Posted on 08/28/2006 8:15:14 AM PDT by neverdem
More than three months after Mayor Bloomberg's announcement that he had sent private investigators into five states to catch gun dealers making illegal sales, he is refusing to turn over the evidence they've gathered to the federal agency that investigates illegal guns.
Analysts said the impasse may have slowed the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in its investigation of and possible action against gun dealers that broke the law.
The city won't turn over the evidence, which includes videotapes of gun dealers allowing so-called straw purchases of guns, until the ATF signs an evidence-sharing agreement that would prohibit the agency from "publicly disclosing evidence without notice and consent from the city," the mayor's criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said.
The inability of the two sides to come to an agreement is due in part to what the ATF perceived as the mayor's infringement on its jurisdiction, analysts and law enforcement sources said.
At a May press conference announcing the sting operations, Mr. Bloomberg criticized the agency, saying it was "asleep at the switch" when it comes to stemming the flow of illegal guns to the city. Soon after, the ATF, which says it was given no prior information about the private investigations, announced it would be looking into not only the dealers the mayor alleged were illegally selling guns, but the mayor's investigators as well.
The city did give the ATF two videotapes immediately after the announcement. Mr. Feinblatt complained that the ATF had yet to get back to the city with its analysis of the tapes.
If a gun dealer realizes a gun is not for the person who is buying it — for example, if a second party starts asking questions about the gun or trying to touch it — it is required to stop the...
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Bloomberg knows damn well that he bit off more than he could chew on this one. He won't turn over those tapes because these "private investigators" (I suspect they were off-duty NYC police officers) broke the law.
There is a two-word solution to this issue: "Search Warrant".
And if he managed to catch someone doing something wrong, isn't it wrong to withhold that evidence from the agency that actually has jurisdiction?
Bloomberg and the off-duty NYC police "investigators" committed multiple felonies but what the hey....laws only apply to us common-folk.
Another shining example of total transparency and equal protection from liberal public officials.
This is exactly what Bloomberg and his minions did:
"Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
I'd like to see the actual text of the law that the NY Sun thinks it's referring to here. A friend who accompanies a gun buyer to a gun store is prohibited from asking questions about a gun the buyer is proposing to purchase, or trying to touch it? Those actions hardly indicate that the gun isn't actually intended for the purported buyer.
Ha! Soon the BATF jackboots will be having to get Bloomberg's approval on all their enforcement actions.
If the ATF had any cajones they would just storm city hall and take what they wanted.
Law enforcement sources said it is unlikely the investigators would be prosecuted, but that the ATF was sending City Hall a message to stay off its turf.
Looks like Bloomberg and his minions can break the law with impunity.
During the 2 visits to the gun store to get weapons for my wife, I asked many more questions than she did and handled the guns too. Guess we broke the stupid law.
This has got to be the stupidest law I've ever heard of. What if the second person is asking questions because they're also thinking of buying one? Or what if the customer is unfamiliar with guns and brought along somebody who knows what to ask? If my Mom needed a new computer, she's going to bring me along because I used to sell them, so she's not gonna get fleeced. Same thing with buying a car.
There is no such law. If the gun dealer has reason to believe the gun is for someone other than the buyer of record, s/he is supposed to stop the seller, but the dealer is certainly not required to assume that someone else asking a question about the gun being sold, or handling it, is evidence that the buyer of record is a straw purchaser.
So two people who might both legitimately use a gun cannot both be interested in it or ask questions, such as a husband and wife, father and son, mother and daughter, etc????? That sounds suspiciously like infringing to me.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.
Yes, thank you. I posted my initial reaction before I read your common sense post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.