• Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge.

    I disagree, I really don’t see why it’s any business of the PUBLIC (nor is there anything you could do about it.) But hold on…

    No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small malitia.

    That’s the thing, it’s NOT “secret”. The FBI and the BATFE both know they are just choosing not to do anything about it. I mean they literally KNOW, and not in some vague / abstract manner that is time delayed. They know in near real time that one purchaser has submitted a 4473 with multiple firearms on it and they also know if a single purchaser submits multiple form 4473s.

    So when Craig Adlong was showing up to the Gun Store and buying 15,16,17 Rifles at a time multiple times a week both the BATFE and the FBI KNEW and chose not to do anything. They could have delayed or denied any of the transfers (sales) and / or sent out a Field Agent to figure out what was going on. They didn’t.

    This is the foundation of my “The public doesn’t need to know” argument when it comes to individuals. Assuming the Gun Store is complying with Federal Law then this isn’t happening in secret. At least two different Federal Law Enforcement Agencies know about it.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      I would say that most of the PUBLIC wants to know if someone is doing illegal arms dealing to murderous Mexican cartels in their town.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        @Buelldozer@lemmy.today - I’m out of my element here:

        Would you argue the public has elected officials who write policy and hire enforcers to govern arms, so we have a pathway to preventing illegal arms deals even if it’s not via the direct publication of details of original purchasers?

        I can see tradeoffs here. I can imagine the security and harassment concern. I could also envision public benefit where our officials fail us but investigative reporters pick up the slack and shine light on specific problematic sales, leading to outcry and subsequently improved enforcement.

        Perhaps illegal sales are a top NRA priority since these discussions involve some dangerous thinking from their perspective. If not, hope so, sounds win win.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Honestly I don’t need a public record of people buying “too many” guns that may be selling them to cartels, I’m fine with the federal agents tasked with investigating such cases doing so and then reporting their findings when someone is guilty. I mean, they already know, what am I gonna do, tell em harder?

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I should say, I’m fine with it if they actually do it, rather than being one of the largest contributers to it.

            Still though even if they don’t, I don’t have jurisdiction in, well, anywhere, so again I ask what the fuck I plan to do about it if they did release such a privacy invading “rob me” list like California does? Say “hey mister are you selling these legally or not?” Great. What next? I’m not going to assault the dude’s house and steal his guns at gunpoint myself, if the agencies tasked with doing something about it don’t, why even keep a list? Why even report multiple sales if the only people who can do anything don’t?

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Sure they could, without that information being public. Public means you or I, who are not authorities that could do anything about anything, could look up a list. The authorities, be they federal, state, or local law enforcement, I am more comfortable with them having a list than you or me, yes.

                Although tbh I’m not actually sure the state or local PD could do anything, if it is federal’s jurisdiction because of trafficking across state/country lines (which is a thing). It’s entirely possible they’d have to go through the FBI. Still though let’s assume they could do something about it, why then would you and me need the list?

    • hakase@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Since you’re getting blasted here, I just wanted to hop on the downvote train to let you know that I think you’re exactly right on all counts.