« Gun article on Forbes.com | Main | Joint staff report on Operation Gunwalker »
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.
· BATFE
4 Comments | Leave a comment
ATF is unusual among all federal agencies in its dual role as an industry regulator (think FDA, SEC, FCC, FAA, etc.) combined with general law enforcement powers.
Other federal regulatory agencies enforce violations of CFRs (and, to a lesser extent, USCs). But the FDA doesn't go after drug smuggling -- that's the DEA's responsibility; SEC leaves bank robbers and embezzlers to the FBI; the FCC could care less about someone stealing telephones or phone service, or making threatening calls; and the FAA doesn't prosecute airline stowaways or airplane theft.
ATF's dual role causes them to ignore the buy-side of so-called firearms trafficking. Their focus is almost always on their regulatory clients, which are FFLs. When ATF asks for stronger laws against "gun trafficking," they really mean tougher sanctions (and lower thresholds for prosecution) on dealers.
And, of course, no other conduct protected by an enumerated fundamental Constitutional right has a federal agency dedicated to its control.
Here was my comment to the New York Times:
- - - - -
RE: "using a surveillance technique known as gun-walking"
"Gun-walking" is not a surveillance technique. "Gun-walking" is a term gun-rights supporters have coined to refer to the ludicrous practice of the ATF knowingly letting people illegally purchase guns and "walk" out the door of the gun dealer, with no arrest, no interdiction, no follow-up. They then complain they need more resources to do their job.
The ATF's "Gun-walking" technique you allege would be similar to the FBI having a "Robber-walking" technique where they knowingly allowed bank robbers to rob a bank, walk out the door, and rather than follow and arrest the robber, they let him go, then wait to see where the money turned up later on; and to top it off, the FBI would then claim they didn't have the tools and resources to stop the bank robber.
Hello??? Is anybody home???
Come on NYT, Just a little bit of investigative journalism would be appreciated.
- - - - -
We'll see if this gets posted after moderation.
Dann in Ohio
Since the A in ATF stands for alcohol, how about a sting where persons over 21 provide alcohol to teenagers. The resulting drunk driving fatalities can be used as ammunition for tougher alcohol laws, maybe bring back prohibition.
Wait the NYT lied about gun stuff, let me get my shocked face.