Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Interesting thoughts on recess appointments | Main | Strange firearms accident »

Fast & Furious: a reply to "but it was done under Bush, too."

Posted by David Hardy · 20 December 2011 12:11 PM

It's a pretty good response.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

William Newman | December 21, 2011 8:31 AM | Reply

I didn't think it was a very good response. It looked to me like it was lightly and uncritically paraphrased from a press release written by a Dilbert pointy-haired boss pushing his program, leaning much too heavily on pompously vague generalities. (E.g., why not tighten up the prose by shortening "forming a multi-layered, comprehensive approach to disrupting firearms trafficking and drug-related violence" to "leveraging our core competencies"?)

I've seen claims elsewhere that there were clearer differences: IIRC, that Mexican officials signed off on the Bush-era program, and that a significant fraction of the Bush-era program's weapons actually were tracked to the border. I also get the impression that the Bush-era program must have been much smaller, because nobody seems to have tied guns from the Bush-era program to even a dozen homicides, much less hundreds. My cautious guess right now is that those claims elsewhere were basically correct, and the two programs were so different that the comparison reflects badly on the Obama apologists. But (with some partial exceptions, like its remark that "the Mexican authorities" were not notified in the Bush program) I think the article you cited is too windy and imprecise to effectively support that guess.

jdberger | December 21, 2011 3:51 PM | Reply

Ditto.

Jim D. | December 22, 2011 9:10 AM | Reply

If it was a legacy program from the Bush administration, how could Holder not have known about it?

Leave a comment