NY Times -- further spin control on Operation Gunwalker
How do you defend a government agency allowing thousands of guns to flow to Mexican drug cartels, so they can be used to kill Border Patrol agents and Mexican officials? The NY Times makes a game try.
Story -- I suppose fiction is still a story -- here.
"In modern times, the bureau, now housed in the Justice Department, is concerned mostly with enforcing gun laws and regulating the gun industry, an unusual dual mission..." Why is that unusual? Most agencies both regulate activities and enforce violations.
"agents of the bureau, using a surveillance technique known as gun-walking...." No, it's not an accepted technique, it's a term invented by critics to describe the insane procedures followed.
"The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, for instance, banned the A.T.F. from conducting more than one unannounced inspection of a gun dealer per year..." No, it bans that only IF the dealer has not had a single gun traced to him. Nevermind that traces are not limited to crime guns -- the point is that if a single crime gun in Mexico traces to a dealer, he can be inspected every time one does.
"Congress has blocked the bureau from keeping a centralized computer database of gun transactions." No, only databases established after its effective date, which allows the tracing database.
“They’re left with literally trying to physically follow these guns out of the gun shop,” said Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence." OK, so they had to allow thousands of guns to get to Mexican drug cartels because they didn't have better databases? I suppose seeing illegal buys and ignoring them (or even pestering dealers into allowing them) is not a "database"? And that agencies cannot stop crimes if they are not on a "database"? Real cops and supervisors do that every day.