The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently released data showing the states to which guns used in 2006 crimes had been originally traced, though not the names of dealers. For example, the 1,754 firearms recovered in connection with Kansas crimes last year mostly came from Kansas (758), Missouri (126), Oklahoma (43) and Texas (33). In response to the data release, the New York Daily News editorialized that “the ATF’s action was all the more surprising in that it appeared to violate an odious federal law, known as the Tiahrt amendment, that bars publication of gun data as a way to protect the industry from lawsuits.”
In written response, Chuck Knapp, spokesman for Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, suggested the editorial should have said that “Tiahrt was right when he has stated repeatedly that the so-called Tiahrt amendment did not prohibit the release of the referenced data.”
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
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Moore has had enough of House
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
83 Comments
Oops, Chuck is right…all the pertinent data is there.
Tiahrt is one sick puppy… Not going to say anymore about him…
Very Interesting Data.
A quick observations:
Mayor Bloomberg’s claim that straw purchases accounted for a high percentage of crime appears to be wrong.
In Kansas, guns confiscated for crime investigations were sold in the time frames shown below.
Note, only 7.6% of the confiscated guns were sold in less than 3 months of when the gun was acquired by the police:
<3 months… 79… 7.60%3-7 months… 59… 5.67%7-12 months… 38… 3.65%1 to 2 yrs… 73… 7.02%2 to 3 yrs… 59… 5.67%3 yrs+… 732… 70.38%
Total… 1040
“Local police forces last year asked the ATF for help investigating whether an estimated 284,000 weapons were legally sold, officials said Monday.”
So the Tiahrt Amendment did NOT prevent the gun traces needed for police investigations, did it Bloomberg!?!
Bloomberg is a lying SOB!
10.17 years.
That’s the average time Nationwide, from when the confiscated guns were sold by gun dealers, to when the police recovered the gun as part of an investigation.
Not a lot of straw purchasing is occuring to commit an immediate crime then.
Bloomberg – Wrong again!
<3 months… 79… 7.60%3-7 months… 59… 5.67%7-12 months… 38… 3.65%1 to 2 yrs… 73… 7.02%2 to 3 yrs… 59… 5.67%3 yrs+… 732… 70.38%
Total… 1040Posted by: Max | September 02, 2007 at 01:34 AM
========================
This list is the numbers of guns that were sold AFTER they had been confiscated in an investigation??
Is that what I am reading here??
IF SO — WHY do the police SELL guns after confiscation in an investigation??? WHY are they not simply destroyed??
Max, I only ask because I am not sure of what it is your post is suggesting… ok??
Also, we need to keep in mind that your figures, Max, are from Kansas statistics… Bloomberg is Mayor of NYC — BIG difference…
Chas:
The “sale” date is the date the new gun was originally sold by a gun dealer.
The “recovery” date is the date the police confiscated the gun for a criminal investigation.
(Doesn’t mean the gun was used in a crime, but the police suspected it had been and had probable cause to think so)
10.17 years NATIONWIDE is the average time from the date of the sale of the gun (that is confiscated) – to the date the gun is confiscated.
Straw Purchase is when an ex-con or someone who can’t legally buy a gun – pays someone who can legally buy a gun – to buy the gun for him.
Since the avg time from the sale to the confiscation is over 10 years, straw purchases of new guns doesn’t appear to be a big factor in getting guns to criminals.
Yes, the detail #s above are for Kansas. NY has a similar distribution.
The 10.17 year average is a NATIONWIDE figure directly from the BATF web site referenced in the WE article.
Interesting to note that 284,000 guns were confiscated for criminal investigations in 2006.
That’s approx 0.14% of the 200 Million total guns in this country.
In other words, 99.86% of all guns are NOT confiscated for a criminal investigation.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/index.htm
BATF Link above. You can link to any state.
OK thanks for clarifying that Max… Have a good weekend!!
I would still hope that those 284,000 guns confiscated by police werent re-sold again… That would be just plain stupid!!
I don’t see a lot of difference in selling confiscated guns and selling things confiscated in drug busts. It increases revenue for law enforcement.
Personally, I don’t care whether law enforcement sells or destroys confiscated guns. But it seems a shame to destroy a valuable commodity.
XXX, exactly what I was thinking.
Say the guns could be resold at an avg of $300 per gun.
Those 284,000 guns would bring in $85 MILLION in revenue, that could go back to law enforcement.
There’s no reason why the government should throw away $85 million in revenue, when these guns could be resold to law-abiding people.
Max, we know there’s another agenda at play here.
To my way of thinking, 85 million buys a lot of law enforcement. But I’m a second amendment supporter, so what do I know?
Actually I was wrong on one of the stats above.
I forgot about the news report from a few days ago – there are 270 Million Guns in the US. (I had said 200 Million. Max regrets the error)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7XNGwJRwI0dpBAk-dgKlxVMHVIg
Correction then:
Interesting to note that 284,000 guns were confiscated for criminal investigations in 2006.
That’s approx 0.11% of the 270 Million total guns in this country.
In other words, 99.89% of all guns were NOT confiscated for a criminal investigation in 2006.
I suppose they could give all the confiscated guns to the Military… at least that wouldnt ‘waste” a valuable commodity… and it would be that much less $$$ Military would spend on weapons…
At least giving them to the Military would keep them off the streets…
The index by states is here. All in PDF for each state.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/index.htm
Excellent idea XXX!
Anyone know the Statute on Law Enforcement selling confiscated weapons?
I know they melt those things down, but are they allowed to sell them?
i would hope they arent allowed to SELL the damn things…
Chas,
Why do you oppose selling those weapons to law abiding citizens?
The military couldn’t do much with them. It would be impractical to try to equip and maintain random weaponry.
WE EDITORS
I suppose it would be too much for you to admit you were wrong as well?
Police confiscate weapons from criminals… then Police sell the weapons on open market, so more criminals can get them again… Now that makes a lot of sense… Either destroy them, or maybe even use them in police undercover operations… But SELL them back on the streets??? That is just plain CRAZY!!!
I am still not sure that the WE editors were wrong…. LOL
I mean, who in their right mind would want to buy a weapon used by some criminal… Oooops… thats the trick… “right mind” ROFL
ChasIt is perfectly legal for gun dealers to sell guns.What the heck difference does it make if the dealers get their guns from law enforcement?You make no sense at all!Crime is caused by criminals, not by guns, and those guns might defend against criminals!
Chas,
You must have missed this in my question:
>>>>>> LAW ABIDING <<<<<<<<<<<<<
“Why do you oppose selling those weapons to LAW ABIDING citizens?”
Chas,
You must have missed this in my question:
>>>>>> LAW ABIDING <<<<<<<<<<<<<
“Why do you oppose selling those weapons to LAW ABIDING citizens?”
I dont care who they are, I dont think they should be sold PERIOD…
Get it??
I would highly encourage all of the WEBloggers to take a couple of minutes sometime tonite, or tomorrow, and make a Pledge to the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy… It is truly a worthwhile effort…
Oh, and Nathan, and Econ… You wont change my mind on that matter… So, dont even try…
Chas,
You think all individual gun ownership should not be allowed?
I am not going to engage in your silly arguments for people keeping all kinds of machines designed for KILLING PEOPLE!!
I am definitely NOT for the CC permits at all…
Chas,
I asked you a simple question:
You think all individual gun ownership should not be allowed?
Chas,
Why do you oppose Concealed Carry permits?
Because I think it is just plain Stupid… Any more questions??
Nathan, Chas is simply stating the gun-banners arguments for banning guns.
They don’t know why they want to ban guns. Just because.
Some of the elitist gun-banners know exactly why they want to ban guns, but they won’t come out and admit why.
What?? Does it make you feel all MACHO or something??? Run around with your six iron on your hip??? LOL Go of and play cops and robbers?? Cowboys and Indians?? G-man and Gansta’s??
The CC laws havent been in effect long enough yet, but just wait till the whole thing blows up in your face, when a couple of drunks face off in some street, or back alley… It will happen… I dont know when, but it will happen…
Chas,
There has to be a reason you think it is stupid.
You are being evasive.
I am seriously wondering why you think that the 80 million people in this country who own over 200 million guns LEGALLY shouldn’t?
I am seriously wondering why you think those people who take an 8 hour test, prove their ability to accurately fire a gun, pass an extensive background check with the Kansas Bureau of investigations, and only wish to have the means to protect their family and themselves from people who would harm them, shouldn’t be allowed to do so?
Chas,
Concealed carry has been legal in over 40 state for the past two decades before Kansas.
Kansas was one of the last 4 states to not allow concealed carry at all.
No where do you see two drunks facing off in the street who are licensed to carry concealed.
So why do you fear something which has yet to happen and is highly unlikely to ever take place?
You can already protect your family and yourself from those who would do you harm, in your house, or on your property, without the CC permit… Just wait till we get those drunks facing off in a street or alley somewhere… Then come explain to me why CC permits are necessary…
I told you before… I think it is a stupid law, and I think it should be repealed before people start shooting each other…
Why do YOU want to attempt to change my mind???
Chas,
How do I protect my family or myself outside of my home?
You are also promoting a double standard.
On one hand you say you oppose all legal gun ownership and then you are using legal gun ownership to say we dont need concealed carry.
So which is it? Do you oppose all gun ownership by individuals or don’t you?
And if it ever should come to a vote on a ballot, I know how I will vote… NO!!!
Chas,
Concealed carry has been legal in almost every other state for up to the past two decades and those who are licensed to carry concealed are not shooting each other?
What do you base your fears on?
Why dont you just go find ONE PLACE where I said I oppose legal gun ownership??? Those are words YOU are trying to put into MY keyboard… I DID NOT SAY THAT…. You arent going to twist that one your way…. not today, not any day!!
Oh gee… call it human nature… it will happen…
Chas,
Perhaps if you would anser my question which I have asked you several times there wouldn’t be any confusion:
You think all individual gun ownership should not be allowed?
Chas,
So simply because you “know it will happen” even though there is little to no proof to support it, you do not want to allow people to carry concealed?
What sense does that make?
I dont have to answer that question… it isnt relevant to the issue… And stop saying that I am opposed to legal gun ownership… I have NEVER said that, and you know it… I am not going to argue this with you… I have a right to my opinion… and that’s it… I think CC permits are STUPID!!!
I tell you what… I am opposed to CC Permits for ANY weapon… not just guns…
Chas,
Actually, you provide a perfect example of why concealed carry is wanted by many people:
“…call it human nature… it will happen…”
What we do have ample proof of happening is BAD PEOPLE, EVIL PEOPLE, CRAZY PEOPLE who randomly start shooting people like at VT or the Carr Brothers.
Those are the people who concealed carry gives LAW ABIDING citizens the ability to stop.
A drunk gets in his car, and starts driving away… You tell him to get out of his car, because he is drunk… He doesnt do it… Drunk drivers KILL people quite regularly… maybe even your family??? You gonna whip out your 9mm glock and blow him away, cause he is threatening your life or your family’s life??
Chas,
You earlier stated that you oppose law enforcement selling confiscated weapons to LAW ABIDING citizens:
“I dont care who they are, I dont think they should be sold PERIOD…
Get it??”
Posted by: Chas. | September 02, 2007 at 11:30 PM
If you don’t think guns should be sold period, doesn’t that say you are against individual gun ownership?
That isnt what I said, idiot… I said I dont think the police ought to sell confiscated weapons back into the public… That is a FAR CRY from ALL guns sales… I see you still have that reading comprehension problem… You really need to work on that one…
Chas,
First of all, no one who legally carries concealed has ever shot a man attempting to drive drunk.
Second, I don’t know of any case where anyone, licensed to carry concealed or not, has shot someone for simply attempting to drive drunk.
It is against Kansas law, and I would assume every other states laws to kill someone for attempting to drive drunk.
No, I would not kill someone attempting to drive drunk.
He is not an immediate threat to my life or my families or any one else at that moment and it would not be self defense.
Any more rediculous hypothetical situations which never happen?
Chas,
Hence why I have asked you over and over and over again:
“You think all individual gun ownership should not be allowed?”
Did I say I dont think Gander Mountain should not be allowed to sell guns??? Or Jack’s gun and bait shop??? NO I DID NOT!!
I said LAW ENFORCEMENT should not be selling guns back into the public once they have been confiscated…. PERIOD… NOW do you get it???
I doubt it…
Your question is stupid, unfounded, and lacking in the ability to read what I typed in…
IF you had read what I said, you would not even ask such a stupid, idiotic question!!!
Chas,
If you are not against individual gun ownership then why do you oppose police selling confiscated weapons?
Now, I am tired of your shiffur brains attitude… just cut your crap, cause I am not arguing the matter with you… I am entitled to my opinion… and if it disagrees with yours, then so be it… For now, you have the law on your side…
Individual gun ownership and POLICE(Law Enforcement) selling weapons confiscated in connection with a crime are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES….
I have NOWHERE said I am opposed to individual gun ownership… We are talking about SALES of WEAPONS by LAW ENFORCEMENT, back into the public arena…. They should just destroy them, or maybe use them in their own undercover operations…
Chas,
Of course you are entitled to your opinion.
That doesn’t make it reasonable, logical, or valid though…
Guess you can’t trust the cops to sell guns.
If you can’t trust the cops to protect you on the street, then you may want to consider legally carrying a gun to protect yourself.
Even if ALL of the confiscated guns were resold to law-abiding people, that would add 284,000 more guns to the 270,000,000 guns that people already own.
That’s a whopping increase of 0.11%.
284,000 guns sold by the police, assuming an avg sale price of $300/gun, would add $85 Million in revenue – that could be used for law enforcement!
Instead, if these guns are destroyed, it will likely COST $30 Million to cut them up and throw em away.
That’s a difference of $115 Million to us taxpayers.
is larry craig still on the nra board of directors??
Chas:
1) given the reality of CC in the 40 states that adopted it long before Kansas, the fears you express simply do not happen. Experience has told us that your fears are unfounded. Your fears are simply hoplophobia. That does not make your fears any less real, it just makes them irrational. Certainly, if you feel that way, don’t get a CC permit. Problem solved. And you’re welcome.
We’ve been round and round this issue before, I’ll not rehash it here.
2) In Kansas, law enforcement agencies may legally sell confiscated weapons to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Many agencies do, to generate funds for their departments; those guns may then be resold according to the usual legal procedures. (I don’t know if WPD does so.) Just FYI.
Oh, and BTW – once again,
Bloomberg is a liar. And the NY Times, it appears, lies as well (shockingly!!!).
Police Say Serial Rapist On Loose Near Kansas State University
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295549,00.html
Maybe Concealed Carry is a good idea for some of these women near KSU.
Hey, even the police are advising women to protect themselves:
“If someone is able to protect themselves from the opportunist rapist, you can protect yourself against the serial rapist,” said Capt. John Doehling of the Riley County, Kansas, Police Department, which covers Manhattan and the Kansas State campus.”
Selling confiscated weapons to a FEDERALLY LICENSED dealer, is a lot different from selling to the general public… I simply stated earlier, I dont think the Police should sell the guns to the public…
Uh oh another football player run amok??? Well, one never knows!!
GMC — Some of you all have your fears of Democrats… Or gay marriage… Some might see those fears as irrational…
I guess I have the right to my fears of CC people… irrational or not… same as you do with Democrats… oor gay marriage…
I mean, what’s good for you, is good for me… Eh??
Chas,
When did you ever clarify that:
” I dont think the Police should sell the guns to the public…”
Lets review all your comments so far:
“WHY are they not simply destroyed??”
Posted by: Chas. | September 02, 2007 at 01:47 AM
“I would still hope that those 284,000 guns confiscated by police werent re-sold again… That would be just plain stupid!!”
Posted by: Chas. | September 02, 2007 at 02:31 AM
“i would hope they arent allowed to SELL the damn things…”
Posted by: Chas. | September 02, 2007 at 02:24 PM
Chas,
So you admit that your fears are irrational?
Chas -
Have I expressed any irrational fears here? I may well oppose democratic politicians because of policy disagreements, but “fear?” Not hardly.
And just who do you think those FFLs sell to?
Nathan, no more irrational than your fears of gay marriage…
Good Night now… enjoy the holiday!!
GMC, Rational Fear is not such a bad thing.
I have a ton of Rational Fear if Hillary Clinton is our next President. (And not just fear that the 2nd Amendment will go away)
And just who do you think those FFLs sell to?
Posted by: GMC70 | September 03, 2007 at 01:02 AM
===================
I didnt say I LIKED it… just that its better than Law Enforcement selling direct to the public… Thats ALL I said… It needs no spin attached to it..
NATHAN… NO I did not say my fears are irrational… But that is what YOU want to believe I said, so no matter what anybody else tells you, that is what you will believe… Now, just drop it and go to bed or whatever it is you do at nite…
Enjoy the Holiday!!
Bye now!!
Typical Chas…
He will change his argument and pretend like he didn’t…
He will refuse to answer your questions…
He will act like you are confused about what he thinks, but refuse to tell you what it is he thinks…