Gun Trafficking and Straw Purchasing

Gun Trafficking and Straw Purchasing

Traffic Jam: Straw Runners' Complicity

Rational choice theory is the theory of criminal behavior that posits that when people commit illicit acts, they generally tend to do so while considering their own self-interest. This theorem posits that criminals are well aware of the illegality of that which they are contemplating, and that they take into account a number of factors before first pursuing these actions. Such factors generally include what sort of benefits they will incur (as well as to what degree they will profit) from criminal behavior, which is typically weighed against the likelihood of their getting caught. Furthermore, this theory contends that people who commit crime also are cognizant of the nature and the degree of the punishment they may induce if they are apprehended for committing a crime. In view of all of these factors, when people decide to still commit a crime anyway because they believe there is more of a chance for them to gain from rather than suffer from an act, it is typically an example of rational choice theory.

There is a copious body of evidence that indicates that many of the people involved in the illegal straw running and trafficking of firearms into Mexico and other regions do so while justifying their behavior by rational choice theory. What is most interesting about this theory and the level of involvement of complicit behavior is that it may be found at several levels of criminality, and not just merely that which involves the individuals who are caught and convicted of buying and supplying firearms to Mexico. There are numerous instances of media examples in which fire arms dealers, law enforcement personnel, and even lobbyist and legislation itself may be culpable for the proliferation of guns into Mexico that stem from the United States.

At the primary level of this theory's application to this particular criminal activity -- that of the transportation of guns to cartels and individuals in Mexico -- there are straw runners, who are frequently United States residents who are attempting to procure financial prosperity by their participation in this crime. In Ororwitz and Grimaldi's article in the Washington Post, a young man by the name of Ramos was able to organize a network in which he and nine of his friends were able to purchase 112 firearms, the value of which exceeded $100,000, which they were then able to transport into Mexico. It can easily be seen how rational choice theory could apply to this particular case. The amount of money involved can be considered substantial -- particularly if Ramos was able to finance the procuring of over $100,000 of hardware, it can largely be inferred that he was not doing so for free. Furthermore, it should be noted that Ramos is relatively young at just 22 years of age at the time of the article's publication. Whatever funds he was earning from his criminal activity more than likely would surpass employment at a lot of legal occupations, which may still include menial positions in the restaurant business or some other similar position. After being caught the young man was sentenced to only four and a half years in prison -- with good behavior it is quite probable that he could be released in as little as three-year's time. When comparing that rather insignificant amount of jail time with whatever funds he was able to earn, and possibly continue to earn by engaging in the same trade once he gets out of prison, it becomes fairly understandable how Ramos could rationalize his involvement in this particular crime.

Furthermore, the pecuniary incentives for the dealers of gun stores to either sell to straw runners or even make legal sales that eventually end up used in Mexican acts of violence is decidedly rational as well. One of the most notorious gun dealers with a reputation for selling to straw runners and to those who transport illegal weapons across the border is known as Carter's Country. This gun dealer's history with straw running is fairly tangible, accusations from a former employee that the company sold to straw runners was settled out of court. A man who killed a police officer in Houston, which is the top lace for straw runners to purchase fire arms in the country, claims his wife purchased the gun for him. His wife made a rather salient point when she spoke to reporters and stated that the personnel at the company knew the gun was not for her, but was for a criminal purpose and that it decided to sell the weapon, much like most other gun dealers, for the simple fact that they would financially benefit from it. This sentiment was echoed by a dealer known as Iknadosian, who may have stated the typical explanation that indicates rational choice theory applies to a crime, when he stated that so long as the paperwork for a weapon checks out with a customer, that he does not care what they do with it, even if they commit a crime. The advantages of what is in fact not legal, selling to a straw runner, rationalizes the committing of a crime.

What is particularly interesting about Iknadosian's case is the fact that he was really able to justify the rational choice theory that is so pervasive in the illegal gun trafficking trade due to the fact that he was actually brought up on charges of selling to straw runners and had his case dismissed by a judge before it even went to a jury to deliberate. The notion that enabled him to rationalize selling guns to people who would commit crimes with them was largely fueled by a system of legislation, largely powered by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun lobbyists, that permits gun dealers to sell firearms, even if they are used for criminal acts. So the same criminal justice system that denotes the complicity of Ramos may also be justified in implying the complicity of gun dealers like Iknadosian, as well as criminal justice representatives such as Arizona state judge Robert Gottsfield, who overlooked a plethora of evidence including wiretaps, informants, as well as sales to undercover federal agents posing as straw runners before dismissing the criminal charges brought against Iknadosian. Whether or not the judge was bowing to political pressure from lobbyists and congressional might (in whose best interest it is to propagate the sales of guns, therefore contextualizing their involvement in gun trafficking under the rational choice theory by allowing them to make money), he was able to do while stating that there was a considerable amount of evidence, and that there was also a problem with guns being trafficked in to Mexico. Yet the likelihood of his direct involvement in the violence taking place in Mexico and in other regions due to illegally trafficked guns is small, while the gain for political favors and lobbyists may be all the more tangible, to rationalize his decision to allow Iknadosian to walk free.