Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders

New details about the case of Richard Schmidt, the owner of a sporting goods store in Bowling Green, Ohio, dramatically highlight what law enforcement officials say are major loopholes in the nation’s gun laws. Schmidt, 47, is a convicted felon who spent 13 years in Ohio state prison for a homicide after being convicted of killing a man and wounding two others in a shooting during a traffic stop, according to state prison records. Under federal law, Schmidt, who was released on parole in 2003, is barred from possessing any firearms.

Yet when FBI agents last December searched his home and store, they discovered a cache of 18 weapons that included AR-15 assault rifles, 9 mm Ruger and Sig Sauer pistols, shotguns, high-capacity magazines and more than 40,000 rounds of ammunition. Schmidt was originally reported to have been arrested on charges of trafficking in counterfeit goods, but was indicted last month on four federal charges —including possessing illegal weapons, body armor and ammunition. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
....

Dettelbach, who is overseeing the case, said that federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons, prompting officials to conclude he likely acquired them at gun shows or through private sales -- where under federal law no background checks are required.

The investigation into Schmidt was conducted by a FBI Joint terrorism Task Force whose agents said they discovered he was tracking African American and Jewish leaders in the Detroit area. When agents conducted their search, they said they found evidence suggesting Schmidt harbored neo-Nazi sympathies, including a video of the 2005 national meeting of the National Socialist Movement — in which speakers wore black swastika arm bands and gave the Nazi “Sieg Heil” salute. “This is a war! This is a battle for our survival!” one speaker shouts on a video of the meeting obtained by NBC News. Other seized items, according to federal search warrants, included a list of national Jewish-owned businesses and paraphernalia from the “Waffen SS,” Adolph Hitler’s military force in Germany.
....

Federal law does not require such checks for private sales or gun show purchases. Seventeen states have mandated them for handgun purchases at gun shows, though Ohio is not among them. Only six states require background checks for all firearms purchases.

A new study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found that 80 percent of those convicted of gun crimes acquire their weapons through private sales – making it virtually impossible for federal agents to trace where they come from or who is providing them.

Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders [nbcnews.com]



80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Mods, if appropriate, please move to mega-thread.

• In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%

Less than 2% of inmates reported carrying a fully automatic or military-style semiautomatic firearm

n 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current offense bought or traded for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show (table 8). Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon from family or friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street, or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft.

Between the two surveys the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was enacted. The act requires background checks for persons purchasing firearms from
federally licensed firearm dealers. Changes in how inmates obtained firearms, when the two surveys are compared, may or may not reflect the requirements in the Brady Act. Inmates may have procured their firearm or entered prison before the Brady Act became effective in 1994.

Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%

A new study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found that 80 percent of those convicted of gun crimes acquire their weapons through private sales – making it virtually impossible for federal agents to trace where they come from or who is providing them.



80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Please help me understand this. If those 80% are through private sales, how is UBC suppose to help?

Are the idiots still arguing the feds should regulate intrastate commerce?

There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

I'm not at all concerned with the bolded part above. When the majority of the weapons in the OP are obtained from private sale by convicted criminals, can you honestly tell me that you think a background check/title transfer would be enforced by the private seller?

It'd be likely if that seller were held liable if the gun was used in a crime.

It'd be likely if that seller were held liable if the gun was used in a crime.

There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%

So the sellers that convicted gun criminals are purchasing from are going to follow the title/background check process, i.e be selling guns actually tied to a title? How do you expect to enforce this?

Federal law does not require such checks for private sales or gun show purchases. Seventeen states have mandated them for handgun purchases at gun shows, though Ohio is not among them. Only six states require background checks for all firearms purchases.