Andrew Rosenthal on Bad Gun Laws

The New York Times op-ed

Florida earned an abysmal three out of 100 points on the Brady Campaign’s 2011 scorecard. The state places no limit on bulk purchases of handguns, does not require firearm owners to report lost or stolen guns, has not closed the notorious gun-show loophole, does not require safety training or fingerprinting prior to purchase and does not ban large capacity magazines. The list goes on. Florida also received a special demerit for passing a gag rule, which forbids health care practitioners from inquiring about the presence of firearms in the home. (A Miami judge ruled it unconstitutional.)

At the federal level, we have the charming Tiahrt Amendments, which require the Justice Department to destroy approved background checks within 24 hours (this makes it harder to catch dealers who falsify their records, and harder to track straw purchasers). These amendments also prohibit state and local law enforcement from using gun trace data in civil proceedings, to revoke the license of a dealer who was caught breaking the law.

These are wonderful points. Who in their right mind could support such nonsense. Gun-rights activists must be laughing all the way to the shooting range because of these laws.

As the article mentioned, most of these laws have nothing to do with preserving the 2nd Amendment. They go far beyond any question of rights.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn on Tiahrt

JSOnline published an article about the controversial Tiahrt Amendments.

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to get rid of a law - quietly passed by Congress - that hides information from the public about guns used in crimes and the stores that sell them.

Instead, President Obama has embraced most of the law and added even more rules that could make it harder for law enforcement to crack down on dealers and stores selling guns to criminals.

While supporters of the secrecy law say shielding crime-gun data and dealer violations protects police officers, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn labels that notion "a crock."

In fact, Flynn said he didn't get a clear picture of what role West Milwaukee's Badger Guns plays in selling crime guns that end up in his city until six police officers were shot in a two-year span - all with guns from Badger Guns or its predecessor, Badger Outdoors.

Before the law passed, it was easier to see such trends and Badger Outdoors ranked at the top, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 2005 alone, the store sold 537 crime guns - most in the nation.

The article goes on to offer an explanation behind the efforts of Congressman Tiahrt.

U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), who is the second-largest congressional recipient of National Rifle Association cash, said his legislation - commonly referred to as "Tiahrt" (pronounced TEE-heart) - is intended to protect undercover officers.

Flynn called the congressman's rationale for the law "a cynical fig leaf."

"Tiahrt was enacted after the ATF published reports telling everyone who the irresponsible gun dealers are. Suddenly officer safety was at risk? That is a crock," Flynn said. "It is sad, sad, sad that Congress is willing to endure this language and continue to be a willful accomplice in the arming of criminals with high-quality firearms."

By putting it in a budget bill, Tiahrt assured his measure would be passed without a separate up or down vote. Seven years later, there still hasn't been one.

What's your opinion? Do you think Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn is one of those deluded gun control nuts who are afraid of inanimate objects?

No, I wouldn't think so. I would imagine he knows what he's talking about. It sounds to me like this was a dirty deal paid for by the NRA, one that does far more harm than good.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Georgia Professor George Zinkhan Ruled Suicide

CNN reports on the final chapter in a truly bizarre story.

A wanted University of Georgia professor killed himself with a single gunshot to the head after he dug his own grave and covered it with brush, police said Tuesday.

"Zinkhan's body was found in a small dugout area in the ground, covered with leaves and debris, and it was apparent that he took significant steps to try to conceal his body from being located," a statement from Athens police said.

Does that mean he dug the shallow grave, got in it, covered himself with leaves and debris all the time holding the gun with which he shot himself in the head? I certainly can't see any reason why investigators would invent such a wild story. Can you?

The particulars of his suicide combined with the way he decided to spare his children by leaving them with the neighbor, make this one of the weirdest cases we've discussed.

One of the things that happens in cases like this is information about the gun, its provenance, its history, its role in the crime is lost. Who cares about that when we've got suicide, murder and attempted murder to deal with? This is exactly where the Tiahrt Amendments come into the picture. Tracing the firearm from its manufacturer to the criminal owner is extremely useful information. The more complete the information is the better the recommendations would be as to finding solutions to gun violence. I find it absolutely unconscionable that people who consider themselves upstanding lawful gun owners would support provisions like the Tiahrt Amendments which hinder this process.

What's your opinion? Why do gun owners not cooperate in the efforts too police themselves? Why do they resist even common sense initiatives like a gun trace information database?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

The Tiahrt Amendments

The Tiahrt Amendments are provisions attached to Justice Department appropriations legislation since 2004. Named after Congressman Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, these amendments are comprised of three main provisions.

1. 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.
2. The second Tiahrt-sponsored appropriations provision codified the Bush Administration policy destroying certain National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records after 24 hours.
3. 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.

According to Protectpolice.org, The Tiahrt Amendments are a serious obstacle in police work.

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.