Arizona: Mexico’s firearm superstore

With the death of Border Patrol Agent Nick Ivie recently, the danger those men and women face on a daily basis entered our collective consciousness once more. But before we had time to even honor the sacrifice Agent Ivie made for his country, some politicians weighed in with predictably political comments.

Governor Brewer told us that Ivie’s death once again reminded us of the “failure” of the federal government: “There should be anger, too. Righteous anger — at the kind of evil that causes sorrow this deep, and at the federal failure and political stalemate that has left our border unsecured and our Border Patrol in harm’s way. Four fallen agents in less than two years is the result.”

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley suggested that maybe the Fast and Furious scandal had something to do with Agent Ivie’s death.

Locally, Pinal County Sheriff Babeu took his usual shot at the alleged lack of federal border enforcement.

But as I have read about the life and death of Nick Ivie, as I read the comments of the politicians seeking to make some hay of his death, I wondered this:

How do so many guns get into the hands of these cartel murderers, anyhow?

After all, according to the New York Times, Mexico has exactly one gun store. In the country. Mexicans can only legally purchase a handgun, and that is restricted to no more firepower than .38 caliber. In addition, it takes months for their permit application to clear.

So how do so many guns end up in the hands of these cartels? The answer is easy: We are the primary weapons supplier of these cartels.

In fact, according to a Fortune Magazine article, the Mexican government estimates that 2,000 weapons a day come into its country from the U.S.

And Arizona is a primary candy store for these cartels. According to the ATF, “By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers... (the ATF began investigating) a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.”

Some would want us to believe that the scandalous gun-walking plan of Fast and Furious is what we should be outraged about. We should be: It was an ill-conceived plan that seems to involve far too many people who should’ve known better. We know that at least one of those guns was used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

But it would be naïve — or disingenuous — to believe that the only guns crossing the border are those walked as a result of the ATF.

No, there’s a more serious problem here, the problem created by the lax gun laws here in Arizona. In Arizona, as long as buyers are at least 21 (or 18 purchase rifles) and have no criminal record, they can purchase as many and as many types of weapons as they can pay for. No limit, no restrictions. Which means straw buyers can use our gun stores to supply the cartels with their weapons of choice.

So how does this happen? How do we have such lax laws that we have become the cartels’ gun supermarket?

Three letters — N-R-A.

The National Rifle Association is maybe the most successful and powerful lobbying group in the country. They are able to quell any attempt to pass even a moderate law such as limiting the size of gun clips or magazines.

And in Arizona, we have a wholly-owned-by-the-NRA Republican legislature and governor. Even here on the border of Mexico, the NRA-fueled lax gun laws have led to the thousands of guns crossing the border. Governor Brewer and the legislators know that if they even attempt to introduce the most modest of gun laws, the NRA will sic its membership on them, lobby like crazy, and threaten to run candidates against them. Add to that the pro-gun philosophy of Brewer and Company, and we have Arizona, the NRA Dream State.

So let’s take a look at the NRA mantra: Guns don’t kill people; people do. But here in Arizona, we have a twist on that: Guns don’t kill people; but lax gun laws allow some to kill even more people.

We should ask our politicians to answer these questions:

Will you support a law that would restrict the number of weapons a buyer can purchase at a single time? Will you even take that little step to dim the number of guns run across the border each day?

Or are you so frightened of the NRA that you’d rather have the cartels continue their access to unlimited guns, courtesy of the NRA and your fear?

Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.

(42) comments

wangly

Voorhies stared into space and mumbled "to herself or to to fake designer handbags to others who weren't there" during the interview. When asked
explain her behavior, Voorhies said, "I have a strong spiritual spiritual cheap moncler jackets spiritual sense. You caught me in moments of pray."Asked whether
not she's bipolar, Voorhies told ABCNews.com, "no comment."If she is is jordan 11 is bipolar, she's in good company: Obama
Back Day After Debate DefeatObama Heads Wisconsin As Romney Looks Looks jordan concord Looks To Build On Debate MomentumBy GREGORY J. KRIEG and
DWYEROct. 4, 2012 Looking to rebound from his uninspired performance performance moncler down jackets performance in Wednesday night's debate, President Obama today mocked
opponent for shape-shifting into a "spirited fellow" who "couldn't have have moncler jackets men have been Mitt Romney.""The real Mitt Romney has been running
the county for the last year promising $5 trillion in in replica designer handbags in tax cuts to favor the wealthy," the president told
in Denver. "The fellow on the stage last night said said replica designer handbags said he didn't know about that.""The Mitt Romney we all
he said, had invested in companies that sent jobs overseas. overseas. fake designer handbags overseas. "The guy onstage last night, he said that he
even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing."Obama outsourcing."Obama knockoff handbags outsourcing."Obama also joked about Romney's threat to end federal funding
PBS as part of a deficit reduction plan."Thank goodness somebody somebody jordan 11 concords somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird," he said.

VofReason

Oh. In that case, why isn't Canada blowing the wholly heck out of us and themselves too. See they can buy our guns just as easy. Maybe it is just the fact that Mexico is in chaos.

Mike McClellan

Nice job of creating a straw man yourself, VofReason. When will you and your Amen Choir actually address the issue?

VofReason

Well thank you Mike Mc C for clarrifying that it really is the good ole USAs fualt that Mexico is in chaos which intiates its citizens to try to jump the border at all costs. I was under the strange assumption that it was Mexico's fualt that Mexico is in disarray. "After all, according to the New York Times, Mexico has exactly one gun store. In the country. Mexicans can only legally purchase a handgun, and that is restricted to no more firepower than .38 caliber. In addition, it takes months for their permit application to clear." That is rich. This in a country where you are pulled over for oh being American and having money and can pay the fine right there. I am not going to get too confident of any laws they may or may not have on the books. If we are talking about the "real world".

Mike McClellan

DBC, no one's arguing that straw purchases are legal. That's just a straw man.

k33, in all of your verbiage, you don't actually argue anything pertinent to the point.

To paraphrase Paul Ryan, when you don't have an argument, you attack those with whom you disagree.

sockratties

80 people are being killed by firearms in the U.S. each and every day. That’s a high cost to satisfy arguments presented against some kind of gun control. Second amendment rights can be protected but big money and politics block every effort to find a solution. 30,000 deaths each year should make even the “hard right” have second thoughts. But second thoughts still require thinking. Instead of contriving antidotal scenarios and slippery slope arguments, how about pro-NRA activists coming up with a way to prevent the continuing slaughter instead of waving the flag at every attempt. I don’t believe that only left-leaning liberals want the carnage to stop.

k33j88

Dear Mr. McClellan: For once in your life, could you please be unbiased in your reporting of the facts. Referencing the "New York Times"? That's about as progressive{liberal) as it gets. Your idea of Conservative viewpoints is Fortune? Why don't you read the Wall Street Journal editorial, or GOD-forbid, that capitalist weekly, "Barron's". I suppose all those retired and active police, sheriff, and military members of the nefarious "NRA' are a bunch of "beer-swilling, cussing, rednecks". The Marxist-in-Chief, that you hold in such high esteem, has failed to secure the border. Research the NRA magazines, double-check their research, and you'll see that the majority of weapons don't "walk across our borders". You won't because your not un-biased in your goal of presenting a well-rounded researched presentation. Let's not forget that the POTUS(Marxist-in-Chief), stonewalled the congressional commission's inquiry ,(Fast & Furious), with the imposition of executive privilege. One of over 900 that have been used thus far to further the agenda to, and I quote, "fundamentally change America".

DBC001

I hate to break it to you Mike but straw purchases are already felonies. They CAN'T
be more against the law than they are now!

FWilson

There are basicly three sources of weapons for the Mexican Drug Cartels.
The largest is military weapons stolen from Mexican government arsenals, both military and police, by bribes, corruption, and force. Think M-16s as the weapons obtained.
The second is by military weapons such as AK-47s bought in third world countries in wholesale quanties and flown in by smuggler aircraft. The wholesale price of AK47 in thrid world countries is about $50. This is much cheaper than the $600 or so retail such weapons cost at gun stores in the US. Even with the cost of smuggling these whole sale weapons into Mexico, the cost is in the range of $100 per AK-47
The third, and smallest source, is by straw buyers in the US, who then smuggle them into Mexico. Any weapons sold in the US can be capable of semi automatic fire only and not fully automatic fire. Having done quite a bit of gunsmithing, and knowing many professional gun smiths, I can assure you it is impossible to convert a military type semi automatic weapon to fully automatic without the services of a very advanced machine shop. The wapons sold in the US are deliberately designed so they cannot be converted. If they are foreign made weapons they cannot be imported into the US if they can be easily converted full automatic fire. I have 60 years experience in shooting, competition shooting, and combat shooting, both in and out of the military,

JNelson

Mike.....Thanks for posting the transcript of Justice Scalia's remarks. I believe that you and others who favor more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment misread Justice Scalia's remarks. As everyone can see, there isn't a single thing Scalia pointed to which could be called a justifiable Constitutional limitation on 2nd Amendment rights. He plainly says that these issues will have to be decided in the future, as cases appear before the Court. He also says that they should be decided based upon "....what limitations are within the the understood limitations that the society had AT THE TIME", meaning, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted, and not what some people claim it means in today's more expansive and somewhat different lexicon.

What obviously doesn't appear in this transcription is what Scalia has said before, that "The 2nd Amendment means what it says", and what it plainly says is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED".

You'll also notice, Mike, that Scala's reference to the "affrighting" tort didn't mention firearms, it referred to carrying, and perhaps "frightening" people, with a "head ax", or a beheading ax. If he'd meant a firearm of some sort, or if the Founders had meant that, the tort could certainly have specified a firearm and not an "ax" or other implement. And frankly, those kinds of things have always been understood to be a "limitation" on arms in that one may not use them for unlawful purposes. That is not an "infringement" on the right to keep and carry, however, but on the wrongful implementation of them.

So, we're right back to having to accept that, according to Scalia, the 2nd Amendment means what it says, although there are some reasonable "limitations" on the right, such as no right to use one in an "affrighting" or otherwise unlawful manner. I don't believe any reasonable person objects to that. Plus, we haven't even begun to discuss the principal reason why the 2nd Amendment was written and adopted in the first place.

And finally, as any lawyer is likely to say in such circumstances, Scalia hedged his opinion on arms limitations by saying that these possible limitations must and will be decided by cases before the Court in the future, which unfortunately tends to leave the mistaken impression to some that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean what it says.

Mike McClellan

I would invite folks to take up DonMey on his suggestion that you go to the link he provides -- it's an interpretation of Scalia's remarks, and doesn't provide any quotes.

And it's Breitbart, a source known for its distortions, a kind of Hannity on Speed.

Soooo . . .

Here's the actual transcript of the conversation between Scalia and Chris Matthews
(provided by that big time anti-gun source, Fox News -- you can read the full transcript here --
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country#p//v/1760654457001):

WALLACE: Let's turn to an issue that is the news right now with the massacre in Colorado. And that is gun control.

You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms?

SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.

So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where --

WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute, SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.

WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.

And, DonMey, guess who else has the gun free zone? That'd be little old Arizona.
Yikes!

Leon Ceniceros

THE N.R.A.

LOL....MIKE'S LATEST "VENDETTA".

BETWEEN HIM AND RICHARDSON.....IS THERE ANY PRO-AMERICAN, PRO-SB 1070....PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OR LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITY (OTHER THAN THE SACRO-SANCT CITY OF MESA P.D.) THAT HASN'T BE ....."VILLIAN-IZED ?????????????????????

DonMey

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/29/Media-Wrongly-Claiming-Justice-Scalia-Said-SCOTUS-Might-Limit-Second-Amendment

DonMey

Mike - The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep AND BEAR arms. Washington DC refuses to issue permits for lawful carry, and refuses to recognize the permits of any other state.

And their "gun free" zones are just insane:

All areas within,1000 feet of an appropriately identified public or private day care center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, playground, video arcade, youth center, or public library, or in and around public housing as defined in section 3(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, approved August 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 654; 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(b)), the development or administration of which is assisted by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or in or around housing that is owned, operated, or financially assisted by the District of Columbia Housing Authority, or an event sponsored by any of the above entities shall be declared a gun free zone. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "appropriately identified" means that there is a sign that identifies the building or area as a gun free zone.

And yes, SCOTUS did overrule the ban. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt. The law specifically said you can't own a handgun if it wasn't registered prior to 1976. (too bad if you were living in DC and not old enough to buy a gun when this law passed) And don't forget this law was passed in 1975 before finally being overturned...in 2008. A ruling which also stated the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right.

Mike McClellan

And yet, DonMey, there's a 23-page list of weapons a person can purchase in D.C..

Again, I'm waiting to hear the plan to confiscate and disarm Americans; even in D.C., no one's taking anyone's guns away.

Oh, and the Court overturned the D.C. handgun law in 2008; the current law allows a person to buy 12 handguns a year in D.C., and even more rifles.

Hardly disarmed or confiscated.

As to JNelson above and this comment -- "First, if they actually believe in the Bill of Rights, they should realize that destroying one of those listed without going through the lawful process of change (Constitutional Amendment) only weakens any claim to the others; after all, if government can negate the 2nd merely by passage of legislation, why can't it do the same for all the rest"

JNelson needs to inform Justice Scalia -- the foremost proponent of originalist thought on the Court -- that Scalia's wrong. Because he has said repeatedly that the Second Amendment is not absolute. He said this most recently on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. In fact, Scalia said that even when the Constitution was first in place, there were limits placed on the Second Amendment, including those on what was called "frighting."

Now, maybe JNelson has a better understanding of the Second Amendment than does Justice Scalia. But maybe he doesn't.

JNelson

Slabside.....you may not find a "single, credible proposal that will be a total confiscation and disarming of legal gun owners", but the intent behind registration and other proposals to tax/limit ammunition or attempt to install tracing devices in ammunition are all steps which mean to throw roadblocks into the ability of citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and to eventual confiscation. Of course, gun control advocates won't often say so publicly or in official pronouncements, but sometimes they let their guard down and are recorded in outlining their true aims. For instance: "Twenty-five years ago, Nelson "Pete" Shields, the founder of Handgun Control Inc., revealed his strategy to New Yorker magazine. "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and handgun ammunition -- except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."


All gun control organizations have the same aims, and sometimes they reveal them, such groups as: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March and Americans for Gun Safety, just to name a few.

As any logical thinker can understand, the first step in the effort is to make guns more difficult to obtain using laws such as those against "assault weapons", magazine restrictions, even caliber restriction. The ban on assault weapons is such an effort even though true assault weapons are not available to the general public unless they go through all the steps and costs of obtaining a license to own an automatic fire gun, which is what an assault weapon must be capable of in order to earn the name. The next step is registration and further limitations on which types of guns the individual may actually acquire and own, and make the costs and qualifications as steep as possible in order to limit participants. Third and final is the step of confiscating all registered firearms, probably on some outrageous pretext of "protecting the public", with severe fines or even jail time for those caught who haven't complied, thus leaving the general public unable to defend itself because only criminals, the police and the military will have guns.

People who advocate gun registration often are well-intentioned but IMO haven't thought the issue through. First, if they actually believe in the Bill of Rights, they should realize that destroying one of those listed without going through the lawful process of change (Constitutional Amendment) only weakens any claim to the others; after all, if government can negate the 2nd merely by passage of legislation, why can't it do the same for all the rest? Second, these well-intentioned people also should inform themselves on the differences between registering your car and your gun. There is NO Constitutional right to own or drive a car but there IS such a right in the Constitution which states and the feds may not restrict or eliminate. That alone should settle the issue. Unfortunately, I would opine that the vast majority of people don't grasp those things and, if informed of the dangers of following their advocacy regarding gun control violations of the 2nd Amendment, likely would just claim one of two arguments: 1. Even if it violates the 2nd, we "need" it anyway; or 2. Times have changed since 1789 and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment can be broadened to allow it.

\

DonMey

Mike - Washington DC's handgun ban.

Slabside

Mike McClellan's anti-NRA hysteria is so typical of the progressive left. My link was intended to display the idiocy of the anti-gun crowd that Mike embraces.

"If Slabside can find a single, credible proposal that will be a "total confiscation and disarming the legal gun owners," he should provide it."

Mike, I can't... THANKS TO THE NRA!!!

Mike McClellan

Slabside's comment above is typical of some, in particular the national NRA officials.

So go to the link he provides above; you'll find that his "disarming" is one county official in Cook County proposing a tax on ammunition and gun purchases.

Hardly a "total confiscation."

And as the article notes, something similar to this was proposed five years ago and went nowhere. Just as this one will.

If Slabside can find a single, credible proposal that will be a "total confiscation and disarming the legal gun owners," he should provide it.

Otherwise, he's just blowing NRA smoke.

Slabside

sockratties, you're intentions are good but the hoplophobes will not stop at just "registering" firearms. Total confiscation and dis-arming the legal gun owners is the long term aim of the anti-gun left. The NRA is necessary to ensure legal gun owners' rights are safe. Following is a link to the insanity of the left:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13168-illinois-county-official-proposes-%E2%80%9Cviolence-tax%E2%80%9D-on-guns-and-ammo

sockratties

Imagine the chaos if suddenly Arizona stopped registering cars. If all you had to do was plunk down your money and buy a car with no license or registration. Of course you could sell it and use it and if someone stole it good luck finding it. And if someone were in the business of trafficking cars, they’d have free access.

We depend on our cars so a system is in place to make sure they are not easily stolen and if they are, there is a way to trace them because each one has a "Title of Ownership." We're not talking about the license here, just the one-time registration. It doesn’t make car theft impossible but it makes it a lot more difficult. The registration process doesn’t infringe on our right to own a car or a bunch of cars. It just makes it possible to keep track of cars and makes it a lot less convenient to use them in a crime.

Registration of firearms would not infringe on our right to own them or use them. It would make it more difficult to traffic in illegal gun smuggling. We already say a gun buyer has to be of age and not be a felon or mentally impaired. Why not have a system that can identify the owner (responsible party) of a firearm? Why not say that, just like with a car, if a firearm is involved in an incident the legal owner is responsible unless ownership has been transferred to another party?

How would that infringe on anyone’s second amendment rights? It certainly would infringe on the gun trafficking business!

Engaged Voter

Dear mlimberg - regarding your comment:
"You are not a true American unless you own and know how to use a gun."

You are ignorant beyond reason if you truly believe that myopic statement.
It is false - whoever told you that is a liar, and you are a fool for believing it.

And that's an opinion from the owner of muliple firearms.

DonMey

The only way for Mexico to actually get their Cartel problem under control (assuming you're not living with the fantasy that the war on drugs can be won) is for Mexico to finally tell off American politicians and legalize drugs in their country.

Arizonan

It would appear to me that closing the border would accomplish the goal of stopping both illegal alien and firearms from crossing. Please ask yourself why our Federal Government refuses to do this crucial task.

The Second Ammendment says in part "In order to insure a free State". State in this context means our country NOT an individual state. It is in place so that anytime our Govenment opresses the citizens, as England did, we can forcibly stop them if need be. People in our country watch the Government and are concerned therefore arming themselves. The devide and conquor scheme of Dem/Rep, ethnicity, have/have not's etcetera is working well to keep us all from standing together simply as Americans.

Bluepoet

I admire the NRA, for its almost rabid defense of gun ownership rights. I only wish such devotion could be applied to other, arguably more important things, like education, job training, and medicine. Just think, if we had a really great lobby, in Washington D.C., for science, or the arts, or critical thinking, or philosophy, or psychology, or ethics...
-sigh-

But, by all means, lock and load, have a beer, and bet on your favorite gladiator, while pondering what group of people will be the next scapegoats to deflect us from our own hubris...

(We are all such animals, anyhow--why fight it?)

StotheizzE

Just once, wouldn't it be great to have someone who is a strong supporter of gun rights admit that being able to purchase 5-10 semi-automatic weapons at any time is a little too much? We should be able to arm ourselves, but rare is the legitimate situation where you would need more than a couple semi-automatic guns. In a month, let alone 50 in a week like some of these gun-runners are buying here.
And then, if Obama is re-elected, watch how the gun sellers will start with the fear campaign that we had four years ago, claiming "Obama will take your guns now that he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected."
Simply, gun manufacturing and selling (along with the defenders of the industry) is big business and they will do anything they can to make a buck, from selling multiple weapons to anyone at anytime to conjuring up the boogey-man who is hell-bent on taking away everyone's guns.

JNelson

DowntownResident.... "If we close the border, who will cut your grass? Buss your table? Clean up your mess?" Another straw argument. Tell me, who did those jobs BEFORE we suffered the huge influx of illegal aliens into the country? Who had what used to be the good paying jobs in the other labor sectors, like carpentry, plumbing, truck driving....the list is a long one, before the illegals broke down the wage scales and usurped them? I don't know your age but I'm 77 and quite aware that the vast majority of all those jobs once were held by American citizens, and many of them were avidly sought union jobs with very good salaries. Even the low wage entry level jobs in the service industries were once "alien free" and made good work opportunities for young people just entering the work force. Your inference that those jobs would go unfilled if all the illegals disappeared just reflects your lack of knowledge of the past, I'm afraid.

JNelson

Downtownresident.....I can understand the irritation that comes from being asked for money many times during the year, by any organization, but you surely have the option of refusing to advance it, don't you? What is it about the NRA needing funds to keep up its efforts to protect the 2nd Amendment that you object to? Or, is it that you object to anyone, especially an effective NRA, being adamant about holding on to our rights in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment?


From what you posted, it would seem that you wanted the NRA to be just another gun CONTROL organization while it is and always has been just the opposite. I am rather skeptical, given your penchant for preferring infringements on the right to keep and bear arms that you ever were a member of the NRA in the first place....or perhaps you were "misled" somehow when you investigated its aims and goals even though the NRA is absolutely candid, and loudly so, about all that?

JNelson

Sue.....If you want assault weapons, you can't legally purchase them anywhere in the USA, including Arizona, unless you have a special federal license. OH, you mean a SEMI-automatic weapon like the AK-47? That's not an assault weapon, Sue, since it cannot be fired fully automatically. Didn't know that? So much for your expertise, I guess.

Tell us how the firearms laws in Arizona are so much more "lax" than they are anywhere else. While you are at it, tell us how ANY infringing gun control law is allowable under the 2nd Amendment? Since you are an admitted felon, no doubt obeying the actual laws isn't of concern to you, and apparently it isn't of much concern to Mr. McClellan, either.

suej1962

As a past hardcore criminal, I must say that it was pretty easy to get a hold of weapons in AZ. And yes I'm a long time felon... There is NO WAY to stop this people so why try at this point? I was shocked at the laws out here in AZ...your state is nuts really to have such stupid laws regarding weapons. I had an arsenal in no time and I'm a felon. But you know what??? I was standing at the airport today and I watched as the hearse carrying Border Patrol Agent Nick Ivie was there to ship out his body to his family. It really opened my eyes to what a messed up state this is...Sheeze, I could go to an auction in Phoenix right NOW and buy 15 to 20 assault rifles if I want to with NO questions asked. So I ask you Arizona...who is in control here? No one apparently!

Rich

The government fails to regulate the militia, as they are supposed to do. For a well-regulated militia, look at Switzerland. The solution to this is to regulate guns? In this case because Mexicans can buy them? The government fell on it's face when it comes to the militia because they are scared to death of a well organized military force that is not wholly in their control. They decline to teach children to handle guns, decline to teach adults to use them and to mandate practice with then, as the Swiss do, What Mike is really talking about here, and the real problem is the complete failure of the government to regulate the militia well, in fact to regulate it at all. Pancho Villa had a peacemaker he bought in Jerome, AZ, it ain't a new thing.

downtownresident

loose stool,
If we close the border, who will cut your grass? Buss your table? Clean up your mess?
mlimberg,
This sentence is so dumb, "You are not a true American unless you own and know how to use a gun." Is that your only requirement? I know a ton of Mexicans who "own" and know how to use a gun. Does that qualify them for citizenship?

samkat

Mike: I agree that you live in you own little liberal spiced world. The cartels are dealing drugs all over the world and countries like China, Russia and other eastern bloc countries have no scruples as to who they sell their arms to. Money talks and the cartels have plenty. Where do you think they are buying their grenades and full automatic firearms from?

Dream on Mike. I may be a long time disaffected democrat but I vote for the candidate who best serves me and your idol Barack is not that guy. As I stated before, I belong to the NRA out of necessity. That being to protect my gun rights from folks like you.

loose stool

Its a shame writers use the death of a border agent to promote gun control. It seems like it would be in everyones best interest to build the fence and secure the border. Liberals are willing to sacrifice American rights rather than secure the border,Mexico is willing to sacrifice Mexican lives to keep the border open.

unt

As a american and veteran i have a right to own a firearm,for personal and home protection.So the police wont show up later ,to document a crime against me.

Mike McClellan

But of course they don't have to do either, since they have the Gun Superstore that is Arizona just north of them.

Courtesy of the NRA and our NRA-owned legislature

DonMey

I was simply pointing out how ineffectual your argument is; if Cartels can find ways to create a steady supply of a consumable product across the borders of any nation, then just imagine how easy it would be to do with something that can be used any number of times after it is initially smuggled in? And they don't have gun-sniffing dogs at customs to my knowledge. And if they can protect huge fields and create factories for drugs, they can easily make guns.

My point wasn't they are doing these things, my point is your "solution" would do absolutely nothing.

Mike McClellan

Desert Hawk would rather ascribe the worst intentions instead of arguing the issue, so there's not much to say.

Don Mey wants to argue that apparently the guns are coming to Mexico by the boatful from Europe. Or the guns are being manufactured by "gunsmiths" in old Mexico.

Any proof?

Meanwhile, we have article after article showing how Arizona is the WalMart of Guns for the cartels.

One egregious example:

A straw buyer purchasing 6 AK-47's at one time from a Prescott gun store. Then the same guy buys two more AK's in Glendale. Then 7 days later he comes back to the same Glendale store and buys 10 more AK's. Then a month later comes back to the same store and buys another 20. And a month later, another 10.

In three months, he purchased 48 AK-47's from two stores.

Either he has a large family to give those guns as Christmas gifts, or we sure do like to send those guns to Mexico.

Now how was he able to buy so many guns in such a short time? Arizona has no reporting requirements for multiple purchases of long guns.

mlimberg

Wow.. what a leap. Will the Left ever be able to get rid of guns in the world? No.

Do I want to live the only Country without guns? No.

You are not a true American unless you own and know how to use a gun.

The Left thinks they can change the world because they want to...

Mike, you should have stayed in your own little world as a high school teacher.. the real world is just too much for you.

DonMey

"NObody would ever need to buy more than one gun at a time, unless they intended to re-sell them."

Or they wanted to give them as christmas gifts; a collection for the whole family to have. Or they had their guns stolen and need to replace their pistol, shotgun, and rifle. Or they are a collector. Some people invest in guns like some do baseball cards.

DonMey

Because guns are only made in America, and it would be impossible for a boat full of guns bought in Europe to be smuggled into Mexico.

It's also impossible for cartels to use their billions of dollars to hire gunsmiths.

And have you seen all the talk about 3-D printers lately?

But by all means, let's curtail our rights for the citizens...of a different country.

downtownresident

As an X-NRA member, I agree with you 100%. All the NRA ever wanted from me was money. Unfortunately, our politicians are for sale to the highest bidders and that never includes the people who voted for them.
We can't even keep laws on the books that would limit concealed carry, becasue the whackos want to be able to pack heat, even on the capitol floor.
NObody would ever need to buy more than one gun at a time, unless they intended to re-sell them.
I'd be OK with a mandatory 5 day waiting period and a one-gun-per-transaction limit, too. Let's just keep dreaming together.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.