'Gun trafficking' bill for NC? Part 3: Traced guns are not 'crime guns'

January 26, 3:22 PMCharlotte Gun Rights ExaminerPaul Valone

Previous Next

7 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Welcome to the third in a series outlining how North Carolina gun control activists exploit a propaganda piece entitled “The Movement of Illegal Guns in America: The Link Between Gun Laws and Interstate Gun Trafficking” to call for registering private gun sales, shutting down gun shows, and prosecuting gun owners whose guns are stolen from them.

Produced by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group, “Mayors

Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG), the report uses Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) gun tracing reports to allege that states with “lax” gun laws are responsible for guns smuggled into high-crime states with stringent laws.

Part 1 dealt with NC gun control activists’ 10-year history of trying to register private gun sales and shut down gun shows; Part 2 outlined the MAIG report’s logical fallacies, sloppy scholarship and deceptive methodology.

The report’s most serious deception, however, lies in basing its allegations on gun tracing reports: Although gun control advocates would have you believe otherwise, traced guns are not necessarily “crime guns,” and “crime guns” are not necessarily traced.

Why anti-gun lobbyists hate the ‘Tiahrt Amendment’

The anti-gun lobby often froths about the “Tiahrt Amendment” to the Congressional BATFE appropriations bill. Named after its sponsor, Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), and reauthorized every two years, the amendment restricts statistical analysis of gun tracing data.

While MAIG, which is “staunchly opposed” to Tiahrt, claims it hinders criminal investigations, consider what BATFE director Michael J. Sullivan told Congress:

“Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data … In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement. – Michael J. Sullivan, “Setting the record straight about firearms trace data,” Scripps News.

In fact, release of trace data actually hinders police investigations, such as when Bloomberg himself illegally obtained data:

“Last spring Bloomberg had the New York City Police Department improperly — perhaps illegally — obtain trace data from ATF not for use in a criminal investigation, but rather, for use in preparing a civil lawsuit. The data was given to private investigators who conducted so-called sting operations of out-of-state federally licensed firearms dealers, without the knowledge of ATF or even the city’s own police department. As a result, Bloomberg actually interfered with as many as 18 ongoing criminal investigations, jeopardizing the lives of law enforcement officers, informants, witnesses and others. The Department of Justice investigated the actions of the mayor’s P.I.s and in a strongly worded letter admonished the city against engaging in similar conduct because it could ‘interrupt or jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations.’” – Lawrence G. Keane, Esq., “Reauthorize the Tiahrt Amendment”, The Hill.

So if, as the Fraternal Order of Police maintains, release of tracing data actually endangers law enforcement personnel, why are gun control advocates so anxious to release it? Two reasons:

• The National Instant Check System (NICS) is not intended as a gun registration list: A little-mentioned provision of Tiahrt requires FBI to expunge gun purchase data from NICS within 24 hours, preventing its use a gun registration tool. It was included because the 1993 Brady Law required transactions records to be expunged (albeit in an unspecified time), yet the Clinton administration retained them in violation of law.
• More significantly, tracing data confuses the public into thinking that guns traced are guns used in crimes, giving gun control advocates new ammunition to restrict private gun ownership.

Why traced guns are not ‘crime guns’

“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.

Quoting a single study of New York City gun traces, the MAIG report insists “the vast majority of … trace requests involve guns … linked to crimes.” Yet it neglects quoting a part of the report which says, “A crime gun trace alone does not mean that [a firearm dealer] or firearm purchaser has committed an unlawful act.”

Other inherent biases include variation in tracing policies between police departments and the fact that statistics aren’t adjusted for total number of guns sold by a given dealer.

What to expect, and soon

Sometime after the NC General Assembly convenes – just two days from now – you can expect to see gun control lobbyists trot out the MAIG report as they introduce legislation to register private gun sales with the FBI using NICS or, as advocated in the last session, to make criminals out of gun owners whose guns are stolen from them.

When they do, point out to lawmakers the report’s flaws:

• According to MAIG itself, nearly 20% of the guns studied in the report came from unknown origins, rendering conclusions invalid as to whether they were “exported” to other states.
• In claiming background checks are not required for handgun purchases at NC gun shows, the report is flat-out wrong. All handgun purchases in this state require presentation of a pistol purchase permit or concealed handgun permit, both of which require background checks.
• The two measures MAIG uses to compare gun exports between states are invalid: Gross population figures say nothing about how many people actually own guns. Worse, using NICS to estimate number of guns sold grossly underestimates NC gun sales: Private sales and purchases by concealed handgun permit-holders don’t go through NICS. Consequently, MAIG overestimates the proportion of guns sold here which end up in other states.
• Finally, the data underlying the report, gun traces, are not valid for statistical analysis: Guns can be traced for a myriad of reasons beyond use in crimes. Translated, not all true “crime guns” are traced, and not all traced guns are “crime guns.”

 Please allow me to thank National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and Gun Rights Examiners of other cities for their warm welcome. I hope to live up to the high standards they have set. -- FPV