Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, in a letter responding to the June 20 Eagle editorial on the Tiahrt amendment, continues to peddle the fiction that critics of his measure are all part of a vast left-wing East Coast and media conspiracy. It’s an easy way to avoid real argument and evidence.
Tiahrt also claims to be “erring on the side of officer safety.” But it’s a false choice. Many law enforcement officials contend that the laws in place prior to his amendment already protected cops while meeting the demonstrated need of local police for aggregate gun trace data. That’s the evidence that critics have asked Tiahrt to produce: How were old restrictions inadequate?
Tiahrt argues that local jurisdictions already have the ability to share information. True. But what they have to share is limited, of course, because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under the Tiahrt restrictions, is denying them some of the most valuable pieces of gun crime information.
The ATF’s own 2002 annual report on gun trace data (which has been discontinued since the Tiahrt amendment passed) extolled the benefits of releasing the information to local law enforcement, saying that “with information about patterns and trends, more violent criminals can be arrested more efficiently, more focused regulatory enforcement can be undertaken, and more gun crime and violence can be prevented.”
That’s precisely the argument of more than 220 cities and 30 national and state police organizations that have asked that the restrictions be changed or removed.
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
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 8/7
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 8/7
- beber on Open thread 8/7
- HLP on Open thread 8/7
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- Phantom on Case closed on anthrax suspect?
- HLP on Open thread 8/7
- Political_mama on Open thread 8/7
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 8/7
66 Comments
Since when has Tiarht been on the right side of anything - except how to get more money into his own pockets.
Tiarht went into Congress with that wave of politicians waving that Contract ON America. Since that time, this bunch of politicians, led by Newt Gingrich, has brought dirty politics to a new low. This same bunch who promised to bring honesty and integrity only brought more scandals than ever before.
Tiarht’s amendment is nothing more than keeping his lockstep with the NRA. Tiarht is now finding out what it is like to be in the minority since the 2006 election. I, for one, am glad he is getting a taste of his own medicine.
From ATFE director Michael Sullivan-
“”During the past several weeks, numerous questions and articles have arisen in the media, regarding the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share firearms trace data among members of the law-enforcement community. With the recent tragic events surrounding the senseless criminal use of firearms; I felt the need to clarify this important issue……..Our agency routinely shares trace data with state and local law-enforcement agencies in support of investigations within their respective jurisdictions. Once a requesting agency receives law-enforcement-sensitive trace data from ATF, it becomes the agency’s data to disseminate and share with other law-enforcement entities as it deems appropriate.
Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.”
BLOOMBERG WANT’S THE DATA TO USE IN LAWSUITS, NOT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
He has made putting gun dealers and manufacturers out of business a personal crusade of his.
Tiarht, play nice with Bloomberg. He could be president, you never will.
Heckler is exactly right about Bloomberg. Bloomberg wants to use the data from ATF in order to bring lawsuits against gun dealers.
Bloomberg seeks to skirt the second amendment by lawsuit. This kind of financial bullying is the worst kind of treachery and Bloomberg needs to be called out by the MSM.
Of course, this will never happen as the MSM is anti-gun too.
How can any one trust Bloomberg? He switches political parties like someone switches their neckties.
Bloomberg is part of the Liberal Left power brokers whose goal is to re-design American into their own warped version of a Socialistic Nanny State.
Bloomberg will never be President as people who know his agenda will be the killing off of what we know as America.
“How can any one trust Bloomberg? He switches political parties like someone switches their neckties.”
A political party is nothing. A political party is a label we use to identify ourselves with a group of people, the bulk of whose ideals we identify with. Political parties change their stances on issues so much, how can anyone be a true loyalist to a party? Besides, shouldn’t we be loyal to the best interests of America instead of the best interests of a political party?
“Bloomberg is part of the Liberal Left power brokers whose goal is to re-design American into their own warped version of a Socialistic Nanny State.”Is this an opinion you developed on your own, or did you read it somewhere? Your capitalization of ‘Socialistic Nanny State’ indicates it is a proper noun, which would lead one to believe it is an existing organization you are referencing.
In response to Fed Up’s quote
Quote from Gerald Nunziato, special agent in charge of the National Firearm Tracing Center for the ATF:”U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan’s column (”Gun-trace data shared prudently,” May 2) misrepresents the Tiahrt Amendment. As a former special agent in charge of the National Firearms Tracing Center at the ATF, I would like to set the record straight.
First, Sullivan claims that the restrictions are intended to protect the anonymity of undercover detectives and the integrity of criminal investigations. Yet the trace database already includes safeguards to do this, and over the course of the many years when the data was available, there was not a single problem in this area. Moreover, in almost 30 years with ATF, I am not aware of any cases where the release of trace information to law enforcement or to the public has compromised a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Second, Sullivan states that the ATF routinely shares trace data with local law enforcement. What he fails to explain is that the restrictions allow the ATF to share data only on a case-by-case basis.
Third, Sullivan states that the restrictions do not prevent cities from sharing data with other jurisdictions. What he doesnt tell you is that even though illegal gun trafficking is a regional problem, ATF denies cities requests for the very information that would be helpful to share.
Finally, Sullivan is standing by a Bush administration proposal for fiscal year 2008 that would make it more difficult for police to use trace data and potentially put officers behind bars for sharing the data.”
The real reason behind Bloomberg’s agenda in his own words.
Posted previously by ZeroEnd on the WE Blog:
“”Bloomberg: “By forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings,” Bloomberg complained, “H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers.”"
Hey Vic - I didn’t quote anything - you might want to actually read the posting before you respond to it. Where is the quote???? Much like, where is the fence - but that is another topic for another day.
Rogue gun dealers? Say it isnt so…
I guess you must mean rogue gun dealers like tim mcveigh and his pals? Like they financed some of his bomb building by selling guns at gun shows or by running them without oversight?
Say it isnt so…
Heckler’s got it exactly right.
Bloomberg is not interested in the least in assisting criminal investigations; and the current law does not restrict use of crime trace data for that purpose. The meme of denying local law enforcement trace data is cover, and is simply a lie. NOTHING in the amendment or ATF policy prohibits sharing such data with local law enforcement. The perninant language of the amendment, barring release of trace data:
“. . . to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution.”PL109-108, H.R. 2862
Note - the amendment permits exactly the release Bloomberg and company claim it bars; rather, it bars release to anyone OTHER THAN law enforcement. That ‘other’ would be Bloomberg, and that’s why his panties are in a wad.Bloomberg, rather, is interested in using the data in civil suits, and THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE AMENDMENT BARS. Again, the language of the statute:
” . . . not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title.”
Thus, Bloomberg’s exactly the same liar he’s always been. And the MSM and the Eagle continues to enable and promote this liar. WHY?
When is the MSM media, and the Eagle, going to do its job and expose Bloomberg and his agenda? Never, because it does not fit their agenda (the Eagle’s Brownlee has claimed, with a straight face, the paper has no agenda; that’s patently and obviously a lie). But we know the truth.
Oh, and Bloomberg as President? A New York billionaire seeking to remove firearms from the gun cabinets of Americans? You think that would have any chance in what New Yorkers dismissively consider “fly-over country?” Non-starter. Dead.
RANDY SCHOLFIELD are you listening?
Republicans 8:51 post bears repeating. ( I’d been looking for that quote and couldnt find it)
“”Bloomberg: “By forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings,” Bloomberg complained, “H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers.”"
And what is Bloombergs definition or a “Rogue gun dealer”?
Heckie, what is YOUR definition of a rogue gun dealer? Do you even believe such a thing exists?
You are right fedup, I read it incorrectly, it was Heckler’s quote on Sullivan.
Why does anyone have a problem with lawsuits against bad gun dealers? More then 85% of gun shops will not have a single crime gun traced to them in a single year. Less then 1% of gun shops are responsible for more then 60% of crime guns. Why shouldn’t they be investigated and penalized if they are found to be engaging in illegal practices?
Police are not getting the information they need, no matter how you look at it, they are not getting the full picture, and I don’t see how not giving cops data about illegal guns helps anyone.
Bloomberg considers any gun dealer a “rogue gun dealer.”
That’s why he illegally sent investigators from New York into other states to attempt to trap gun dealers into illegal purchases.
I think that Bloomberg has violated Federal law by doing so and should be prosecuted accordingly.
KFG vic
First off, I know what Bloombergs agenda is, to put as many dealers out of business as possible through lawsuits. He hates guns, not criminals. To him ANY gun dealer is a Rogue.
The ATF has all of the data at it’s disposal. It can easily see if a large number of guns involved in crimes are coming from one dealer. There are 2 courses of action they can take.
1)Investigate the dealer either covertly or openly. They can do undercover “straw” buys in a blatant manner to see if he’s knowingly making straw sales. They can confront him openly and threaten criminal charges if the evidence warrants it. Either way they can easily stop it.
2)Run an investigation to trace the gun running chain and put away the real criminals.
Bloomberg is a power freak who isnt afraid to break the law if HE thinks that the ends justify the means.
vic:
“I don’t see how not giving cops data about illegal guns helps anyone.”
That’s the lie, vic. The statute does NOT prevent, in your words, “giving cops data about illegal guns.” It prevents giving data about illegal guns to Bloomberg’s group, who seeks to sue manufacturers and dealers.
Quit buying the pablum crap the MSM, including the Eagle, is spewing on this. Read the statute for yourself.
And yet, despite Tiahrt’s knuckle dragging, avoidance of questions, taking of bribes, association with criminals, broken campaign promises and general incompetence he’ll still get the Eagle’s endorsement for 2008.
GMC, i have read it. It restricts them to particular data to a specific crime. It prevcents them from getting regional data and restricts reports from ATF from being produced. Look at this letter from Jersey City to the ATF requesting data and then getting denied and tell me they can still get the data. ATF produced reports for Jersey City in the past (look on the ATF web site), but cannot under this provisionhttp://protectpolice.org/docs/atf-jersey_city_exchange.pdf
All of you are focused solely on Bloomberg…there are a lot of other people behind this. If you take him entirely out of the equation, this still does not make sence.
Doug,
Prove your assertions that Tiahrt has taken bribes in regard to this Bill. And also your other assertions as well.
Of course, you’ll just tap dance your way around as usual with your usual spew of nonsensical Liberal Left mantra.
That’s right vic, it keeps them from going on “fishing expeditions.”
The Judicial System was not designed to invade the second amendment rights of others just because special interest groups want promote their own anti-gun agendas.
Bloomberg is the loser in this case and will get relentlessly hammered unless he ceases and desists on his attack on the second amendment.
“”Bloomberg: “By forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings,” Bloomberg complained, “H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers.”"
What the hell is wrong with that statement????
clipped from usdoj.gov…
The ATF’s own analysis of crime gun recoveries (contained in its report Crime Gun Trace Reports 2000) found that 48 percent of crime guns were recovered within 25 miles of where they were originally sold.
In contrast, national trafficking patterns (guns recovered more than 250 miles from where they were purchased) accounted for more than 30 percent of crime guns traced in only 9 cities (including cities that ban handguns, such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago).
Those data indicate that the preponderance of guns recovered in a Division was of local origin.
Therefore, we concluded that data on trace submissions could be used to approximate the distribution of crime gun traced to FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) in the ATF’s Field Divisions.
In our review, we found that 11 of the ATF’s 23 Field Divisions took no revocation actions in 2002.
Those 11 Field Divisions conducted a total of 1,936 compliance inspections that found 51,314 violation instances. To accept the ATF’s logic would mean that those Field Divisions initiated no revocations because, despite the 51,314 violations - which ATF Inspectors spent more than 108,000 hours to find and document - the ATF found no case that indicated a pattern of willful disregard for federal firearms laws.
clip…
The number of retail gun dealers has decreased dramatically in the last eight years. In 1992 thefederal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) estimated that the 74 percent ofAmerica’s quarter million retail gun dealers did not operate storefront businesses, such as gunstores or sporting goods outlets.
Rather, most gun dealers operated out of their homes—often inviolation of state and local laws.
An unknown number of these “kitchen-table” dealers wereinvolved in high-volume, criminal gun trafficking. Due to new licensing and renewal criteriacontained in 1993’s Brady Law and 1994’s federal crime bill, enhanced ATF enforcement, andstate and local initiatives, as of January 2000, the percentage of dealers has dropped and thereare now approximately 70,000 dealers.
In most states, a private gun owner may legally sell his or her gun without proof that the buyerhas passed a criminal history check, whereas federally licensed gun dealers must perform Bradybackground checks on all gun sales.
(Must perform is questionable. Some dealers allow straw buyers to hide from the background check.
Straw buyers who alter weapons, shaving serial numbers. That effort means the guns cost more, when sold to criminals.
Some bad FFL business owners out there.
Data says most criminals get guns from friends and family as well.)
clip…
Reagan signing the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, significantly curtailed ATF’s enforcement powers against the firearms industry.
The law limited the number of times ATF could conduct a compliance audit on a gun dealer to once a year.
More importantly, it reduced all record-keeping violations–no matter whether there was one violation or a thousand, and no matter if records were falsified–to misdemeanors.
Entirely removing the threat that ATF could pursue felony charges against dealers flouting record-keeping laws and selling guns to prohibited persons under the table.
Through laziness, sloppy inventory control, or under-the-table shenanigans, dealers wind up arming criminals.
vic:
You can’t take Blomberg out; he’s driving this train. And the letter you cite makes my point; the request comes from “corporation counsel,” not a prosecutor or law enforcement official, nor is it remotely related to a criminal investigation. It’s a fishing expedition. For what purpose? Clearly not investigation of any crime.
No, vic, the Bloomberg lie is still a lie.
Mrage, I can’t follow what the hell your point is . . . and I suspect you can’t either.
GMC, you keep talking like an expert, have you ever seen what this information looks like? Take a look a report done for Jersey City before Tiahrt was enacted.http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/states/jerseyci.pdf
Tell what in that report offends you. Tell me why police should be able to get a report like that? Tiahrt prohibits them from putting out these reports anymore. It makes absolutely no sence except to pander to the NRA and gun lobby. You seem obsessed with “fishing expeditions”. Suggesting that LE do nothing about tht 30,000 gun deaths a year and not looking at this as the plague that is reprehensible.
GMC is a prosecuting attorney I believe, he gets paid for being accurate.
GMC,
The point is…ATF is hampered politically. They can investigate gun sellers but don’t shut them down quickly.
Bad dealers are selling to straw buyers.
Is every gun sale from a dealer, a legal purchase through background check? No.
Bad dealers exist. Bad people funnel guns to make a profit.
Bad people easily get weapons to commit crimes.
If statistically guns aren’t coming from private owners at gun shows, many crime guns have to come from retail dealers.
One statistic said, many crime guns are stolen. Who and where they were stolen from, wasn’t mentioned.
Stolen from family and friends. Stolen from stores. Taken from gun manufactures?
Is the general public at fault, when two people make a trade for guns? No way!
Accept bad dealers exist and the ATF is slow to shut them down.
In 2002, Department of Justice said, no FFL’s were revoked by the ATF.
With 70,000 gun dealers, shutting 20 to 50 year down a year is very slow process. The DOJ said recently, a few dealers have been shut down.
ATF doesn’t fine dealers instantly and they should. ATF has been politically hampered by Congress, with NRA help.
Isn’t not going after Gun Crimes was one the reasons the San Diego Federal Attorney was fired?
I do recall that some of the attorneys involved in the firings had poor records on Gun Crimes.
Anyway, back to the point.
Mrage,
This pathway that Bloomberg seeks is in my opinion a way to leave the front door unlocked so he can go after gun manufacturers as the ultimate goal.
Bloomberg is certainly no dummy and he knows that the quickest pathway in a lawsuit is to leave bread crumbs for “guilt by association” or better yet, “guilt by a named process,” that is the makers of guns.
And I still think Bloomberg violated federal law when he sent investigators to set up illegal gun sales. The State Attorney for several states want his hide for doing so and I’m sure if it were politically painless, Bloomberg would be on the docket of a Federal District Court.
vic:
“Tiahrt prohibits them from putting out these reports anymore”
I don’t think so.
I see nothing in the amendment that would prevent such a report now. As I skim it (I don’t have time to go through it item by item), it’s (in substantial part) the breakdown result of crime trace data for crime guns from Jersey city. It is not specific crime trace data, rather, it’s a statistical summary of the results of trace data. Anyone who wanted to do so could do so; if Jersey City has the results, over time, of crime trace data it has submitted to ATF, it could come up with a similar report.
Now I know your response - Jersey City can’t get such data. And that’s the lie. Yes it can; LEO’s get such data daily. If a gun is used in a crime, it can be traced through ATF. I’ve seen and used those trace reports, so don’t tell me local prosecutors or law enforcement can’t get them. I could just as well take all our crime trace results over time and make the same analysis, if so inclined.
What Bloomberg wants is trace data for civil suit, not in his jurisdiction and not for a criminal investigation purpose, nor tracking trends on illegal gun aquisitions for criminal prosecution/investigation purposes. No, his STATED goal is civil suit. Period. And his purpose is to harass manufacturers/dealers out of business. Pull off the blinders and see that.
BTW - I’ll invite you to the 1st annual (maybe) lib/con shootoff. Join us for a few hundred rounds downrange, share a beer, then we’ll talk.
GMC, you bring up very good points and obvisouly read up on this.
If you go on to the ATF web site and do a search for their gun trace data reports, they stopped in 2003. I know you don’t think that is a coincidence.
I have to admit, I was hoping you would ask about Jersey City. They have had a lot of problems getting data.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2P8Tpbjnyg
This IACP chief is very good in explaining how this restricts accesshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Pa1ykkcao&mode=related&search=
Thank you for the invite. I am, by the way, typically a conservative. I view this as crime control as opposed to 2nd amendment issue so i don’t have to turn in my GOP card yet.
Republican, you can go to Opensecrets.org and check up the money the politicians receive and from whom. Tiahrt has been bribed thousands of dollars by the NRA. Is this a news flash to you? It took a long time for Tiahrt to return that Abramoff money as well. It’s not like you neo-cons are actually concerned about corruption so excuse me for your feigned concern.
GMC,
Should gun manufactures be sued for dumping too much product on communities?
Are they losing guns? How many are stolen from manufactures?
Should they manufacture so many guns not used for hunting?
Hand guns made with plastics, their smaller and lighter to carry around.
More than six shots is a big clip and firing is easy. Smaller gun, but a more powerful weapon.
What if all handguns limited to six shots, clip and revolver. Law Enforcement should only have weapons with larger clips.
Can’t a trained handgun shooter stop someone with 6 shots or less?It’s a problem at the Federal level, how Congress is protecting the gun industry.
Cities should sue because the social cost and destruction among people is harming some communities terribly.
New York has 40,000 more police than Los Angeles and still Bloomberg is complaining about gun violence in his city. His police has found many guns are coming from Virginia?
Gun violence in Los Angeles is very high. Some dealers there are under suspicion selling too many guns that criminals use.
Cities can’t celebrate life and community, while so many citizens are dying by gunfire.
Who is at fault for so many guns? Manufactures and bad dealers!
Why guns are shot, communities have to find ways to reduce violence.
ATF isn’t quick to shut dealers down is a problem.
We have to believe the short distance crime guns travel. Every community has straw buyers working with bad dealers.
vic:
I understand reasonable people can disagree on this. Some people (Bloomberg & Co.) want to ban the firearms entirely (I’d question whether they are reasonable people, of course, but that’s another subject). Bloomber’s real burr is that the amendment is doing exactly what it was intended to do, which frustrate’s Bloomberg’s purpose. Bloomberg’s simply lieing about his purpose, as well as the impact of the amendment.
Chiefs of police, of course, are politicians, not policemen. Chiefs of police opposed liberalized concealed carry, for example, but that is absolutely not indicative of the rank and file.
Doug: You assert, apparearantly, that Tiahrt is “bribed” because he accepts campaign contributions. If that’s your standard, ALL politicians, of any stripe, are “bribed.” What it really reflects, of course, is your biases (and mine, too); those on our side are “public interest,” opponents are “special interest.” Just like politicians we like are “public servants,” those we don’t are “hacks.”
It’s all a matter of perspective. Has always been so.
Mrage -
“Should gun manufactures be sued for dumping too much product on communities?”
There’s no profit in “dumping,” of course. They manufacture what they can sell at a profit. Is that “too much?” If it means the guns I’d like to buy get cheaper, I hope so!!! But in reality, demand for firearms is just like demand for any other product - driven by the market.
“Cities can’t celebrate life and community, while so many citizens are dying by gunfire.
Who is at fault for so many guns? Manufactures and bad dealers!”
Please - if you forget about your bread in the morning and burn your toast, do you blame the toaster? It makes about as much sense.
And you’re no more understandable now, I’m afraid, Mrage. You still write in disconnected fragments of thoughts.Think paragraphs. Full, complete sentences. Learn it, live it, love it.
vic:
One other thing. The Brady Campaign are known and proven liars. ANYTHING with their label on it is automatically suspect.
I view any politician who takes money in exchange for doing political favors as a bribe. If I give a cop some money to tear up a ticket it’s a bribe, it isn’t a political donation. When the NRA gives money to Tiahrt to write bills that the NRA favors then it’s a bribe. Just because the same congressmen who take the bribes create laws changing the name to “donation” doesn’t make it any less of a bribe.
Doug:
If that is so, then all 535 members of Congress, each and every state legislator, every governor, all presidents, hell, EVERY elected official or anyone who ever ran for office has been bribed.
Wanna reign in the definition just a LITTLE bit?
There you go again Eagle, if you can’t destroy the Tiahrt Amendment the first time, just keep bashing the issue to death.
All y’all bloggers get paid to post these stories? Then why does the Eagle keep paying you to post the Same Old Shit articles over and over?
That’s like the ole factory piece rate trick of double and triple counting the same dang piece and getting paid several times for making one piece!
Attn: Posters - just go back and copy and paste previous posts over and over again. See how interesting this blog would get then!
GMC,
Who are you defending? The gun industry or your Right to own a weapon.
They are not one and the same.
You get some guns from the industry, not them all. They shouldn’t be creating weapons for wars, sell them retail.
There can be limitations on style of guns manufactured and number of shots available in fireams.
Where in the Amendment does it specify type of arms citizens have a Right to?
Why doesn’t sanity exist in guns, that have no use besides waging war. Those shouldn’t be sold to the public.
Big clip weapons are harmful. Inaccurate shots are flying from shooters, connecting with citizens.
You can’t argue for the access to weapons and victims of gun fire are supposed to accept your Rights.
What about their Rights in bad neighborhoods where gun fire is nightly? Where neighbors get shot for reasons that make no sense.
Someone or some process has to limit guns sold, so their less deadly, basically less shotsfired.
You can gleefully want to horde every weapon available now, maybe ammunition to those weapons can be stopped.
Ammunition might be confiscated.
When a State government or when hell freezes over, the Federal Goverment wants to limit guns to protect children… won’t you help?
You claim to be accurate, why do you require more shots? Shouldn’t criminals have less shots from guns they fire?
Not addressed to me, but I’ll answer anyway. Why Why Why Mrage do you not do a little reading of the Federalists papers, the US Constitution to education yourself on why there is a 2nd Amendment? Or reread some of the 1,924 prior blog articles on this one site alone?
*Answers to your question are preceded by that little star thingy.
Where in the Amendment does it specify type of arms citizens have a Right to?
*There are no limits to the type of arms in the 2nd Amendment.
Why doesn’t sanity exist in guns, that have no use besides waging war. Those shouldn’t be sold to the public.
*Guns are inanimate objects - thus neither sane or insane. The 2nd Amendment prohibits prohibiting gun sales to the public.
Big clip weapons are harmful. Inaccurate shots are flying from shooters, connecting with citizens.
*Would you feel better if you were shot with 1 bullet, 2, 3, 10, 15, 25, what’s the magic number you want for gun capacity? Accuracy is not impacted by magazine capacity. Again, the 2nd Amendment has no such restrictions on magazine capacity.
You can’t argue for the access to weapons and victims of gun fire are supposed to accept your Rights.
*Victims and anyone else all have the same rights, regardless of whether they accept them or not. Giving more access to guns for law-abiding people actually helps them defend themselves - thus allowing them NOT to become victims.
What about their Rights in bad neighborhoods where gun fire is nightly? Where neighbors get shot for reasons that make no sense.
*Same rights exist in any neighborhood in the USA.
Someone or some process has to limit guns sold, so their less deadly, basically less shotsfired.
*Guns cannot be made less deadly. From .17 caliber to .50 caliber, all calibers can kill. Again, back to the number of rounds for you, responsible gun owners can usually kill with one or sometimes two shots.
You can gleefully want to horde every weapon available now, maybe ammunition to those weapons can be stopped.
*And if Hillary is elected, we will see the previous record period of 1993-94 broken by a factor of 10. I’ll horde as much as I can afford - maybe even take out a mortgage.
Ammunition might be confiscated.
*Likely if Hillary is elected and the 2nd Amendment is violated.
When a State government or when hell freezes over, the Federal Goverment wants to limit guns to protect children… won’t you help?
*Why are children more valuable then adults? Oh, “it’s for the children” argument again! I’ll help protect children by continuing to support law enforcement and by carrying a concealed weapon.
You claim to be accurate, why do you require more shots? Shouldn’t criminals have less shots from guns they fire?
*If attacked by multiple attackers, say several gang members, each of whom has a big nasty gun with lots of bullets in high capacity magazines, I need a weapon of equal force in order to defend myself.
You claim to be accurate, why do you require more shots? Shouldn’t criminals have less shots from guns they fire?
*Criminals shouldn’t have ANY shots, but they do. They are already legally banned from owning or possessing firearms, remember there’s a Federal Law!
Mrage, there’s a law banning guns already for criminals! Did you read that before somewhere?
Proof that gun bans do not work.
There’s a law banning guns already for criminals! Did you read that before somewhere?
Proof that gun bans do not work.
Max
6 shots in handguns, clips and revolvers is enough.
I want gang members and criminals to have less shots.
So the gun you purchase, criminals abuse. Who should change first?
You claim to be accurate, target shooting with guns helps, why not help inaccurate shooters to have less shots.
Your Right to weapons are not infringed. Society has less shots fired in neighborhoods. At least the shooters will reload, or drop one gun and pick up another. A pause will happen.
That pause could save a life.
If gangs had less shots in guns and your attacked by them, training should save your life.
You take six out with one shot.
Four out, firing twice at couple of them.
Run if you can get away is proper behavior. Run to reset your firing position. You’ll quickly reload.
There has to be a political push taking ammunition away from guns on the market today.
Everyone with less shots in one gun, society could be safer.
Remember a lot of Americans will never be armed, by choice. Due to reprisals people aren’t eager to take on gangs in gun fights.
I don’t imagine your eager.
When gangs hang out and they have weapons, they should have less shots per gun.
So Max, the Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit RPG launchers - should you be allowed to own one?
How about a tank?
Mortar?
Bazooka?
Nuclear weapon?
Where do you draw the line?
I have no problem with guns or gun owners or concealed carry - but how big of a gun do you want?
*One more time for Mrage:
6 shots in handguns, clips and revolvers is enough.
*No, it isn’t.
I want gang members and criminals to have less shots.
*I want gang members and criminals to have 0 shots, but we don’t always get what we want.
So the gun you purchase, criminals abuse. Who should change first?
*The criminals.
You claim to be accurate, target shooting with guns helps, why not help inaccurate shooters to have less shots.
*Inaccurate shooters need more shots.
Your Right to weapons are not infringed. Society has less shots fired in neighborhoods. At least the shooters will reload, or drop one gun and pick up another. A pause will happen.
*Read above - criminals are banned from having guns now. By having a gun, they are already breaking the law. You think by passing a new law limiting gun capacity that the criminals will follow that law?
If gangs had less shots in guns and your attacked by them, training should save your life.
*Not gonna happen Mrage. Can’t take the guns away from criminals now. Training will help save my life, having an accurate, large caliber, high capacity firearm will help save my life too.
You take six out with one shot.
*Only in Hollywood.
Four out, firing twice at couple of them.
*Only in Hollywood.
Run if you can get away is proper behavior. Run to reset your firing position. You’ll quickly reload.
*Marge, you can’t possibly be this stupid.
There has to be a political push taking ammunition away from guns on the market today.
*Only if the 2nd Amendment is violated or repealed.
Everyone with less shots in one gun, society could be safer.
*Redundant Marge, and No again.
Remember a lot of Americans will never be armed, by choice. Due to reprisals people aren’t eager to take on gangs in gun fights.
*That’s fine, that’s their choice, not mine. If they don’t want to defend themselves, they can beg any attackers not to harm them.
When gangs hang out and they have weapons, they should have less shots per gun.
*If they are breaking no laws, gangs can have what everyone else has. If they are convicted felons, they can’t legally have guns Marge.
Max,
How did America ever change vehicles? Manufactures stopped building them. Parts become problematic, more expensive to fix.
If the Fed government said manufactures can only create 6 shot capacity handguns, they better listen.
Federal Firearms…the Federal means gov is in control.
One day we’ll get a gov who takes on the gun industry.
Since handguns are now the biggest sales of weapons, fix them to have less shots seems reasonable.
Ammunition for today’s guns can be stopped.
New handguns designed would have less shots. Different kind of ammo.
Future criminals will be have lower capacity handgun. Not less powerful, just less shots.
The goal is not get into public shootouts.
Make fun, whatever, its crazy to allow all the types of guns sold today and we’re surprised at the street carnage.
“Doug:
If that is so, then all 535 members of Congress, each and every state legislator, every governor, all presidents, hell, EVERY elected official or anyone who ever ran for office has been bribed.
Wanna reign in the definition just a LITTLE bit?”
No, not at all. No congressman should be taking bribes. Public financing of campaigns will clear the congress of corrupt corporation and special interest corruption. They can spend their money on issue campaigns like churches can but no money will go directly to the candidates.
Why is bloomberg not in jail for violation of federal laws? He should be prosecuted under the RICO act, for his little headline grabbing sting operation. If any one of the people who posted here, had tried what bloomberg did, you would be in jail at this moment. Oh, yea, I forgot, he is rich, so he can tell the feds to screw off.
…and no one from the tighty righties EVER answered my question about how they would identify a rogue gun dealer. I asked if they recognized anyone as a rogue gun dealer.
Their answer?
(crickets chirping)
Citizens of Wichita — PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT! Your U.S. Representative, Todd Tiahrt, is adversely affecting ALL of us across the United States and endangering our police and the safety of our citizens with his amendment. Please STAGE A PROTEST, like we’ve done in 7 states in the 9 weeks since the Virginia Tech massacre to PROTEST LAX U.S. GUN LAWS! Non-partisan citizens across the country are staging this “lie-in” protest because we are outraged at how easy it is to buy a gun in the United States! We need to stop criminals from having easy access to guns and we need to help our police protect us by repealing the Tiahrt amendment so that our police can have access to crime gun trace data. VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION loud and clear to Tiahrt’s amendment through this protest so the rest of the country can HEAR YOU! You can be the Wichita-32 protest group to help secure a safer future for our children and all of us! Thank you. See ProtestEasyGuns.com for photos of protests and our “protest-in-a-box” to learn how to stage this protest in your community.
One big mistake should be avoided. That is confusing chiefs of police with law enforcement. Most police chiefs serve at the whim of their mayor. Many spend much of their time in the positions to satisfy those whims. Most, if they ever knew, are so far removed from street work, particularly undercover work they don’t grasp it.
Remember all the states since Florida began the wave of states implementing “shall-issue” concealeed carry laws, have produced a harmonic response from the police chief organizations right there with the dishonest media and gun-grabber shrieks that there will be blood running in the streets. 20 years later and they’re still doing it. Now that colleges are considering allowing licensed concealed carriers to carry on campus, the police chiefs have rejoined the chorus about all the problems that will bring. How can anyone in what resembles a right mind believe that the system at VT is the way to go — or to continue?
Look at the source.
Sorry Farmgirl, I was busy chirping. (Ever wonder how we make that noise?)
Please explain to me how Bloomberg’s approach will identify a rogue gun dealer?
Answer: It won’t.
Bloomberg simply wants to shut down the gun industry thru hundreds of lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers.
Bloombergs claim of being able to find a rogue gun dealer thru digging into every gun sale record is a lie, used to disguise his true intent.
Back to my lady friend to do some more chirping!
The question of rogue gun dealers is irrelevant to the law.
As it has been said before, Bloomberg is trying to skirt the second amendment.
He needs to be prosecuted Federally for sending private investigators across state lines to purchase guns illegally in his “sting” operation.
Republican, law enforcement is practically non-existent with regard to enforcing any of the 20,000 gun laws today. Why should Bloomberg be any exception to this?
He did break the law and should be in jail and pay a fine, but gun laws simply are not enforced.
Now, if the 20,000 existing gun laws would be enforced, crime would be so low no one would even think to ask for a new gun law.
Anyone know how many Instant Background check denials there are? Anyone know how many of those people who illegally tried to buy a firearm were prosecuted?
Answer: In 2005 only 1.4% of the 9,575 Instant Background Check Denials referred to the FBI by the BATF, were prosecuted.
There is practically no enforcement of existing gun laws.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearm and Explosives’ (ATF) field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denials that were referred by the FBI in 2005.• In 2005 agencies reported 1,400arrests of persons denied a firearm or a permit.• In 2005 U.S. attorney officesaccepted for prosecution 135 NICSdenial cases investigated by ATF.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bcft05.pdf
Oh, just to clarify (and maybe GMC70 can confirm):
It is a felony for someone who is not legally able to buy a firearm (eg. previously convicted felon)to attempt to buy a firearm.
So, if an ex-con goes into a gun store and tries to buy a firearm, fails the background check, there should be BATF and FBI all over this guy to prosecute him or her for committing a felony.
Rarely happens folks.
Still, some just want to pass more gun laws. (and not enforce them either)
Funny, still no one answered my question. Y’all just said Bloomberg did or didnt define rogue gun dealer.
You seem not to be able to do either. Am I left to assume that no matter what, NO gun dealer is rogue and therefor NO gun dealer should be held accountable to the rule of law?
‘Cause it sure sounds that way.
“Bloomberg: “By forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings,” Bloomberg complained, “H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers.”
So what do YOU all propose to do about “rogue” gun dealers? Or, once again, do you even acknowledge there is such a thing?
And heckie?
1)Investigate the dealer either covertly or openly. They can do undercover “straw” buys in a blatant manner to see if he’s knowingly making straw sales. They can confront him openly and threaten criminal charges if the evidence warrants it. Either way they can easily stop it.
2)Run an investigation to trace the gun running chain and put away the real criminals.”
And what if the “gun running chain” simply moves to another state? If state and local lec cant share info, what do you propose to do about that?
“Bloomberg is a power freak who isnt afraid to break the law if HE thinks that the ends justify the means.”
Heckler, please show me where Bloomberg is advocating breaking the law or saying that “the end justifies the means”, whatever that means.
kfg,
Bloomberg sent several Private Investigators to several states, including Southern states, to try and get gun dealers to sell them guns illegally. You can look it up on the Internet.
There are several State Attorneys that want his hide stretched out on a fence.
Farmgirl ignores the facts presented.
Not much you can do if they can’t read.
1.4 million denied by the instant background check. Even when the government has the names and addresses of 1.4 million felons, the government chooses not to enforce the law.
Instead, nuts like Bloomberg dream up new schemes and new laws that will catch not one criminal, but it will bankrupt several gun dealers and gun manufacturers - and that is his true goal.
The government cannot regulate and control the private sale of guns, knives, used clothes, or garage sale items, and why should it?
Bloombergs approach is by default gun registration for anyone who legally buys a gun.
You buy a CAR, it has to be registered… You buy a Truck, it has to be registered… You buy a House, and IT has to be registered… So you want people to buy guns, and NOT register them?? NOW who is insane???
Register every gun….
Say Chas, how do you find every gun?
Well, you find each gun sold LEGALLY…. That’s a start… The rest are sort of like finding illegal aliens…
How do you find the ones sold legally?
Ok, so you can’t find the guns sold illegally.
As for the guns sold legally, how do you find the 200 million guns scattered across all 50 states?
The government can’t find 600,000 illegal immigrant fugitives in this country.
The government doesn’t prosecute the 1.4 million who were denied by a background check when attempting to illegally by a gun.
The government can’t or won’t find the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants.
So, Chas, how do you suppose the government can find 200 million guns in order to ensure they are registered?
Gun Registration = Gun Confiscation.
Any gun registration law WILL BE IGNORED. And if the government attempts to enforce it, there will be a sight in this country not seen since 1865.
For those not already informed, below are links to two documents you should read before you make a decision on the Tiahrt amendment.
There is nothing in the Tiahrt amendment that prohibits tracing firearms data for a bona fide criminal investigation.
For those who want to peruse gun purchase records for any other reason (like a Bloomberg witch hunt), that is not allowed per both the Tiahrt amendment AND the 39 year-old Gun Control Act of 1968.
1)The Tiahrt amendment. (Duh!)http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/communications/press_releases/2007/Tiahrt_gun_amd/TIAHRT_amendment_2.pdf
2)The Gun Control Act of 1968http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Chas -
Buying a car does NOT require it to be registered. Driving it on the State’s highways requires it. Homes are NOT registered; properties are recorded, to protect owner’s claims of title.
So you’ve started with a false premise. Let’s think this through - just what would be the goal of registration - what do you hope to accomplish?
I can see no purpose to registering all firearms, even assuming it can be done (it’s can’t, of course; it would be the most ignored law in the nation).Unless, of course, confiscation is the ultimate goal. And I suspect that is the ultimate goal, of course. No one will SAY it, but . . . . history shows otherwise.