Traced guns vs. crime guns
An interesting story in the DC Examiner:
"“Officer, I am carrying a firearm in compliance with North Carolina law.” So began my exchange during a traffic stop. (Sorry, I have a lead foot.) He replied, “May I have it, sir?” Since this was before I knew enough to say “no,” I complied. The officer then took my gun to his car, traced it and, finding nothing amiss, returned it to me. MAIG’s report would have you believe my gun is a “crime gun” because it would be included in the gun trace reports on which its study is based.
Therein lies the scam: Although gun control advocates call gun tracing a measure of crime, traced guns are not necessarily “crime guns.” Says the Congressional Research Service: “Trace requests are not accurate indicators of specified crimes…traces may be requested for a variety of reasons not necessarily related to criminal incidents.” Indeed, BATFE encourages police to trace all guns encountered."
I do believe Reds Trading Post had a few traces on firearms that were sold by then. However most of these firearms were hot guns from home break in's and had nothing to do with any criminal act during the sale. But ATF used the simple face that X number of firearms that went through Ryan's store ended up in a trace. No straw purchases or any thing of the kind. So when a drug dealer is raided and he has five guns with every one of these guns being stolen from B and E's the FFL has a trace on its record. Once that FFL has X number of traces they are flagged. What a scam.
Posted by: AvgJoe at January 27, 2009 08:47 AM
Sure the ATF wants guns traced, because records are kept.
Posted by: Gene at January 27, 2009 12:13 PM
Yep, it's the record that can be kept. Matched to the owners drivers license.
Posted by: tarpon at January 27, 2009 12:49 PM
How does he know the gun was traced? Tracing is a manual process that requires putting in a manual trace request with the FFL. At best it can be done in an hour or so. Even the e-trace system to the best of my knowledge, can only get you the FFL stocking dealer that the gun ended up at. You still have to call the FFL, and he still has to look through his 4473s and get back to ATF.
Is it more likely the officer checked the license?
Posted by: Sebastian at January 27, 2009 02:39 PM
Is it, or is it not, a 'lawful order' for an LEO to ask you to surrender your firearm during a traffic stop or similar official contact?
Posted by: Rio Arriba at January 27, 2009 03:22 PM
Taking custody of the gun for the duration of the stop is not intrusive - running the serial number, without probable cause to believe it was stolen or otherwise illegal, is.
Posted by: James at January 27, 2009 03:23 PM
So, if a citizen is stopped for a traffic violation, and the officer asks, "are there any firearms in the vehicle?", what ought the citizen do?
Personally, I would find it repugnant to lie to the officer.
And yet, if the citizen answers in the affirmative, even if the firearm was being transported in conformance with the law, it is my understanding that the officer would be allowed to search the entire vehicle in the interest of "officer safety".
What should a citizen do?
Posted by: CDR D at January 27, 2009 04:16 PM
Here in Florida everything is not perfect in the land of the RTKBA but it would be a naive officer indeed that would ask such a stupid question without probable cause to think that a crime had been committed. Of course I have a weapon in the car, so what. The only time it's ever been an issue is when I explain to the nice officer that the gun is on top of my registration and insurance documents in the glove box and would he mind if I lift it up to retrieve them. And the kind officer says
no problem go ahead. No disarming, no trace, just the expected outcome (one ticket and one have a nice day, sorry to have bothered you.) And this, without even bothering to mention that I have a CCW. And of course we didn't even get to the part about the rifle in the trunk with the 30 round mag. And while we are on the subject, I have decided to start calling the rifle in my truck a patrol rifle. Since thats what the nice officer calls his M4gery that is what I will call mine, if anyone asks
no more assault weapons, just patrol rifles.
The AG has ruled that an officer may take temporary custody of the gun during a stop, but if your not a bad guy, here in Florida there is mutual respect and nobody gets excited. I hope we can all keep it that way. Now Im sure that this all has something to do with the fact that I am a 56 year old, fat, white, college professor AND that I seldom drive around after midnight. I have explained to my sons that it may be a little tense when they get stopped at night and there are 4 teenagers in the car and only one nice officer and how he may ask them to do some things that really are for officer safety and they understand.
Wish we could get open carry, and get rid of the exemptions in the guns in cars parked at work law, but all in all, all is good, but we cant let our guard down for one moment.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to my pontification.
Form 1s available upon request.
Posted by: Chuck at January 27, 2009 06:22 PM
"Indeed, BATFE encourages police to trace all guns encountered."
Encourages? Sounds like 4A implications to me. What about the guns they encounter during stops where there is no RAS? Plenty of open-carriers have had serial numbers run when there was no RAS for the stop (also called illegal stops).
For James: "Oh, Nothing illegal in this car, officer." For myself, I plan to lie. If he finds it during a search, which for myself would only be an illegal search over top of my refused consent, I'll wait for him to comment, "I thought you said there were no guns in this car?" To which I'll reply, "I thought you said you'd uphold the constitution?"
Posted by: Virginian at January 27, 2009 08:45 PM
In Georgia we have State Supreme Court case law from State v. Jones (2008). The rule in Jones is that stopping someone (Tier 2 or higher) and seizing a weapon for inspection is not permissible, unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.
Not all states might have that protection.
Posted by: Scott at January 28, 2009 06:38 AM
I would have to reply "Of course you may take possession of my firearm in the interest of officer safety, so long as I can take possession of your firearm in the interest of citizen safety."
Have had that conversation. Results nobody got stupid, nobody got hurt, although the stop itself was illegal.
Posted by: straightarrow at January 28, 2009 07:11 PM
The same type of data was used against "Chucks gunshop in Dalton Illinois" Operation push protest based on trace data. Jessie jackson in 2007. Chicago currently has No gun shops. Chucks is the closest shop to the Chicago border . This is also the primary place CPD officers go to get their duty weapons also!
To my knowledge He is still in operation and has not had his FFl pulled by the BATF.
This is not the first time that Chuck's Gun Shop has been targeted by activists. Jackson's group among others such as United Power for Action & Justice have also rallied outside of the shop. Jackson's and the other activists reasons for rallying outside of Chuck's Gun Shop is as Jesse Jackson stated "majority of the guns connected with recent shooting deaths in Chicago" as reported by NBC 5.
The owner of Chuck's Gun Shop, John Riggio told NBC 5 that he follows strictly the gun laws, when selling any firearm. He also went to say that "any firearms that are stolen or resold on the black market are out of his control".
Posted by: Illinois Vote at January 29, 2009 12:37 PM
Another angle on this, pointed out on OpenCarry.org, is that in NC where the quoted report occurred, concealed carry permit holders are REQUIRED to notify the police they are carrying. While, of course, criminals cannot be required to notify.
How's that square with the accuracy of gun trace data?
It would be interesting to compare the number of traces in states that require CCW drivers to notify against the number of siezed firearms or arrests on firearms violations.
Posted by: Virginian at January 29, 2009 07:57 PM