SirMatthew Posted March 19, 2009 at 04:24 PM Share Posted March 19, 2009 at 04:24 PM http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Charges-agai...f-14689976.html Charges against Ariz. gun seller thrown outJudge dismisses case against Ariz. gun dealer accused of supplying Mexican gangs with weapons Thursday March 19, 2009, 11:15 am EDT Buzz up! Print PHOENIX (AP) -- An Arizona judge has dismissed criminal charges against a Phoenix gun shop owner accused of supplying firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield ruled Wednesday that the prosecution's evidence against George Iknadosian wasn't sufficient to support conviction. The 47-year-old Iknadosian was accused of selling more than 700 "weapons of choice" to straw buyers, knowing that the firearms like A-K 47s were bought on behalf of Mexican narcotics syndicates. He was charged with fraud, money-laundering and other offenses. Gottsfield ruled that all of the gun purchases were conducted legally, even if weapons ended up with the cartels. The state Attorney General's Office says it plans to appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted March 19, 2009 at 05:59 PM Share Posted March 19, 2009 at 05:59 PM The 47-year-old Iknadosian was accused of selling more than 700 "weapons of choice" to straw buyers, knowing that the firearms like A-K 47s were bought on behalf of Mexican narcotics syndicates. He was charged with fraud, money-laundering and other offenses. Gottsfield ruled that all of the gun purchases were conducted legally, even if weapons ended up with the cartels. Yeah Good to see a few states haven't lost their marbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted March 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 12:11 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherryriver Posted March 20, 2009 at 01:29 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 01:29 PM One odd note about this one is that it was brought by the State of Arizona, and not the US Justice Department, which you would usually expect.The first thing one might think is that the evidence was too thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banddr2 Posted March 20, 2009 at 02:48 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 02:48 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. I am also with you on this Kenny. And even more so, they should be able to trace the guns to each purchaser and prosecute them since the committed the actual crime. I can see how it would be hard to prosecute the dealer on trying to prove what he was thinking. I believe this whole episode was an anti-dealer move from the Fed, as I am sure they would love to find a way to begin eliminating us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:32 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:32 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. While I can understand the moral reasoning and potential guilt resulting from said type of sale. What ever happened to "Guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people."? You're not responsible for the actions of anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:56 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:56 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. While I can understand the moral reasoning and potential guilt resulting from said type of sale. What ever happened to "Guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people."? You're not responsible for the actions of anyone else. That is where morals come into play If I know that someone is going to use it to kill another person and I sell it to them I would feel responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:58 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 03:58 PM While I can understand the moral reasoning and potential guilt resulting from said type of sale. What ever happened to "Guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people."? You're not responsible for the actions of anyone else. There's the rub. If the retailer "Knew" during or before the sale that the gun or guns were to be used by criminals...... IF the retailer didn't know that Joe Schmuckatelli was buying the gun and then intending to give or sell it to someone that didn't qualify for it, then the retailer is blameless. The old saying "But you should have known!!!" has NO legal, moral or ethical standing in any arguement. The last time I looked, the only person that could have looked into another man's heart or mind died about 2000 years ago. We're all mortals, not angels or God-like titans. That said, then the other side of the coin holds true also. IF the retailer DID know ahead of time that he was selling or supplying guns to criminals or to those with evil intent,AND IT'S PROVEN, then I'm all for holding a public flogging and then let the flys dine on the hanging corpse. Yep, just a ray of sunshine, thats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Watts Posted March 20, 2009 at 04:35 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 04:35 PM I guess I'm way out on the fringe. I don't believe you should have to so much as show an I.D. to buy a firearm. (Unless you're using a credit card). If any gov't entity can purchase a fire arm, I should be able to purchase the same thing without question or suspicion. According to the Constitution, fire arms are treated the same as books, or speech. If a crime is commited with a fire arm, punish the criminal, not the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted March 20, 2009 at 05:41 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 05:41 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. While I can understand the moral reasoning and potential guilt resulting from said type of sale. What ever happened to "Guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people."? You're not responsible for the actions of anyone else. That is where morals come into play If I know that someone is going to use it to kill another person and I sell it to them I would feel responsible. Don't change Kenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted March 20, 2009 at 05:50 PM Share Posted March 20, 2009 at 05:50 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. While I can understand the moral reasoning and potential guilt resulting from said type of sale. What ever happened to "Guns don't kill people, apes with guns kill people."? You're not responsible for the actions of anyone else. That is where morals come into play If I know that someone is going to use it to kill another person and I sell it to them I would feel responsible. I understand why you would feel responsible. Guilt is to be expected. Morally I'd say it's a gray area. I just don't like it when "morals" are forced upon others, particularly in the form of laws. Whether it's illegal or not, no one should ever be held legally responsible for the actions of another. That "Straw Buyer" law never should have been made in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moparcardave Posted March 21, 2009 at 03:36 AM Share Posted March 21, 2009 at 03:36 AM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. No flak from me Kenny. When I had a shop here in Rockford in my home years ago, I on occasion would have someone wanting to buy and they just didn't look right. It happned maybe 10 times where it was someone from south of the border (accent, looks) ok call it profileing, it's leagal in my own home They always wanted a 9mm duh it's Mexico. What I did was say,well this one is not forsale, I can order one for you. I would prefer cash, and we can do the paperwork. In almost every case, they were like well what do you mean paperwork? Yeah right.. they were looking for someone that would bend the rules for them. As a FFL holder you can't bend the rules on nothing, not even for yourself. No Kenny, no fack from me, honor and intergrity are worth way more then any amount of "stimulis" Obama cold hand me. Darn have a wedding sat or would head out to give you a hand on the range. my old stomping grounds out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossua Posted March 21, 2009 at 09:57 AM Share Posted March 21, 2009 at 09:57 AM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night.Kind of what I was thinking. Oh well, I knew some dealers had to be contributing to this. People willing to arm these ******** should be hanged in public. That being said, I think the Drug War is the biggest contributor to Mexico's problems. It's probably too late for ending it to make any difference. Of course, ending it could lessen the threat of future narco-terrorist scum. Let's not forget the only difference between our corrupt government and Mexico's corrupt government is that our corrupt government has arguably the most powerful fighting force in the history of the world at its disposal. "Might Makes Right" is alive and well in the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryr8828 Posted March 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM Share Posted March 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM How is the dealer supposed to know? I thought the straw purchaser would be the one creating the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted March 21, 2009 at 01:52 PM Share Posted March 21, 2009 at 01:52 PM If he was knowingly selling them like that he should be prosecuted. I may catch some heck for this one but this is where morals come into play. I would never sell a gun to someone that tells me they want it to kill their wife. It would be morally wrong and I would not do it. Same goes for selling guns to supply a drug cartel it is morally wrong and if he was knowingly doing it he should be put away & at least take his license. If it were able to be proven. I have a hard time believing if there were really 700 guns traced back to him that they were all innocent mistakes. Flame away but I don't care because I have big shoulders and I am always right. I sleep good at night. Would you sell weapons to the U.S. Government on a government purchase order, knowing the weapons were going to be used in an operation somewhere in violation of U.S. Law? In a riot would you transfer firearms to outgunned police officers in violation of federal and state law? In both cases a crime takes place. In the first instance the sale is lawful but the end use is not. In the second case the transfer is unlawful but the use is not. Sometimes the results are bad but I agree with the Judge. If the sale is lawful knowledge by the seller how the gun may or may not be used is irrelevant in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.