- One Tiahrt provision severely limits the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to disclose crime gun trace data to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), bars admissibility of such data when victims bring lawsuits against the gun industry, and restricts disclosure of the data even to law enforcement.
- The second Tiahrt-sponsored appropriations provision codified the Bush Administration policy destroying certain National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records after 24 hours.
- The third Tiahrt appropriations rider bars ATF from implementing its proposed regulation requiring gun dealers to conduct annual inventory audits to address the problem of guns "disappearing" from gun shops with no record of sale.
For years, the Tiahrt Amendments have been standing in the way of law enforcement efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals. But now, a coalition of 350 mayors and 200 police chiefs have called for repealing these damaging restrictions.
The Brady Blog makes no bones about the fact that President Obama has disappointed. During his campaign he made unequivocal promises about repealing the amendments, but since taking office has failed to do so.
The Tiahrt Amendments have always been about pleasing a special interest lobby at the expense of public safety. Congress should delete the proposed language and do what the Obama-Biden ticket called for last year when their campaign said they 'would repeal the Tiahrt amendment.'
What's your opinion? Do you agree with the assessment that failing to remedy this situation is an attempt to please a "special interest lobby at the expense of public safety?" Do you think the President's failure to keep this promise represents a reversal in his intentions? Or is it due to delay, the fact that other more pressing issues have taken precedence?
What could the pro-gun crowd be thinking in opposing a change like this? Who would want to restrict the flow of information about gun purchases? Who would want to hinder proper inventory-taking? How can so-called lawful gun owners support such criminal attitudes?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
"How can so-called lawful gun owners support such criminal attitudes?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess if you wouldn't go to the Brady bunch for their distorted perspective, your questions wouldn't be so twisted either.
Before I point out what this law really does, let me mention one of the most vocal supporters of it: The Bureau Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). That's right, the ATF likes the Tiahrt Amendment.
In spite of what the Brady's or The Gun Guys will lie about, the law does not bar firearms trace data to law enforcement. Any police department that has a gun used in a crime can have it traced. Always could-still can.
What the law does prohibit is fishing expeditions by city officials wanting to look at all traces. Why does a city solicitor in Portsmouth Ohio need to know how many guns end up traced that were sold by Chuck's Gun & Pawn in Oklahoma City? The law was written specifically so that cities and private individuals cannot use government traces to launch frivolous lawsuits against defendants in other states. The trace data is not denied to law enforcement that seek it for valid law enforcement purposes.
Now, to answer your question lets instead look at what criminal elements support the legislation. Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns has had far more of its members per capita convicted of felonies than of all the gun rights organizations in the country. That's right. A substantial number of the Mayors that seek this data are criminals themselves.
Except that you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe FOP (and the BATF for that matter) support the Tiahrt Amendment
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages/public_news_individual.xsl
By the way, your "protect police" website is not a police website, and is not affiliated with the police or FOP. It's run by Mayor's against illlegal guns. (see the bottom of the page)
ReplyDeleteIt's an anti-gun website Mike. Way to be objective and intellectually honest.
The law was written specifically so that cities and private individuals cannot use government traces to launch frivolous lawsuits against defendants in other states.
ReplyDeleteThat.
And I'll add only that this isn't a hypothetical concern. Mayor Bloomberg has repeatedly tried to de-facto extend NYC's crushingly burdensome gun laws to other states by using taxpayer dollars to file strings of unwinnable but ruinously expensive lawsuits against private gun shops outside his legal jurisdiction.
Police are not significantly restricted by the Tihart amendment. Private use of crime gun data has been primarily to harass gun dealers and manufacturers.
ReplyDeleteWhat legitimate need is there for private citizens to have this data? Should Glock be liable because a gun they sold to police wound up used in a crime?
If the NICS is just a background check and not back-door registration, what purpose is there to save records of transactions?
Hi Mike, Just stopped by because you haven't responded to BobS over at his place and was wondering if you responded here.
ReplyDeleteWhat FWM and Mike W said is true. Police and the BATFE are in favor of the Tiahrt Amendment.
I just thought I'd add one last peice that they missed.
Without the Tiahrt Amendment it means governments, journalists, and potentially private citizens could use the trace and NICS data as a de-facto registration (which will aid in confiscation, but I know you don't care about such thing) but also will create a shopping list for gun theives.
The more people who have this data, the more potential for it to fall into criminal hands.
To boil it down to your own words, Mike. To Repeal the Amendemnt would be giving a tool to criminals to know what houses have guns they can steal. Mike you are advocating for "The Flow".
Is this intentional?
Also Mike, this is one of those instances where the Brady Campaign flat out LIES.
ReplyDeleteThey say Tiahrt must be repealed because it "prevents law enforcement from doing their job." I have seen Obama state this very same LIE during his campaign.
Of course, they're lying because Tiahrt DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICT LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF TRACE DATA.
By the way--the question about Glock's liability if a gun they sold to police is misused isn't rhetorical, it is a case that was just decided recently--Glock was being sued for just that. I don't think the people bringing the suit had a good faith expectation of winning.
ReplyDeleteDoes your notion of shared responsibility extend that far--Is Glock morally liable for misuse of guns they sell to police?
This is why I no longer read your blog, Mike. You only pretend to want to discuss the issues, and frankly your every post is a retread, and above all boring to me.
ReplyDeleteI've issued my repeated challenge to you once more on my Blog:
Prove that my guns are more likely to cause harm to myself, my loved ones, and society at larger, rather than potentially saving an innocent life, or doing nothing at all, and I'll have all my guns turned into scrap metal.
As well as your HILARIOUS quote from Bob's place on this post.
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/505948.html
I don't screen my comments, so you are always welcome no matter what I personally think about you.
If you don't post there you are admitting that you in fact ARE wrong, and that you refuse to admit it.
Also, if it dries your eyes any, I know you live in Italy...which has nothing to do with guns.
Who says the BATFE and the ATF support this, and why would they?
ReplyDeleteIs the main reason you guys oppose this because you believe it's designed to lead to eventual gun confiscation?
The idea of filing frivolous law suits and harassing gun dealers with this information sounds like a stretch to me. As usual you guys assign the worst intentions possible to the anti-gun crowd. Maybe their intentions are just what they say - to lessen gun violence.
"Who says the BATFE and the ATF support this, and why would they?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages%2fpublic_news_individual.xsl
Easy enugh, huh?
The idea of filing frivolous law suits and harassing gun dealers with this information sounds like a stretch to me. As usual you guys assign the worst intentions possible to the anti-gun crowd. Maybe their intentions are just what they say - to lessen gun violence.
ReplyDelete...
... Who ever said that wasn't their intention? It's their _methods_ that we're saying are unacceptable. Frivolous lawsuits are happening. The motive may be pure as driven snow, but the fact remains that gun-control advocates are misusing the court system to financially ruin business owners who aren't breaking any laws.
Is the main reason you guys oppose this because you believe it's designed to lead to eventual gun confiscation?
We oppose the creation of a gun registry for a variety of reasons, but that isn't the point in this precise case. The gun-banners have tried to do an end-run around the democratic process by misusing the NICS system to create a de-facto registry without the force of law. This is unacceptable. Propopse that litigation, and we'll talk about the pros and cons of a registry.
Who says the BATFE and the ATF support this, and why would they?
See Weer'd's links. They support it because it doesn't interfere with their investigations, and merely keeps sensitive personal and law-enforcement information out of the hands of journalists and advocacy groups. The Brady Campaingn is misrepresenting the scope of Tiahrt, just like they misrepresent the "assault weapons" ban.
The idea of filing frivolous law suits and harassing gun dealers with this information sounds like a stretch to me. As usual you guys assign the worst intentions possible to the anti-gun crowd.A strech? assigning bad intentions?
ReplyDeleteIT ALREADY HAPPENED MIKE.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/12/Court-Gun-dealer-cannot-be-sued/UPI-70921242182243/
Mayor Bloomberg suing out-of-state gun dealers for gun crime in NYC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/nyregion/16guns.html?ex=1305432000&en=7787863415043451&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I should point out that with the
2nd article, Bloomberg and his buddies are not LEO's and have no legal authority to engage in "stings."
One more for you Mike.
ReplyDeletehttp://community.livejournal.com/guncontrolnow/83228.html
"[Weer'd] are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?" -MikeB302000
"The Brady Campaign is misrepresenting the scope of Tiahrt, just like they misrepresent the "assault weapons" ban.It would be accurate to say the Brady's are lying about Tiahrt.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can they do though? Truth and facts certainly aren't on their side.
Why do you think a law was passed about frivolous lawsuits if there wasn't a problem with frivolous lawsuits?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Glock should be liable for criminal misuse of a gun sold to police?
I'm done commenting here unless I get an answer to that question. I'm saying that publicly not to threaten you, but rather to force me to follow my resolution.
I'm not sure Weer'd's links really answered the question which was "who says the BATFE supports the Tiahrt Amendments?"
ReplyDeleteThose sites seemed to be talking about the sensitive nature of the information and that it should be restricted to police investigations only. Acting Director Sullivan talked about sharing information with law enforcement. Is that the same as supporting Tiarht?
The second site was the Fraternal Order of Police expressing their concerns. What does that have to do with anything?
So Mike what you're saying is you want the Tiahrt Amendment repealed, but you have NO IDEA what the law is?
ReplyDeleteItsn't that a VERY irresponsible thing for you to say?
You Remind me of this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9Jm9SqvY
Those sites seemed to be talking about the sensitive nature of the information and that it should be restricted to police investigations only. Acting Director Sullivan talked about sharing information with law enforcement. Is that the same as supporting Tiarht?Yes. The Tiahrt amendment restricts access to trace data by non-law-enforcement agancies, without interfering with law enforcement's long-standing ability to trace guns used in crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe second site was the Fraternal Order of Police expressing their concerns. What does that have to do with anything?
The two big-time law enforcement groups that support Tiahrt are the BATFE (the federal organization tasked with regulating guns) and the FOP (which represents actual street cops, not their administrators).
You asked about "the BATFE and the ATF", which Weer'd (and I) assumed was a typo of the mind; the BATFE and the ATF are the same thing.
Yes of course BATFE and ATF are the same. I wrote that line too fast and shot it out there.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd it's not that I "have NO IDEA what the law is."
I'm a bit unclear on a few aspects of it though. The part about destroying records, is that only background checks of people who come up clean?
Also, the limiting of trace data to law enforcement, doesn't that eliminate academic studies and governmental agencies, all of which strive to ascertain solutions to the problems?
And perhaps most troubling is the inventory block. Why would anyone who is honest favor such a thing? Doesn't this shield the worst gun dealers from towing the line everyone else has to tow?
I'm a bit unclear on a few aspects of it though. The part about destroying records, is that only background checks of people who come up clean?
ReplyDeleteGun purchases are "recorded" in two places: at the shop where the gun is sold and centrally in the ATF's database. The ATF sees each sale through NICS (which, inscrutably, requires the gun's serial number in addition to the identity of the person undergoing a background check), but isn't authorized to keep that information because the US doesn't have a gun registry. The information expires ("is destroyed") within 24 hours. If you think we _should_ have a nationwide gun registry, that's fine; but it's a different topic.
If a background check doesn't come up clean, the sale is halted. There's no need to keep a record of it, because the check will fail every time it's run, unless the purchaser goes through the appeals process and proves he isn't a prohibited person.
The gun shop is required to keep its records on an essentially permanent basis, a process policed very, very vigorously by the ATF (they've revoked dealer licenses for writing "Y" instead of "Yes" on the standard record forms...). These are the records used for gun traces.
Once any law enforcement agency actually runs a trace on a gun it suspects has been used in a crime, the trace data becomes their property and they can use it as they please.
Also, the limiting of trace data to law enforcement, doesn't that eliminate academic studies and governmental agencies, all of which strive to ascertain solutions to the problems?
Trace data (checks on specific guns suspected of use in crime) is police property, and they can disseminate it as they please; Tiahrt doesn't affect this at all. Tiahrt limits broader third-party datamining to determine who's bought what guns where, which has significant privacy concerns attached to it, as well as having practical negative effects on society, like jeopardizing ongoing police investigations (why the ATF and FOP want to keep Tiahrt), and exposing gun owners to harassment and theft.
Tiahrt also doesn't prevent the ATF itself from compiling profiles of dealer sales, making reports from those profiles, and disseminating the data however it pleases.
Also, the nature of trace data makes it of limited use to researchers: it says only "this gun was traced, and X was its last documented purchaser". The data doesn't tell you _why_ the gun was traced, nor whether it was ever used in a crime hands (police can routinely run guns to make sure they aren't stolen, for example).
And perhaps most troubling is the inventory block. Why would anyone who is honest favor such a thing? Doesn't this shield the worst gun dealers from towing the line everyone else has to tow?
Again, I don't understand this issue well enough to have a strong opinion on it. The full text of that portion of the law is:
***
Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any other Act shall be expended to promulgate or implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code
***
What that means in context, what current policies are, how this affected prior policies, why it was felt that this needed to be included... I dunno. I've seen no commentary from either side, except that Mayors Against Illegal Guns pointed out that it exists in a way that implies it's dangerous.
I'd be very intrerested in learning more.
Michael, Thanks for that explanation; it helps to understand better what we're talking about.
ReplyDeleteOne idea came to my mind as I was reading your take on it, the Tiahrt revocation and the AWB and perhaps some other badly written or poorly orchestrated suggestions on the part of the anti-gun folks, need to be coordinated better and presented as a coherent national policy before they'd have any chance of success.
The problem with that is obvious though. If somehow that were done, you gun guys would really have something to complain about. The way it is now, at least the way it seems to me, the anti-gun people are doing a piss poor job at promoting their side of it. It makes me wonder if some of them are not double agents. Maybe their doing such a poor job on purpose.
Michael, Thanks for that explanation; it helps to understand better what we're talking about.
ReplyDeleteOne idea came to my mind as I was reading your take on it, the Tiahrt revocation and the AWB and perhaps some other badly written or poorly orchestrated suggestions on the part of the anti-gun folks, need to be coordinated better and presented as a coherent national policy before they'd have any chance of success.
The problem with that is obvious though. If somehow that were done, you gun guys would really have something to complain about. The way it is now, at least the way it seems to me, the anti-gun people are doing a piss poor job at promoting their side of it. It makes me wonder if some of them are not double agents. Maybe their doing such a poor job on purpose.
The way it is now, at least the way it seems to me, the anti-gun people are doing a piss poor job at promoting their side of it. It makes me wonder if some of them are not double agents. Maybe their doing such a poor job on purpose.
ReplyDeleteYou're faced with a fact: the solutions proposed by "the whole spectrum of anti-gun sources" are confused, overpriced, and often incomprehensible.
Two interpretations are being suggested:
1 - The anti-gun side doesn't actually have any good solutions, and further restrictions on guns just aren't as "common sense" as you've been lead to believe. Further restrictions are emotionally persuasive, but on closer examination turn out not to have the benefits you'd expect relative to their costs. The other guys just happen to have the stronger case here.
2 - The anti-gun movement has been infiltrated by our enemies, who're undermining the truthful message of their side. Unscrupulous enemy agents are working en masse at the highest levels of the movement to confuse its message because they don't care about innocent lives.
...
Examine those suggestions through the lens you use when looking at right wing anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Do you think there's a chance you might be grasping to hold your high regard for people who aren't as reliable or competent as you'd believed?