If America learned anything from Sept. 11, it’s that law enforcement officials need to share information and connect the dots. In that respect, there are real flaws with the Tiahrt amendment, we argued in this editorial.
The law, sponsored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, denies public access to gun crime data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Supporters argue it protects the identity of undercover cops and ongoing investigations.
But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other critics point out the law restricts access to local law enforcement, too, denying them a powerful crime-fighting tool.
Tiahrt himself believes that the ATF has “misinterpreted” the law in withholding aggregate gun crime trace data, research studies and other information from local law enforcement agencies.
That was never the intent of the law, according to Tiahrt spokesman Chuck Knapp.
If so, then it’s time to fix the law.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
19 Comments
The NRA paid a lot of money to Tiahrt to write that legislation. Tiahrt might change it if you can write a large enough check.
Any thoughts on who will be a candidate against Todd in the next election. I’ve met Betts and Dahlia ….. 2 state reps from our area very briefly, they seem likely candidates (based strictly on they and Garth are the only ones I know much about).
If some one wanted to oppose him I would think they would be starting the campaign now.
Is there a Wichitan? Any one in the other counties in our district that might have the “legs” to put up a viable candidacy — Will the National Democratic party continue to write off the District as non winnable?
Any Republicans who might oppose him ?
heh. I think a yellow dog would do the trick this time…
Oh and Randy? With all due respect, you guys are a little late with this thread. We already discussed this Tiahrt Tragedy of an amendment a couple of days ago.
The toady in chief protecting big gun manufacturers above all other commercial enterprise. Above sharing info, which was, I thought the reason for the Unpatriotic Act.
The 911 commission said a huge part of the problem the nation has in dealing with terror has been the inability of law enforcement agencies to share information across org chart lines or govenments.
And tiahrt wants to make it MORE difficult for people trying to curb ILLEGALLY PURCHASED guns?
Typical republican logic.
But to Randy’s point, chuckles, when IS the good congresscritter from kansas going to amend his own amendment to make sure the law is functioning AS INTENDED?
He’s got his name on it, but it doesnt reflect his intent? How conveeeeenient.
Who wants to bet that protecting gun manufacturers uber alles WAS the intent of tiahrt and the law that carries his name?
http://www.grandlodgefop.org/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages%2fpublic_news_individual.xsl&nocache=10051376
The Tiahrt amendment is supported strongly by the Fraternal Organization of Police. The above states why. Don’t be fooled by those who would mischaracterize the intent or effect of the amendment.
Fraternal ORDER of Police.
Outlander, after I was told how the KHP chose who to support, I don’t buy it. Last year when they KHP put out their support for Phil Kline, the members didn’t even get to vote on it. The chairs of the organization had some strong ties to Kline, and against their own people they put out that whole statement in support of Kline.
So…perhaps chuckles could explain the REAL intent of the law, and then tell us how he proposes to fix it?
If I remember correctly, didnt the police associations lobby against legalizing hollow point cop killer bullets? And didnt the NRA, manufacturers and the lawmakers snub the police? Arent those bullets legal today?
I see. The republicans support law enforcement when they agree with republicans. And when they dont? The republicans go their own way. Whatever way the gun manufacturers tell them.
’cause I’m pretty sure the democrats didnt legalize that ammunition…
KFG,I think you’re talking about Teflon-coated bullets, also refered to as “Cop Killers”. Hollow-points are legal, have been around forever, and won’t penetrate a properly rated bullet proof vest. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of hollow-points being refered to as “Cop Killers”.
The “cop-killer” bullet was always a myth. There is no such thing, never was. Hollow points, due to the way they’re manufactured, can’t penetrate bullet-proof vests. And nearly any serious rifle round will penetrate nearly any vest in general law-enforcement use. Remember the North Hollywood shootout? The cops (using hollowpoints, of course) couldn’t penetrate the bad guys body armor; AR15s, borrowed from nearby gun shops, shooting military .223, did.
Hollow points, of course, are standard rounds; every police department uses them, and for good reason. They avoid over-penetration, and are less likely to ricochet when striking a hard object (they tend to come apart instead). They are generally more effective as well; the goal of the round, after all, is to end the threat as quickly as possible.
I’ll avoid the physics of why they are more effective for now. Suffice it to say the handwringing over hollow-point “cop-killer” bullets is manufactured hysteria by persons who generally don’t understand what in hell they’re talking about.
BTW – the Tiahart amendment is supported by law enforcement in order to protect officers and ongoing investigations. 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.
And the article is wrong. 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.
But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I think you are right XXX it was teflon coated not hollow point. Sorry. I just shoot shotguns these days.
So… when and how does the toddly one intend to fix the misinterpreted intent of his law?
…and none the less, didnt cops and their organizations oppose them? And didnt the NRA and their bought and paid for congresscritters keep them legal anyway?
Of course I could be wrong again :)
I know what hollow points are gmc and have used 22 hollow points in years past. (turns varmints inside out)
I’m not hysterical about ammunition. I could be just as dead from a .22 with the right shot.
Just pointing out that both sides drag out the cops when it suits their purposes. I wonder who really cares? Neither or both?
And the Bloomberg article noted the safety of law officers and also noted that provision to protect them are written into law frequently.
The “teflon coated” bullets did not make them “cop killers” either. Rounds with teflon (actually a plastic, not teflon) coatings, it turns out, have the coating peeled off by air resistance shortly after exiting the barrel. There is little or no coating on the bullet when it strikes the target. It assists the feeding of the bullet in the firearm, but has no effect on the impact of the bullet on the target. And a handgun bullet, small, slow and blunt, simply does not penetrate body armor, coated or not.
RIFLE rounds can, but will do so whether they are coated or not, even assuming the coating was still on the bullet when it reached it’s target.
The “cop killer” hysteria is, and always has been, a myth.
OK GMC. Call ‘em whatever you like.
“So… when and how does the toddly one intend to fix the misinterpreted intent of his law?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | April 26, 2007 at 01:35 PM
…and none the less, didnt cops and their organizations oppose them? And didnt the NRA and their bought and paid for congresscritters keep them legal anyway?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | April 26, 2007 at 01:40 PM
I’m pretty sure my brothers desert eagle can penetrate body armor if need be. Besides just shoot where there isn’t any armor, in the words of G Gordon Liddy “shoot them in the head kill the son of a bitch” and he was referring to confronting police who do no knock raids.