New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (in photo) doesn’t mention Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, by name in this Newsweek commentary about cities and illegal guns, but he clearly is aiming at Tiahrt’s 2003 gun data legislation in stating that “Congress is undermining our local efforts by handcuffing our police departments. Hard as it is to believe, right now federal law prevents our police officers from looking at all the data on guns used in crimes in our region. Where and when were they bought — and by whom? These are questions that we can’t ask. That means we can’t easily identify crooked dealers and illegal trafficking patterns. We can’t connect the dots.”
For his part, Tiahrt has a commentary in Friday’s Opinion pages arguing that the “Tiahrt amendment does not prohibit law enforcement authorities from receiving the information they need to investigate crimes in their communities” and promising to work with the mayor and others to improve the situation.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
11 Comments
Sounds like that mayor’s group got its interpretation of the bill a little off. This bill was brought about by and supported by the national chiefs of police association.
The amendment will ONLY allow law enforcement to have access to gun ownership–instead of the general public which would enable people to track down undercover officers.
Would the Fraternal Order of Police support the Tiahrt amendment if it prevented the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies? Bloomberg appears interested in gathering data to use in potentially lucrative lawsuits against legal gun manufacturers; making them the scapegoats for societal problems.
It didn’t sound like gun data was prevented being obtained in the Virginia Tech case. From the TV reporting, it looks like the people who sold the guns was found in a few days.
So, where is the hang up? I would like to see the specifics of this so-called roadblock before I made an assessment. Sounds “fishy” to me. I think there is some sort of agenda that is being hidden.
The Tiahart amendment is supported by law enforcement in order to protect officers and ongoing investigations. The amendment does NOT restrict access to law enforcement; on the contrary, it restricts such access ONLY to law enforcement.
Bloomburg’s group, and his lawsuits, are NOT law enforcement, and he does not seek the data for a law enforcement purpose. Bloomburg and Co. seek the data in order to sue gun manufacturers and sellers, not to convict criminals. I might note that Bloomburg’s “investigators” violated the law themselves in making straw purchases of firearms. Bloomburg is the same old failed schtick in a new package.
Bloomburg is lieing, pure and simple. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
And you’re right, Repub. There is an agenda here. But it isn’t public safety. It’s more “reasonable” firearms regulations. And that’s not public safety, it’s the illusion of safety. It’s the appearance of doing something. Bloomburg notes the mayors joining his group; he fails to mention a number of mayors who are abandoning it because his goals are not what he claims.
Like the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center, Bloomburg’s public statements of “reasonable” laws don’t comport with the actual agenda. And the American Hunters and Shooter’s Association which Bloomburg touts is a shell, a front, a sham organization. It is organized by officials and former officials of Handgun Control, Inc. It’s very existance is a lie. Don’t be fooled.
Same lie, second verse.
The San Antonio paper’s cartoon still sums up reality perfectly: http://images.mysanantonio.com/opinion/cartoons/nacho/large
Enjoy again.
So horse hamburger Tiahrt is saying all those cops are a bunch of liars. How is someone supposed to access a record that had been destroyed 24 hours after it had been created? Police can’t access a destroyed record.
It says, “No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may…use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms (or) firearm owners…”
Funny how our nation won’t have a database of gun owners but will have one for everyone who has ever purchased a prescription drug.
Doug:
If you had Bloomburg and Co. out there working to ban all prescription drugs, you’d oppose such a registration too.
Tiahrt’s article today in the paper acknowledges that some changes are needed – sounds to me like an admission of fault. How long has this amendment been on the books? And Tiahrt is just now getting around to admitting it needs to be changed? The only reason he’s admitting it now is because of Virginia Tech.
Bloomberg said in Newsweek online: “the fact is that most crimes are committed with illegal weapons—and that is where the new gun debate is, or at least should be, centered. In New York, we aggressively go after these guns”
Why doesn’t Bloomberg go after the CRIMINALS? Once the police get the criminal, then the Tiahrt Amendment allows the police to trace that weapon. What more does Bloomberg want?
He has no right to review all gun sale data in the USA. Catch the crook first then review all the data you want about that gun used by that crook.
By going after the gun, Bloomberg is making clear that his priority is to eliminate all guns. Catching the criminal doesn’t matter to Bloomberg.
Refresh my memory, but isn’t Bloomberg a Republican that is considering a run for the GOP nomination for president?
Here’s part of what can be found at: http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/pdf/TIAHRT_amendment.pdf
“The intent has been to enforce existing Federal law limiting disclosure of this sensitive law enforcement information solely to law enforcement, and, to the extent current Federal law does not already so restrict disclosureto so provide now.”
Bloomberg was a Democrat until he ran for NYC Mayor as a Republican in 2001. He bought the Mayor’s job by spending $73 million of his own money on the campaign.
Democrate or Republican – doesn’t always make a difference on the 2nd Amendment issue.
It’s clear Bloomberg’s agenda is to ban all guns.