Last spring, U.S. officials announced a $400 million effort to tighten border security, this time with an emphasis on southbound inspections of vehicles headed into Mexico to check for contraband cash and firearms.Because of California’s relatively strict firearms laws, gun seizures have been minimal compared with discoveries made farther east, particularly in Texas, said Angelica De Cima of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which conducts the checks. However, large amounts of cash have been found.
Now, there's an interesting result. The California gun laws must work if the seizures, "have been minimal compared with discoveries made farther east." This should come as no surprise to anyone willing to use a little common sense.
There was a bit of inadvertent humor in the article.
Part of the attempt to starve the cartels has included beefed-up efforts by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to monitor gun dealers and deter the use of straw buyers and the trafficking of firearms, including assault weapons, into California from other states with looser gun laws.Don't you find that funny, "the attempt to starve the cartels?"
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"The California gun laws must work if the seizures, "have been minimal compared with discoveries made farther east." This should come as no surprise to anyone willing to use a little common sense."
ReplyDeleteI agree. If you apply common sense, the fact that there are like 12 times as many border check points East of California, I can see where this would happen.
"The California gun laws must work if the seizures, "have been minimal compared with discoveries made farther east."
ReplyDeleteHo do we reconcile that with the other news articles we have seen which list CA as the #2 state for guns smuggled to Mexico?
The New York Times, 2-25-09:
ReplyDelete"In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
Common sense?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteThe California gun laws must work if the seizures, "have been minimal compared with discoveries made farther east." This should come as no surprise to anyone willing to use a little common sense.
Has that common sense told you why California is the second largest source state?
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.
Arizona and New Mexico both have, I trust you'll agree, far more permissive gun laws than California, but are the source of fewer seized guns in Mexico than California is.
So, I guess we have two conflicting reports. You believe the one you want to believe and I'll do the same.
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess we have two conflicting reports. You believe the one you want to believe and I'll do the same.
ReplyDeleteie., I'll cherry-pick the data so that it suits my needs.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess we have two conflicting reports.
Actually, I'm not sure there's a conflict. For one thing, the San Diego Union-Tribune article you referenced says that Texas is a larger source state for guns going to Mexico than California is. The NY Times article I referenced says the same thing.
Much more importantly, though, we're talking about two different quantities. The San Diego paper's numbers are of guns seized at the border, during attempted crossings. The NY Times article refers to guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities after successfully crossing the border.
A great many factors other than state gun laws on this side of the border could be driving that disparity.