Pittsburgh Firearms Task Force Cop: The NRA abets gun violence

[RamboLiberal]

Once again, the National Rifle Association's annual convention is coming to Pittsburgh, this time promising "acres of gear and guns." Attendees surely will find all of that and more. But one thing they won't get from the NRA is any sort of dialogue about how to address the problem of gun violence in our country.

As someone whose job it is to investigate and prosecute firearms violations, and as someone who once thought the NRA supported law enforcement, I have come to realize that the NRA takes every chance it gets to stymie even reasonable efforts to combat gun violence.

How else can one view the NRA's opposition to the release of gun trace data, for example?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintains a database which could provide a wide variety of valuable trace information with just a few keystrokes. But the NRA's allies in Congress have successfully passed laws which limit the data that may be released to law enforcement agencies.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11117/1142075-109.stm#ixzz1KlQchCYU

Read this over lunch - agree or disagre thought it worth posting here.

[DonP]

1. Huh? Self contradictory quote.

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintains a database which could provide a wide variety of valuable trace information with just a few keystrokes. But the NRA's allies in Congress have successfully passed laws which limit the data that may be released to law enforcement agencies."

If the data is already available to law enforcement agencies, what's the issue?

I'm not aware of any NRA opposition to law enforcement having access to all relevant gun sales data. We had a couple of instances where the state police wanted "all the records", basically a fishing expedition, but the courts stopped that cold.

Or is this where the newspapers want all the data available to them as well, which has nothing to do with law enforcement and a lot to do with invasion of privacy?

[RamboLiberal]

2. Post-Gazette is liberal - hence really anti-gun

Been bleating all week about NRA coming here.

Yet the fools backed Corbett - now whining Castle Doctrine might be signed in to law. Not to mention all the other non-gun issues Gov. Corporate is promoting.

Castle Doctrine is probably the one issue I will agree with Gov Corporate on.

[ThatPoetGuy]

3. Nothing self-contradictory there.

It's saying that there are local, county, and/or state law enforcement agencies that don't have access to the ATF's database, and possibly federal agencies like the FBI, the U.S. Marshals, and so on. I don't know which laws it's referring to, but there is no self-contradiction in the statement.

[X_Digger]

4. Actually, there is..

If it's part of an actual investigation, any law enforcement officer can do a trace. (No matter the level.)

What Joe McLaw can't do is call up the ATF and say, "give me the names of all the people in my district who were NICS approved for a purchase of a handgun."

The Tiahrt Amendment (the rule alluded to) stops police (or the local news rag) from going fishing in federal background check data.

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Still no self-contradiction. At all.

You can argue it's mistaken. But if you claim that passage contains self-contradiction, you're wrong.

[X_Digger]

10. Let me paste the quote again and highlight..

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms maintains a database which could provide a wide variety of valuable trace information with just a few keystrokes. But the NRA's allies in Congress have successfully passed laws which limit the data that may be released to law enforcement agencies."

Knowing that the data that 'may be released to law enforcement agencies' actually is 'trace information', then yes, it's contradictory.

[ThatPoetGuy]

11. I think you, and maybe the other guy, have been misreading the passage.

It's saying the ATF has been limited in its ability to release data to other law enforcement agencies. You seem to think it's saying that the data hasn't been released to the ATF, which is a law enforcement agency.

No big deal, if it's just a misreading.

[X_Digger]

12. No, I'm not misreading.

Danged if I know how you got what you said from what I wrote.

If XYZ law enforcement agency (doesn't matter how podunk small or federal big) has a gun to trace, they call the BATFE, and the BATFE tells them the FFL where it was sold. They then pick up the phone, and the FFL tells them who the purchaser was (based on the federal form 4473 that the buyer filled out.)

Trace data has *always* been available to law enforcement agencies about a weapon involved in an investigation.

As I said in post #4, what they can't do is go fishing in the federal background check system.

I think I see your confusion. "Trace" data is different than "background check" information. The newspaper article conflates them (making it self-contradictory). The Tiahrt Amendment's provision that the Brady Bunch, etc hate the most is that all background check 'pass' records are destroyed within 24 hours. The gun can still be traced (by serial number) but they can't work from the other way 'round. ("How many guns has Jon Doe bought this year?" or "How many / who bought Glock 26's in the past year in Macon, GA?")

[lawodevolution]

5. Blame the Brady campaign because gun owners are so untrusting of their government now

They don't want their gun purchases to be tracable or listed. I don't want my guns traced and the NRA does what I want in regards to the 2A.

[petronius]

6. I don't really understand what he's asking for here:

Do you, as a resident of Pennsylvania, want to know how many guns were recovered and traced last year in your state? That's easy -- just gather the chiefs of Pennsylvania's 1,150-odd police departments in a big room and have them cobble together the trace data from their respective agencies.

Want a breakdown of how many handguns, shotguns and rifles were recovered? Ditto. Because, while the NRA is understandably against releasing individual gun owners' names, it also opposes the public dissemination of even the most basic statistical data on gun recoveries.

Isn't that this: http://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2009-trace-data.html :shrug:

[X_Digger]

7. Shh, don't harsh the wharrgarble..

Hard to keep those knickers in a twist when you throw in facts and shit, man. *tsk*

[aikoaiko]

8. Det. Bielevicz should propose mandating police must store all guns in bolted down safes...

...as role models.

I won't hold my breath.

[RamboLiberal]

13. Especially since we've had two 4-5 year olds shoot themselves

in the past year with their police officer father's service pistol in this area.