I’m still pretty incensed from Tuesday’s press conference, where President Obama mentioned background checks 22 times:
The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months.
So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Ignoring that no background check in the world would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing those kids at Sandy Hook, President Obama lied outright when saying that violent felons can get weapons over the internet, as if shopping online suddenly removes federal firearms regulations.
It doesn’t. Violent felons are always considered prohibited persons under US code and therefore it is illegal for them to purchase firearms, online or otherwise. There’s no magical exemption from background checks for them, whether they are trying to buy a gun online, face to face, or in a store. Well, unless they are getting their guns from the Feds via Operation Fast and Furious as some gleefully pointed out.
Politifact rated this claim as “mostly true” because, for some reason, they think that because the possibility exists, it’s a fact – as if the President was referring to DarkNet Market sales of firearms when he was talking about background checks. Here’s a clue for Politifact – background checks aren’t ever going to be put in place on these sorts of sales, so why on earth would you think that remotely applies to what the President was talking about? “But but but ARMSLIST!” they go on to say, ignoring that Armslist is not a site that accepts transactions. If the money doesn’t change hands online, it’s not an online sale.
Lack of Consequences
This is all a sideline though, because the main problem isn’t about lack of background checks – that’s not the elephant in the room. The issue is that firearms violations aren’t being prosecuted and have never been a priority for this administration.
All the laws in the world don’t matter if you fail to enforce them. I’ve mentioned previously that firearms violation prosecutions have fallen during President Obama’s tenure, despite his “tough” talk on firearms crime, but it seems like the media is content to let this issue slide while giving him fawning adoration over his crocodile tears.
Here’s two rather notable examples that should be brought up each and every time that the President screams for more background checks: Dontray Mills and Jalita Johnson
Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.
On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.
Randa said he recognized the seriousness of the offense and acknowledged the problem of guns winding up in the hands of people who use them to commit violence.
Wow. Probation. For providing 27 firearms to gang members. 55 counts of firearms violations, from buying guns with fake IDs to selling without a license. His sentence: probation with no jail time.
Johnson bought her boyfriend, Marcus Wheeler, a Glock pistol. Wheeler happened to be a convicted felon, and was wanted in connection for another shooting when he turned around and used that same pistol to murder a cop.
However, she confirmed that the firearms transaction record the agents had acquired from Arrowhead Pawn Shop looked like a copy of the one she had filled out when she bought the gun.
Johnson, from Jonesboro, replied ‘yes’ to a question on the form asking whether she was the actual buyer of the gun, according to a sworn statement by an agent from the ATF, filed in court last week.
However, Wheeler had actually given her the money to buy the gun for him, it is alleged.
Wheeler, who was not legally able to own or buy a firearm himself, also sent his girlfriend several text messages while she was in the pawn shop indicating what she should buy, the statement said.
After she bought the gun, Johnson allegedly gave it to Wheeler, who occasionally visited her.
Orozco, who lived in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and was a native of nearby Walnut, Iowa, was shot dead after Wheeler opened fire on officers trying to arrest him in connection with another shooting
This is a textbook example of a straw purchase that ended with a dead cop. Clearly they threw the book at her, right? Wrong.
A Clayton County woman was sentenced to a year of probation for lying about the gun she purchased for her boyfriend, a convicted felon who used the Glock to kill a Nebraska police officer.
Jalita Jenera Johnson, 26, must also complete 40 hours of community service and serve 180 days of home confinement, U.S. Attorney John Horn’s office said Monday.Johnson pleaded guilty in August.
Johnson got caught with texts from Wheeler specifying what gun to buy. She lied on the ATF Form 4473. which is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and / or up to a $250,000 fine. She gave the gun to a convicted felon who was already wanted for another shooting, effectively enabling him to murder a police officer. She then lied to the feds who questioned her after the gun was traced.
She got a slap on the wrist for it.
If you can’t muster the intestinal fortitude to put someone behind bars after they straw purchased a firearm that is used to kill a police officer, why should we take you seriously when you call for more background checks?