BATFE Gun Trace Data

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/gun_24863___article.html/drug_firearms.html

Quote

Dodging a bullet
Gun-tracking data open to law enforcement

Have you ever heard the same joke told by different people and gotten a good belly laugh at one version while the other barely coaxed a a chuckle? We feel that way sometimes when we read news stories from different sources. On Thursday, a report out of Washington, D.C., told of a victory by the nasty old National Rifle Association that handcuffs police in their efforts to trace firearms used in crimes.

According to The Associated Press, the House Appropriations Committee killed two amendments to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that would have opened up data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives firearms traces to local police agencies. Gun-control advocates argued that current language, called the Tiahrt Amendment after sponsor Rep. Ted Tiahrt, R-Kan., restricted police access to the traces that local authorities needed to detect patterns of illegal gun purchases and the flow of guns from dealers to the streets. They say such access is necessary to shut down illegal gun sales operations.

Gun-rights advocates contended that allowing such access could put undercover officers in danger of exposure. They also held that gun controllers wanted to scuttle the Tiahrt Amendment, which has been public policy since 2003, to obtain information to support lawsuits against firearms dealers accused of providing guns to criminals.

A quick check of the NRA Web site, admittedly a player with an agenda, tells a different story. For one thing, it provides more information about the two amendments the committee killed. The first would have done away with the Tiahrt language altogether and made BATFE data public record for anyone to see. The second, a so-called compromise, would have allowed access to the data to anyone who filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the feds. The NRA also points out that many police agencies support the Tiahrt language as a way of protecting officers. Those agencies don’t seem to believe opening the database is a good idea.

We’re usually avid backers of measures designed to let the people know what government is doing on their behalf. But the benefit of openness must be weighed against the possible risks they might entail. Governments often stymie efforts to make records public, usually using this or similar arguments to defend the position. In those cases, courts usually have to decide the issue by considering if disclosure is worth putting police officers in danger or risking compromising investigations that could keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

And it isn’t as though local law enforcement agencies don’t have access to the database to track firearms. Current law gives them the access they need to be able to link firearms used in different crimes, so the gun-controllers’ claim that the amendment cripples that ability doesn’t hold water.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is one of the foremost proponents of opening the database to all comers. He wants his city to be able to use the information in its lawsuit against the gun industry and to allow city police to act against out-oftown gun dealers the city believes are responsible for guns ending up on city streets. The mayor apparently overlooks the fact that there is already an agency that has the power to cross state lines and investigate and close down firearms dealers who run afoul of the law — the BATFE. If Bloomberg has information that dealers are illegally selling guns that end up in his city, he should stop grandstanding, share that information with the BATFE and allow the feds to do their jobs.

We’re not accusing the AP of bias, but we did want to use the story to illustrate the importance of getting information from various sources. Maybe if Mayor Bloomberg had done that, he would know about the federal government’s role in closing gun shops that don’t follow the law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,146]

But if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diablopilot 2]

So an undercover officer working on a busting a crime ring is doing something wrong?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

So an undercover officer working on a busting a crime ring is doing something wrong?

I suspect that situation can be dealt with trivially easily, but it certainly makes a nice strawman.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

That's the funny thing. Cops have no trouble whatsoever getting the information they need. It's not like the ATF stonewalls them and says "No, we're not telling who owned that one."

Groups that represent officers (as opposed to gropus for chiefs) support the Tiahrt amendment completely. The only people that have a problem with it are the people with an agenda (banning guns or getting elected).

I find it so amusing that the best argument they can come up with is that local police don't have access to gun trace records. It's completely ridiuclous. They have access anytime- Through the BATFE.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

You suspect incorrectly.

But tell me, professor, what is so wrong with the current situation that the amendment needs to go away and things nee dto change?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So an undercover officer working on a busting a crime ring is doing something wrong?

I suspect that situation can be dealt with trivially easily, but it certainly makes a nice strawman.

Well, how about the point you keep making that negligent gun owners are an easy supply of guns for criminals (not well founded, of course). Making it easy to look up addresses of gun owners isn't going to improve that situation, is it?

There are numerous obvious criminal applications to using such information. So what's the benefit again?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So an undercover officer working on a busting a crime ring is doing something wrong?

I suspect that situation can be dealt with trivially easily, but it certainly makes a nice strawman.

Well, how about the point you keep making that negligent gun owners are an easy supply of guns for criminals (not well founded, of course). Making it easy to look up addresses of gun owners isn't going to improve that situation, is it?

There are numerous obvious criminal applications to using such information. So what's the benefit again?

Do negligent gun owners have an asterisk against the name, or some other identifying mark?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Feel free to answer the question, professor. Why do things need to change? Why should the Taihrt amendment not be renewed? What is better about not having it in place?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Feel free to answer the question, professor. Why do things need to change? Why should the Taihrt amendment not be renewed? What is better about not having it in place?

For the same reason that every pilot's name and every airplane owners's name is posted on the FAA web site.

You just complain now because you see your favorite ox being gored.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

yeah because someone may break into your home and steal your plane to sell for drugs, or use in a crime.

that makes more sense now

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

yeah because someone may break into your home and steal your plane to sell for drugs, or use in a crime.

that makes more sense now

Far fetched scenarios do not help you make a case. Crooks already break into houses and steal guns (over 500,000/year in the USA according to Small Arms Survey 2004, Rights at Risk, p.60: Oxford University Press), from negligent gun owners, they don't need a list.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[azdiver 0]

but supplying the crooks with the information they need to find the guns easier doesnt make any sense either.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

yeah because someone may break into your home and steal your plane to sell for drugs, or use in a crime.

that makes more sense now

Far fetched scenarios do not help you make a case. Crooks already break into houses and steal guns (over 500,000/year in the USA according to Small Arms Survey 2004, Rights at Risk, p.60: Oxford University Press), from negligent gun owners, they don't need a list.

Sure they do. Would they rather steal a generic 12 gauge shotgun, or a nice custom 1911? I know you hate to give up after digging such a hole, but it's quite obvious that publicizing this information will increase crime, both in simple theft, but also for men stalking their exes, and many more situations. And not only do I believe in the 10 amendments in the BoRs, I also believe in the unseen right to privacy. It's not your business what guns I own.

And mind you, you don't have a guaranteed right to bear planes.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

yeah because someone may break into your home and steal your plane to sell for drugs, or use in a crime.

that makes more sense now

Far fetched scenarios do not help you make a case. Crooks already break into houses and steal guns (over 500,000/year in the USA according to Small Arms Survey 2004, Rights at Risk, p.60: Oxford University Press), from negligent gun owners, they don't need a list.

Dam man, you are the king of far fetched senarios, misleading posts, off topic comments and out of context quotes. Even you should recognise the difference

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

.

And mind you, you don't have a guaranteed right to bear planes.

Your right to bear arms, which I don't dispute, does not include a right to have them kept secret.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

.

And mind you, you don't have a guaranteed right to bear planes.

Your right to bear arms, which I don't dispute, does not include a right to have them kept secret.

I would think personal property would be one of the "effects" listed in the 4th Amendment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Your right to bear arms does not include a right to have them kept secret.

Give us a compelling reason why that information should be public. Why does the public need to know who owns how many guns?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Your right to bear arms does not include a right to have them kept secret.

Give us a compelling reason why that information should be public. Why does the public need to know who owns how many guns?

Why does the public need to know who owns an airplane and when they had their last medical?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 892]

as some guns registries have been used in the past:
once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The government will have a list of who to visit to collect guns from.

I will not register my guns. None ya.


and regarding the plane registry, my guns do not pose a public sector safety issue. my guns do not fall from the sky and kill hundreds of people at a time.

[billvon 3,109]

>Give us a compelling reason why that information should be public.

No compelling reason; also no guaranteed right to secrecy. Which means that we (through our democratically elected government) can decide what sort of reporting requirements to have.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

as some guns registries have been used in the past:
once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

That's an original line.

Quote

The government will have a list of who to visit to collect guns from.

I will not register my guns. None ya.


and regarding the plane registry, my guns do not pose a public sector safety issue. my guns do not fall from the sky and kill hundreds of people at a time.

Guns kill far more people than planes every year, both in the USA and worldwide.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 892]

it was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
you missed the second half of my line...if you make things illegal, purchasing goes underground. history shows that of every substance, behavior, and item. you simply cannot regulate moral beliefs. a gun registry simply provides cetralization of data of who to confiscate them from once that law is passed.
i believe i have the human right to protect and defend myself and my family. what gives you the right to take that away from me? other people's actions?
your statistics are being used like a drunk uses a lamp post.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

it was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.

Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?

Everything else in your post is moot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 892]

privacy has long been something we americans have enjoyed. i see no reason that should change.
i never stated anything regarding confidentiality in gun ownership.

as are most of your posts....moot