again, NYPD paying about $1,000.00 for guns not worth $ 200.00.

I’m sure the “Operation Tripod” gang are home in Columbus , OH just as these men will be home safe in a few months. Their lawyer will realize it was entrapment at worst plus the NYPD causing illegal interstate transport of guns. About three days after their lawyer tells the Brooklyn DA he wants NYPD officers, Chief Kelly and Bloombrg to testify in open court they will be gone.

This is unconscionable on the part of the Mayor and the NYPD brass. They put undercover street cops in mortal danger with every buy. They let these guys known to be committing felonies while carrying deadly weapons roam free in New York City for 3 months in this case and for about a year with the Ohio group.

Worse they send them hundreds of miles away to buy guns and bring them to New York crossing many state lines. If the Mayor wanted to lock up bad guys as he should, NYPD could have arrested these people for the first gun. Now they won’t serve as much time as the hapless Plaxico Burress.

Most of what you describe is routine police practice for busting a trafficking ring, be it drugs, guns, hookers, etc.

It is very interesting post. It is great you have lot of knowledge of guns.

Travel First Aid Kit

What is going to happen to TI?! They got him again, looks like.

"were indicted today after selling more than 40 guns to undercover cops, worth more than $40,000."

How many undercover cops was that? I mean, the cops were worth $40,000 altogether, but I was wondering how much just one costs.

About $3.50.

forget guns, just get a car.

New York City residents should not have to pay almost $500 just to apply for a permit to have a gun in our home. It is a Constitutional right of every American and New York City's unfair and unconstitutional laws make it very tough for anyone other than the well-off or those in law enforcement to protect themselves with a gun. Self defense is a human right.

Constitutional right? Saying it a bunch don't make it true, buddy.

The founding fathers said it much better:

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.

"Arms" are not limited to guns. C4 explosives, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemicals weapons are among the many things that are considered armament. If we follow your logic, shouldn't all of these things be made legal for everyday citizens to posses?

Technically classified as ordnance or as a "destructive device" by the BATF. In some states it's perfectly legal to own a fully automatic belt fed machine gun and a grenade launcher.

You just have to comply with all local laws, file paperwork with the BATF for each item, and pay a $200 tax stamp per item.

So, if I wanted to own a fully-automatic supressed (silenced) M-16 with a grenade launcher attatched, and I lived in, say, Nevada, and I did all the paperwork for each item and paid the $600 total, plus whatever each individual item cost retail, I could own one.

Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are either strictly regulated by international treaty or readily availible at your local swimming pool supply shop or home depot.

Right, but I do not thin anybody would argue that individuals should be allowed to keep tactical nuclear weapons in their home. The bottom line is the constitution can be interpreted in numerous ways, as the founders clearly wrote it in a manner that was intentionally ambiguous. Thus, no matter what your position is you going to end up interpreting the constitution in one way or another. I personally believe people should be allowed to own a rifle or a musket, but not an AK-47 or M16. In your opinion, should people be allowed to possess any time of armament, no matter its destructive capability?

No. I fully support the idea of certain classes of weapons being banned from general public use.

However, fully-automatic machineguns have been banned from import or manufacture in the United States since 1986. The "assault weapons", like the two AK type weapons on the table up there, just look scary. Functionally, modern "assault weapons" are very difficult to modify to full auto, and they aren't that different from many modern hunting rifles.

The vaunted "Assault Weapons Ban" banned guns based off of cosmetic features- such as a pistol grip and bayonet lug. Fully automatic weapons were heavily regulated since 1968, and new manufacture was banned in 1986.

I always wondered about NYC's drive for the 2012 Olympics, as certain types of Olympic target pistols are specifically banned by NYC / NYS law- a pistol with the magwell forward of the grip. Originally intended to ban the Tec-9, but it also banned say, the Hämmerli 280, a $3,000 target pistol. They had to go back and re-word the law so target pistols would be legal. They based that on weight. Yeah. That makes sense.

Additionally, the BATF and the feds take a very dim view of weapons that are easily modified to be fully automatic. Most companies that made guns that were easy to convert to full auto got sued into oblivion in the last two decades.

Hell, the AR-15 platform is probably the most popular rifle sold in the United States today. Scary looking guns are here to stay.

Effective national gun control would be a fantastic idea, as I could get the firearms I wanted without having to put up with a million different local and state laws, and it would effectively deal with the illegal gun traffic. It'll never happen, though. As I mentioned before, an attempt to ban an easily-modified cheap pistol to a full-auto SMG nightmare (the Tec-9) also banned a $3,000 custom made olympic target pistol. If someone wanted to make an effective gun control law, it MIGHT HELP if they learned a bit about guns.

Oops, I thought my first post got deleted.

Right, but I do not think anyone would argue that it should be legal for an individual to posses a tactical nuclear weapon in their house. The bottom line is that the "founding fathers" lived in a completely different era and that the constitution needs to be interpretated with that in mind. Personally, I believe people should be allowed to own a rifle or a musket, but not a AK-47s or M-16s.

Yeah, the founding fathers didn't stomp all over a well-regulated militia that tried to seize arms or anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

http://www.nationalguard.com/

People who illegally transfer firearms across state lines in violation of local, state and federal law should be sent to prison for a very, very long time.

Getting a carry permit in NYC is basically impossible, however, getting a home or target license is time consuming, but straightforward, although expensive. It can be done.

Buying a $150 cheap semi-auto from some guy in East New York at a retarded markup is a criminal act, and criminals go to jail. If you want a gun, drop by one of the gun stores in NYC (there are still quite a few), get the paperwork from the NYPD, and get it legally.

Otherwise, have fun in the yard with Plaxico.

1 & 2,

we're all very impressed by your knowledge of guns. happy now?

Well, I find it interesting that about 75% of the guns on that table come from the same company, don't you?

Er, 25%, math is hard.

who would pay $1,000 for pot metal crap?

Man, that's a lot of crappy Hi-Points on that table. Along with a G-22 bullpup. Who the hell would use a .22 rifle in a crime?