Question about illegal guns and the BATFE

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No, because there is no way to prove that the weapon was straw purchase. Just because a weapon was used to commit a crime does not mean that the original owner was a criminal. The only thing a trace does is tell the agent who the original purchaser was. Since there are many other ways for a firearm to leave the possession of the original purchaser, there is no way to secure a conviction.

Not talking about a conviction based on the trace just a discovery of who is bringing in the guns. If tracing indicates that a large number of guns used in crimes are being bought by the same people legally over and over then it would show where the train starts. Surveillance and investigation after that would get the conviction.

Have you ever looked at what gets smuggled across from Mexico? They have multiple mile tunnels with light rail moving drugs and anything else profitable in some cases.

So, are most of these guns coming from Mexico? Overseas is where I think criminals would get guns illegally if we banned them here.

There was a gun store in Columbus that got into trouble a few years ago. They are one of the bigger stores in Columbus so I imagine they are in that 1% volume, but they were selling like 5% of the guns in NY street crime. These guns were only being bought by a few dozen people. They were more than able to get those people for the straw buys, and the Gun shop had to have an ATFE guy look over all their sales or something (I think he was in store a lot).

This sounds like good LE so I guess the BATFE is doing something to curb illegal gun trafficking. Why don't we respond to antigunners with those statistics?

 

[divemedic]

The ATF reports a study in which there were 120,370 gun traces since 1994 where the firearm was traceable to a dealer that was still in business. Of those traces, 27.7% (33,342) of them were obtained by the police within two years of them leaving the dealer.

23,775 of those guns were stolen. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that:

Because less than 1 percent of firearms is ever involved in a crime and because felons acquire only a small fraction of their guns through licensed channels, all gun control measures suffer from a "needle in the haystack" problem. New restrictions could reduce the small number of guns that criminals obtain through regulated dealers but probably would have little effect on the total number of guns in criminal hands. Where do criminals get their guns? The previously cited survey of prisoners in 10 states found that:

• Just over half of the felons (compared to one-quarter of the general population) said that they owned handguns.

• Fewer than one in six had purchased their guns from a retail dealer.

• Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases.

• About 3.1 million of the estimated 8.6 million firearms transactions each year are outside licensed retail sources.

• Half had stolen at least one gun in their criminal careers; between 40 percent and 70 percent of the handguns these men possessed most recently were stolen.

According to this study, straw purchases are not the largest source of guns for felons.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Three-quarters of the felons agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble"obtaining a gun when they were released, despite the legal barriers to such purchases

I agree. Crooks never have problems getting guns.

About 3.1 million of the estimated 8.6 million firearms transactions each year are outside licensed retail sources.

Are those straw purchases? If someone buys a gun legally fully intending to resell it immediately is that a straw purchase?

 

[divemedic]

Those would be FTF sales. We are completely ignoring the fact that there were less than 14,000 firearm murders in the USA in 2006, the last year for which numbers are available. That is out of an estimated 283 million privately held firearms (source- Brady Institute- I love using their own stats to attack them) That means that less than 1 gun in 20,000 is used to commit criminal homicide, a number which will be made even smaller when you consider that some murder weapons were used to kill more than once.

Contrast this with the fact that in that same year, 92,000 women were raped in a population of 150 million men, which means that a law outlawing penises would have more effect on reducing rape than a law outlawing guns would have on the murder rate! Of course, that is absurd, for the same reason that gun laws are absurd.

In fact, it has been proven time and again that the presence or absence of gun laws has no effect on crime. In fact, despite relatively lax gun laws at the time, the violent crime rate in 1960 was 1/3 (160 per 100,000) what it was in 2006 (473 per 100,000). England's violent crime rate is 5 times higher than the USA.

The USA isn't anywhere close in violent crime:

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent).

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What is an FTF sale? Not really interested in UK violent crimes but wanted to explore how crooks got guns and if part of that trail (absent out and out theft) could be interdicted by trace data. I also don't understand the Tiarht Amendment and why it is so contorversial.

 

[BillCA]

FTF Sale = personal Face To Face sale, not using an FFL.

There are a number of problems with the current system(s) in place. For multiple gun sales, dealers have to fill out a separate multiple-gun sale form for BATF. In theory, a person does not buy multiple guns frequently. A person who buys a pair of Ruger Vaqueros or even a pair of 1911's probably doesn't raise a big flag. The guy who buys six High-Points or 3 Rossi and 2 Taurus guns should raise a flag. It should raise a serious red flag if he's making multiple purchases from multiple dealers within a month or coming back to a dealer and repeating multi-gun purchases.

BATF, unfortunately, doesn't act fast enough or at all on many of these reports. Instead of investigating the purchaser, BATF prefers to let the dealer sell to several such customers then perform a "sting" operation once 2 or more multi-purchase guns are traced. This allows them to claim they've taken a "rouge dealer" down. Meanwhile most of the buyers just go to other shops and repeat their trade.

BATF does occassionally trip up a street dealer though. When a person purchases multiple firearms and then reports most or all of them stolen within 6 months more than one time, BATF sometimes notifies local LEOs who investigate.

But these types of activities are a pimple on the butt of all illegal gun sales. Most guns in criminal hands are obtained from thefts - either residential burglaries or commercial burglaries. Some percentage are also likely to be the result of private FTF resale. The original buyer may sell the gun to a trusted neighbor or friend. Within a year or so, it may have changed hands twice more before the current owner, in need of cash, sells it to another person. The last owner may be on the shady side of the law and use it in crime or allow someone to use it.

So-called "trace" data does not indicate a firearm has been used in a crime. All it means is that law enforcement encountered the firearm and inquired as to the known owner or purchaser. This may be the result of recovering a stolen firearm. Or it could be simply a due-diligence check when officers found a firearm in an auto after a collision.

To measure a licensed dealer based on the number of firearms "traced" to him is misleading. It neither represents guns used in crimes or unlawfully obtained from the dealer nor the likelihood that the dealer is engaged in unlawful or sloppy practices. But the Brady-ites would have you believing this is the case.

Thanks to the Clinton Administration the number of FFL's has dropped significantly (>50%) since 1992. Local restrictions by state and cities have further reduced dealer populations. The result is that there is still a demand for firearms but fewer dealers. In some areas, there may be only one dealer within a 25 mile radius. Guess who has a higher chance of getting "tagged" as a "high trace" dealer. Especially if his next nearest competitor is another 15 miles away and/or across a state line.

The biggest problem is not "enforcing the existing laws" (of which there are too many) but in plea-bargaining. Suppose the DA has Danny Dirtbag in jail, charged with carjacking, armed robbery, possession of stolen property (gun) and possession of a firearm by a felon. Dirtbag's lawyer challenges the police "search" or arrest on some grounds. The DA will offer to drop the "gun charges" and not mention the presense of the gun if Danny pleads guilty to carjacking and armed robbery. Danny gets a break from enhanced sentencing, will serve 2-5 years and doesn't get slammed for stolen property and felon with a gun charges for an extra 3-6 years. Thus, when he's parolled in 3 years, he goes right back to his old ways.

Instead, if prosecutors would "drop an anvil" on these guys by pushing the felon-in-possession, it would add enhancements for using a gun, which in some cases can add an extra 5-8 years. The problem, of course, is that if Danny Dirtbag figures he'll be out in 3 years he may plead out to the charges. If he's looking at 6, 10 or 15 years he may try to fight it. The DA would rather have a him plead out so he can add to his conviction stats this year.

 

[divemedic]

The Tiahart amendment is so controversial because it put a stop to the Clinton administration's practice of keeping NICS records for 10 years. This had the effect of making the NICS a gunowner registration database.

Imagine for a minute a proposed law, that is nominally put in place to stop child porn, requiring anyone who wants to buy a book must get permission to complete the buy, which results in their having their name recorded and tracked, with the records maintained for 10 years. Then suppose that this law applies to books with political themes as well as porn. Further, suppose that police were known to visit the homes of persons who have bought these political books, and have contacted their neighbors. In some cases, this list has been used to confiscate books which were completely legal, but did not shed a positive light upon the current administration.

Would you like this law?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The Tiahart amendment is so controversial because it put a stop to the Clinton administration's practice of keeping NICS records for 10 years. This had the effect of making the NICS a gunowner registration database.

I thought it limited the release of the data to other than LE.

BATF, unfortunately, doesn't act fast enough or at all on many of these reports. Instead of investigating the purchaser, BATF prefers to let the dealer sell to several such customers then perform a "sting" operation once 2 or more multi-purchase guns are traced. This allows them to claim they've taken a "rouge dealer" down. Meanwhile most of the buyers just go to other shops and repeat their trade.

I am probably oversimplifying but here goes. Joe Dirtbag uses a gun in a crime and is caught/shot/arrested. The gun he used in the crime is traced back to a Easyguns gun store who sold it to Bill Scumbag who has bought a lot of guns from Easyguns albeit legally but the guns Scumbag keeps buying seem to end up with guys like Dirtbag. Shouldn't that point the BATFE towards Easyguns and Dirtbag for investigation and prosecution? The antigunners say this isn't happening because of roadblocks like the Tiahrt Amendment and we gun rights folks say it is because the BATFE is not doing their job. I understand stolen guns can't be traced to show a trafficker but what about the scenario I just alid out? Or is this just too rare an occurence and the antis are just using it to get more guns laws?

 

[divemedic]

Lautenberg is also seeking Gonzales' opinion on whether the Tiahart Amendment, calling for 24-hour destruction of records of gun purchases, should be repealed.

I am not sure that gun trace data is good enough to get a warrant. Even so, one would have to prove that the transfers were indeed straw purchases in order to prove a law violation. Trace data alone will not do that. The Tiahart amendment does not prevent law enforcement from getting the information, it merely prevents the NICS from being used as a registration of gun owners.

Not only that, but registration does not work.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Here is what I found on the Amendment. Didn't see anything about destroying records just who got to see them :http://www.gunlawnews.org/Analysis/tiahrt062607-3.html

Trace data alone will not do that.

No but it would point an investigation and surveillance in the right direction.

The Tiahart amendment does not prevent law enforcement from getting the information,

I guess I don't understand then why the BATFE can't see who is reselling the guns through trace data and records of sales and target them. Send an undercover cop to make a purchase?

So the real question is this. Is the BATFE doing a reasonably good job in arresting traffickers? Or are laws like the Tiarhrt Amendement handcuffing them. As a responsible gun owner I think illegal traffikers of guns should be pursued and prosecuted. The controversy seems to revolve around whether the BATFE is trying to do that.

 

[divemedic]

The Tiahrt amendment is an amendment to the appropriations bill of BATFE that was placed there to stop Chicago from obtaining a copy of the NICS database. Chicago had sued for release of the database, and the case was about to be heard by SCOTUS (See City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 1-00-3541, 2002 WL 31455180 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2002))

Treasury v. Chicago grows out of an effort by Chicago, using the federal freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to obtain firearms records held by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). (The same sort of nonsense that Bloomberg is pulling- trying to force the laws of one city on the entire country, using the courts)

In November 1998, Chicago became the second city to sue handgun manufacturers and their trade associations. City of Chicago v. Beretta
U.S.A. Corp.,No. 98-CH-15596 (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill.). Chicago’s lawsuit against handgun manufacturers, alleged that the marketing practices of the manufacturers— although compliant with federal, state, and local law—facilitate violation of Chicago’s gun laws (which outlaw handgun acquisition) and constitute a public nuisance.

The Supreme Court was on the verge of hearing the case involving the city of Chicago's attempt to obtain the name of every multiple handgun purchaser in the United States. After the case had been briefed, but before oral arguments, Congress passed an appropriation with a very specific prohibition on the release of purchaser names(Tiahrt). In light of the appropriation language, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts.

The appropriations bill requires BATFE to disclose the necessary caveats in published summaries of firearms trace data — thus preventing BATFE from using trace summaries to push a political agenda, as it did during the Clinton years. The appropriations bill also forbids disclosure to the public (but not to law enforcement) of particular trace records.

Because the federal Freedom of Information Act has no restrictions on who is seeking the information, or why they want it, if Chicago had prevailed in the Supreme Court, and if Congress had failed to act, then anyone (including burglary rings or anti-gun lobbyists) could have obtained the name of every multiple handgun purchaser and every person named in a trace request.

Here is an excellent article on the subject.