The Barrett 82 A1, made in Tennessee, is a formidable weapon if you are an Army sniper, a Navy Seal, or a hit man. Nearly five feet in length, this baby is deadly accurate to 3000 feet and has a total range of 1.2 miles.

     Say the guy you are shooting at has ducked behind a concrete wall? No problem - the Barrett 82 A1 goes right through most commercial brick walls and concrete blocks. In fact, it is particularly effective against “get away” vehicles – just put one round in the engine block and that car will stop.

Of course, I’m aghast that this level of fire power can be sold to any non-military or law enforcement personnel. But it can – in fact, most honest citizens can buy it over the internet. God forbid that you should try to order up a hooker over the net- they’ll put you in jail for that but the Barrett 82 A1 is fine for internet purchase.

      This is the story of a Barrett 82 A1 that was sold over the internet to a “gun hobbyist” named John Shipley. Gun trafficking –i.e. buying for resale rather than personal use - , of course, is illegal in our country (one of the few gun control laws left) but what about resales by gun hobbyists?

        Mr. Shipley bought the Barrett 82 A1 for his collection and about two week later sold it to the custody officer at the El Paso jail. Being a jailer, this guy knew lots of people who needed guns and he quickly resold it to a Mexican who just happened to be looking for a Barrett 82 A1, and eventually the gun ended up in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel.

        The Mexican Army engaged in a fierce gun battle with the cartel members and found the Barrett 82 A1. The gun was traced back to Mr. Shipley in El Paso. The feds indicted him for gun trafficking.

       “Hey, I’m just an innocent gun hobbyist,” said Mr. Shipley. “Resales by gun hobbyist are legal.”

       A jury disagreed and found him guilty of trafficking. He was sentenced to two years.

         “We will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court,” said his attorney. One unexpected problem though – the court clerk lost the files containing Shipley’s testimony.  Darn- don’t you just hate it when that happens. Shipley can start serving his sentence until they figure out what to do about the lost testimony. He won’t be selling any guns in the meantime.

While justice was served this time, obviously we need better laws to prevent the “gun hobbyist” defense, right? Can anyone here honestly argue that gun hobbyists should be able to resell their collection without restriction?

    “We don’t need any new laws impacting on the constitutional rights of gun hobbyists,” said Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. Okay- that’s one vote against?

      Anyone else?

If someone sells more than 3 used cars in a year,in most states a dealers license is required, regardless of profit.
California residents must have a license if they sell one used car, and make a profit.


All gun sales "should" be done through licensed dealers, not gun hobbyists.

and quotes Shipley's own testimony. Presumably the seller was a licensed dealer.

"He bought the rifle in August 2007—for personal use, he said—paying $8,500 to a Missouri dealer over the Internet,"

    But, even if the WSJ  is wrong on this, the point of my post is that private sales from personal gun collections need restrictions to avoid obvious trafficking as happened in this case.

that anyone can buy a firearm over the internet without having the BATFE/FBI/local police background checks completed. I've purchased a few rifles by phone, but they were shipped to a gun dealer, not me. Then, when I went to pick them up, I had to endure the background checks before the dealer would even let me touch the rifles.

Ever heard of "Mitchell's Mausers", http://www.mauser.org? They're in California.

Perhaps the man in question was part of "Operation Fast and Furious", and got his fingers burned.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/.../2011-04-15-arizona-gun-ATF-border.htm
 

-- Modified on 5/21/2011 7:37:25 PM

-- Modified on 5/21/2011 7:42:13 PM

but only shipped to someone with a federal firearm license. If this is correct, a dealer can certainly sell over the internet to a buyer but the can only ship to the license holder who presumably would do the background check.

       The buyer would then pick up the gun from the local dealer. Sounds like that is what you did. Check out Gunbroker.com which says you can buy guns online without leaving your home.

This guy was a regular collector and an FBI agent so no question the background check had been done on him.

     I'll defer to the Board gun nuts - I'm sorry gun experts - on this part but again my post is about the lack of restrictions on hobbyists who resale from their collection.

      But I do think the part of my post that laments the internet sale without mentioning what you and Makwa have pointed out is misleading.





-- Modified on 5/21/2011 7:47:10 PM

-- Modified on 5/21/2011 7:56:39 PM

I too am against more laws re more gun control. Does that answer your immediate question?

Once a gun is sold from a private collection, then whoever has it next is the owner. The jurors were wrong.

I agree that the gun you speak about is horrific as one for a private owner, but as always - it's the shooter at fault, not the gun itself.

I look at gun "control" laws as a way for other people to place blame instead of allowing the murder laws to place responsibility where it belongs.

So, mari, will you ask for laws for more control over knives (kitchen, too), scarves and neckties, and pantyhose? Those have all been used to murder, too. And how about the statuettes that many people have on their dressers or mantels. Let's not forget laptops, books and high-heeled shoes. All these have been used to kill someone.

I got your point and I disagree with it. My point is that people kill, regardless what's at hand. We as a species have been killing for centuries, long before guns were ever invented.

Hell, our governments have bombs that kill LOTS of people all at the same time!

So, no, MORE laws won't help a single person.

All new gun sales must be done through a licensed dealer in person, and must pass the ATF background check.  Plus any state requirements that may apply.  
The other legal way to buy a gun is a private sale from someones personal collection.  
But you can't order one over the internet in the US.

is ready for marketing, I'm going to make you the first customer. Every collector should have one.

    As you say, people kill, not guns so we certainly don't need laws prohibiting the sale of the Marikod "personal atomic bomb." We might as well outlaw knives, scarves, neckties, pantyhose (pantyhose? who was killed by pantyhose?).

    But this next point is a little touchy, Jolene. Would you mind paying in advance? It's not that I don't trust you but I fear you will not be in condition to pay me if the "personal atomic bomb" I'm sending you goes off.

   Or if I sell one to your next door neighbor and he uses it. Kind of like standing in the kitchen in your house when someone shoots a Barrett 82 A 1 at someone else a mile away but it kills him and goes thru your house and kills you as well.

    Please make the check payable to Marikod, Inc. And I do accept tips.

my post in my response to Jersey and Makwa.

      But I quarrel a little bit with the way you characterize it - if I understood what I read last night, you can "buy" the gun over the internet from the seller but the seller cannot legally ship it to you but only to the licensed dealer who then does the background check forms etc- presumably the dealer charges you a fee for that.

   So I think that is what the WSJ was describing when they quoted Shipley saying he bought the gun over the internet. Unaware of the sale/shipping distinction, I bungled that part in my OP.

     But again the point of the post is that should resale of  weapons of this level of lethality - it will shoot thru a concrete block - by a purported hobbyists be allowed without the strictest regulation if at all?

     Do you honestly support private sales or gifts of such firepower?

you are wrong about HAVING to be shipped FROM an FFL TO an FFL.

A weapon bought over the internet, as from GunBroker, can be shipped from an individual, but MUST be sent to an FFL, as long as the FFL will accept a shipment from an individual, some won't.

I have both bought, and sold, weapons via GunBroker. Both from dealers and individuals. All have been transferred through FFL dealers, as required.

FedEx will ship a weapon from an individual, but ONLY to an FFL .

At that point it is the FFL's responsibility to follow Federal law and do the background check prior to transfer.

The idea that a person legally buys a Barrett then sells it 2 weeks later as a private sale does NOT constitute "trafficing. Yes, it raises questions, but it not illegal.
The Mexican jail worker who he sold it to is the one who should be investigated.

Gun Broker web site - the seller does not have to have a FFL but the
gun must be shipped to an FFL only.

    John is somewhat of an expert in this area so since I have not read the regs myself I was not going to challenge him on this point.

    As to the jailer who sold the gun to the next buyer, he pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and served a year in prison.

      You are correct as to a bona fide private resale of a legally bought gun but here the jury found that Shipley was really trafficking. One key piece of evidence -the jailer gave Shipley a check and expressed interest in the Barrett BEFORE Shipley legally bought it.

addresses the consequences of the rationale you used for your opinion.

         The cliche that "guns don't kill people, people do" is accurate but, when we are talking public policy on gun control, a policy maker has to address the unintended consequences of firearm use. Unintended injury to third parties is always my primary concern from our liberal gun use laws.


     And I did understand your point that the Barrett should not be in a personal collection but how do we prevent this without changing the law?

     So I'm not trying to poke fun at you or change your opinion, Jolene - but I am using sarcasm to spur you to advance a better rationale, if you can, that covers the unintended consequences of firearm use which multiply in proportion to the lethality of the gun at issue.

" Mr. Shipley bought the Barrett 82 A1 for his collection and about two week later sold it to the custody officer at the El Paso jail. Being a jailer, this guy knew lots of people who needed guns and he quickly resold it to a Mexican who just happened to be looking for a Barrett 82 A1, and eventually the gun ended up in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel.""

This is a key point here, while the original purchacer might not have been held acountable for the guns final owner, the "Jailer",  "Custody Officer" should have been, if there was a clear transfer of ownership.

I belive that if people want to own fire arms it should be thier right, however they also must accept resposibility for that fire arm and all rounds discharged from it, until there is a clear, legal transfer of ownership.

however, I think the crux of this story is the ability of the "face to face sale".

If I choose to sell one of my guns to someone, I can just hand it over in a "private, face to face" sale and no one is the wiser. No paperwork, no checking, no FFL filter is required, at least here in Fla.

THAT is a BIG problem that I don't know how to get around.

I never have, nor would, sell a gun without proper documentation. That includes a bill of sale with model #, serial #, D/L of buyer and seller, signed by both. Even then, you really don't know "who" you are delivering that weapon to, even if you know the person.

I am not for gun control, but, this is an area that is open for major abuses.

Unless you have a special license where you have been checked out six ways past your asshole by the BATF, you can NOT *legally* buy a gun* "over the Internet."

When you "buy" a gun over the Internet, it has to be shipped FROM an FFL holder TO an FFL holder. Period. No exceptions.

Then, before the dealer can pass it to you, you MUST fill out the federally mandated form AND the dealer has to call in the criminal background check. No federal form or no background check? No gun!

Look -- you don't have to believe me. You can believe the dimwits at the WSJ instead.

But here is a challenge for you.

Go to the JGSales -- a company that the WSJ would portray as "selling guns over the Internet" -- and order a gun to be sent to your house. See what happens.

At BEST you will get a phone call, they will read you the riot act, and you will get no gun. They will explain that you have to have it shipped to a licensed dealer so your background can be checked before conveyance.

At WORST, if they think you are trying to subvert federal law, they will call the FBI and you will be charged with myriad crimes.

Look, I realize that with the literally 10's of thousands of gun laws we have on the books, people can get confused over what is or isn't allowed. But what the WSJ is describing has been illegal since before there was an Internet.

Now -- once you own the gun, it CAN be transferred to another individual as a private sale or even as a gift. But that is an entirely different issue. Either way, for that gun to get into private hands in the first place, you can't order it over the Internet and have it shipped to your door.



*An exception is made for muzzle loaders, flint locks and other archaic devices. But certainly you can't buy a Barrett 82A1

Concrete block has a hollow core and most any high powered rifle will put a hole in one.
Some handguns with the right ammo can do the same thing.
Hollywood makes it look like concrete is bullet proof, but that is not the truth.

I didn't recognize the model when I first read your post, but after a google search I see that the Model 82 is was cambered in .32 ACP.  
.32 ACP is a very lite load made for personal protection.  It's not likely to go through concrete with enough force to be lethal to anything behind it.

In the modern era, we have managed to separate the idea of "ownership" from the idea of "control."  (For example, I own stock in corporations over which I exercise zero control.)

But in general, if I own something -- that means I control it and can dispose of it any way I wish. (Within reason. I can't "dispose" of my anvil by dropping it on someone's head!  lol) I can even transfer ownership to someone else either as a gift or for a price.

Of course, there are exceptions. Some items come encumbered with a variety of rules as a condition of ownership. For example, I might not be allowed to paint my house a certain color, or if I add an electrical outlet it must be done a certain way.

But even at that, there is no restriction on to whom I might transfer the item or for what price.

I think you have two questions here. The one pertains to the particular potency of the 82A1, and if its potency makes it something that should be regulated differently from other rifles. But the underlying question is: "Should the government be able to tell you whether you can dispose of property that you own at all, or if so, to whom it may be disposed."

There is that general question about government power; and then the more specific question about the 82A1 that accepts as a premise the affirmative answer to that question.

We have long accepted that for reasons of safety it is reasonable for government to restrict to whom ownership of certain items may be transfered or under what conditions. There are the extreme cases of nuclear materials, for example; and maybe the less extreme example of having to show ID and have your name recorded in order to but Sudafed because it can be used as a precursor in meth manufacture. The same applies to certain radio equipment, etc. (For example, it is legal for me to make certain amplifiers because I have a special license; but if you were to make them it would be a felony. If I were to sell you one, I'd be in deep poop.)

So as we have accepted that government DOES have the power to regulate to whom certain items can be transferred and under what conditions; it is at least reasonable to consider whether or not the 82A1 is sufficiently dangerous compared to other rifles that it should be subject to other regulations. Obviously, somewhere between a BB gun and a nuclear bomb, there is a line where higher levels of regulation need to kick in because the potential damage so far outweighs any potential benefit that there is a compelling public safety requirement.

All firearms have the potential to be dangerous and to be misused or abused in a fashion that could lead to the loss of innocent life.  It could be a .22 pocket pistol or a 20mm Solothurn.

But firearms are all equipped with trade-offs. While a .22 pocket pistol could be lethal, it isn't something that can be used effectively to perform an assassination at 100 yards. It would have to be used up close and personal, exposing the wielder to risk. On the other hand, a 20mm Solothurn is even more powerful than the 82A1 but it is huge, heavy, portable only with extreme difficulty, impossible to conceal in ordinary environments, etc. So it isn't practical for use outside of special ranges.

The 82A1 fits in between these categories.

50 cal rifles kick like mules. I mean they REALLY kick. They are only practical to use when either mounted on something large, or used from a prone position using additional accessories.

This rifle is 5 feet long, requires optics costing $thousands$ to handle the recoil, and it weighs 30 lbs unloaded. 50 BMG ammo is huge and heavy. 100 rounds weighs 35 lbs.

This rifle cannot be fired from the shoulder, and can only be fired practically from a prone position. It is so large and unwieldy, that using it requires substantial "setup." It might be good for sniping in an environment where the sniper has helpers (e.g. a military situation) or it might be fun on a specialized range (where all the variables can be controlled); but this is NOT the kind of weapon that is practical to deploy spur of the moment to kill a romantic rival or cancel a gambling debt.

It is my belief that its potential lethality is counterbalanced by its cost and difficulty in concealment as well as the special setup necessary to make it work; and that therefore no special regulations should be required.

In practice, the standard deer hunting rifle is far more dangerous. The standard deer hunting cartridge (for example, .308 or many of the .30 cal magnums) is lethal out to 1000 yards or more. It is packaged in lightweight highly precision rifles with high accuracy that can be completely equipped with adequate optics and more for under the cost of just the scope for the 82A1.

It reminds me of the time I challenged a high school punk with a fast car to a 50-yard race -- him in his car, and me on foot. Obviously, the car was more powerful; but for practical use in a short distance, my feet were far more dangerous.

So, no, I don't think special regulations are needed.

If I had to shoot someone from a distance in a non-warzone environment -- and I wanted to actually live myself and maybe not get caught -- I'd use a regular deer rifle -- not that monstrous and highly expensive 82A1.

What you're poking fun about doesn't negate what I said.

Tip? You accept tips? Then here's one for you: You aren't going to change my mind with your wit - or your attempts at terror. Won't work. Never has. Never will.

BTW, you apparently missed my point when I said I agree that the Barrett shouldn't be in anyone's personal collection.

-- Modified on 5/22/2011 7:31:29 AM

That IS true -- an individual can send a gun TO an FFL.

But the key point is that anything purchased over the Internet gets filtered through an FFL before it gets to an individual.

And I agree -- holding the seller responsible is about as crazy as holding Chevy responsible if I run over a kid with my extra-super-huge-monster-truck with the loud 300 hp engine. The fact it is a big truck is irrelevant. The behavior is mine, the crime is mine. Chevy is not implicated as selling me the truck was legal.

Like you, when I have sold my personal firearms in a face-to-face sale, I have done it with proper documentation and then some.

My concern, of course, is that a firearm that is known to have been owned by me, and for which there is no official record of transfer, be used in a crime.

So on those rare occasions, I not only record identity information of the purchaser that the purchaser signs, but have refused to sell to anyone who doesn't have a license to carry.

In every jurisdiction, a license to carry requires a criminal background check. That isn't a promise for future good behavior, but at least it assures me I'm not selling anything dangerous to someone who is already a criminal.

Even so, I am quite certain that private face-to-face sales DO put guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

The question is: would regulating or prohibiting it be worth the pretty substantial infringement? For example, I have given guns as gifts. It isn't much of a surprise if it has been filtered through a dealer beforehand, ya know?

I might consider requiring filtering through an FFL anyway for all private sales; but only if the FFLs are required to perform that task sans fee from those involved in the transaction. But that gets messy due to sales tax issues etc.

and to penetrate commercial brick walls and concrete blocks.

From WiKipedia


The M82A1 is known by the US military as the SASR—"Special Applications Scoped Rifle", and it was and still is used as an anti-matériel weapon and explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) tool. The long effective range, over 1,800 metres (5,900 ft) (1.1 miles), along with high energy and availability of highly effective ammunition such as API and Raufoss Mk 211, allows for effective operations against targets like radar cabins, trucks, parked aircraft. and the like. The M82 can also be used to defeat human targets from standoff range or against targets behind cover. However, anti-personnel use is not a major application for the M82 (or any other .50 BMG rifle, for that matter). There is a widespread misconception that a number of treaties have banned use of the .50 BMG against human targets, and recruits have been advised by generations of drill instructors to only aim a .50 BMG at an enemy soldier's web gear or other equipment worn on his body.[citation needed] However, the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's office has issued a legal opinion that the .50 BMG and even the Raufoss Mk 211 round are legal for use against enemy personnel.[citation needed]

the United States Coast Guard Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron uses a version of the Barrett M82 to disable the engines of go-fast boats carrying illegal drugs. Similarly, Barrett M82 rifles have attracted attention from law enforcement agencies; they have been adopted by the New York City Police Department. If it becomes necessary to immobilize a vehicle, a .50 BMG round in the engine block will shut it down quickly. If it is necessary to breach barriers, a .50 BMG round will penetrate most commercial brick walls and concrete blocks.

"unintended consequence" of everything I did during a day, I'd have to hide in a closet in hopes of not hurting anyone's feelings. I'd have to give up my keys to my truck so that I don't accidentally hit someone while driving - and then possibly, unintentionally, hit someone else while unconscious. I'd have to refrain from riding the bus so that I don't upset those who use a bicycle.

See where I'm going, mari?

EVERYTHING has "unintended consequences." I don't worry about them.  

My rationale is just fine. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean I need to "advance to a better one." To me, what you're spouting is akin to the political correctness that says that my brothers' and sisters' lives and needs are more important than my own. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in worrying about "unintended" consequences.

Meh... we're not going to agree, but at least we both know where the other stands.

criminal trafficking and use of firearms. Laws never stop criminal activity. Everyone should be able to defend themselves no matter what their legal status is and if it takes a 82 a1 to accomplish that task then so be it.

My mistake.  I confused "Beretta" the Italian firearms manufacturer with "Barrett".

point that this miniature cannon may be impractical to use by the bad guys.

I mean jesus, this sucker shoots a 50 BMG. Not too many people can afford the freaking ammo for this thing.

I bigger issue with firearm trafficking in Mexico is the HK 5.7.

now?

No, I imagine not, but gun control isn't going to make the Mexican drug cartels go away. Legalization, however, will.

Regardless, why in the hell would a drug cartel want a freaking mini-cannon like a Barret 82? Are they going to be sniping the Mexican police that they'd rather bribe? Are they going to set up an AR-50 in the hills while they transport their shit to the loading dock?

Mari, different weapons have different purposes. You wouldn't bring a tank with you going hunting, and you wouldn't lug a mini-cannon while you're trying to quickly ship drugs. And no, you're not going to see this weapon on the streets of America.

of the Mexico drug cartel when it was found.

     And the drug guys were shot NOT by the corrupt police but the Mexican Army. So absolutely they need greater firepower as the army attacks with armored vehIcles etc.

      In fact, it was the Mexican Army that raised the biggest complaint to the ATF. I'm sure they were appalled to see this kind of firepower.

       Do you really think we would have seen these prosecutions if this had been a standard rifle?  So it is a huge problem if the drug cartel can continue to acquire weapons like this from guys who can buy legally for their "collection."