ATF Officials Release Gun Trace Data

[DMF]

http://officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=37485

Local police forces last year asked the ATF for help investigating whether an estimated 284,000 weapons were legally sold, officials said Monday.

But Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Michael J. Sullivan said he's worried that fewer police departments will request assistance because of new legislation barring public release of so-called gun trace data, which tracks gun sales in specific cases.

"My biggest concern is we have law enforcement departments out there that believe that they can't get access to trace information, so they're not even asking for it," Sullivan told reporters at ATF headquarters. "And it's undermining their ability to advance their investigations."

"There's little that I can think of that they've requested that we can't provide to them," Sullivan said.

To underscore the data's availability, the ATF released a state-by-state breakdown of requests for help in tracking down guns recovered at crime scenes, including by type of firearm and where they were sold.

The confusion stems from a provision in the Justice Department's spending plan for next year that prohibits ATF from releasing case-specific information to the public. . .

See the link for full story.

 

[SWMAN]

Local police forces last year asked the ATF for help investigating whether an estimated 284,000 weapons were legally sold, officials said Monday.

But Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Michael J. Sullivan said he's worried that fewer police departments will request assistance because of new legislation barring public release of so-called gun trace data, which tracks gun sales in specific cases.

Sullivan contradicts himself in the above statments. So, is this an under the table plea by him to support the public release of trace data? Seems so to me.

 

[RuffRidr]

Looking at the trace data for my state and others, I can't help but notice the lack of "assault weapons". Going by what the politicians are saying, you'd think it was an epidemic.

--RuffRidr

 

[rdhood]

So, is this an under the table plea by him to support the public release of trace data? Seems so to me.

It looks more like a plea for States to not be deterred from utilizing his agency to trace weapons in the mistaken notion that they can't get/use the data due to the small amount of specific (i.e. not anonymous) data that the agency reports. I think he is saying that , in most cases, they can provide the anonymous data for which some states have made it a requirement.

Looking at the trace data for my state and others, I can't help but notice the lack of "assault weapons".

I looked for that. While I am sure that they are bundled in the "rifles" category, it would be nice to show a breakout. I think, though, that if they showed a breakout and it showed only a few "assault weapons" were traced, people might conclude (correctly) that they are really not a problem. There really is only one reason to NOT break them out, and that is that they would hurt some agenda that the politicians/ATF has against them. I'd bet that if half of all of those rifles were "assault weapons", they would have their own category. They certainly separated "pistols" from "revolvers" instead of sticking them under a lump category "handguns". And they broke "shotguns" out from "rifles" instead of lumping them into "long guns". One must, therefore, believe that there are fewer "assault weapons" than "shotguns" or they would have been in a separate category.

One other interesting bit about the trace data is that the average time-to-crime is about 10 years. It would be interesting to compare that to pre-NICS time-to-crime.

 

[Juna]

This is odd b/c Sullivan is in the NRA America's First Freedom magazine supporting the Tiahrt Amendment. Yet here, he's sort of justifying opposition to it. He's basically saying that the PDs are ignorant as to the law and have bought into the lies of Bloomberg et al that state that this somehow bars them from accessing firearms trace data for criminal investigations. Sounds like the PDs need to learn the law and get their acts together--especially since the Fraternal Order of Police also supports the Tiahrt Amendment.

The other thing I'm confused about is the title, which says they've released gun trace data. To whom? And why? Are they saying they're releasing gun trace data to PDs, but not to the public (as the Tiahrt Amendment supports)? Or are they giving back door opposition to the Tiahrt Amendment secondary to PD ignorance?

 

[scout26]

This is from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence www.ichv.org

August 2007

Update on Federal Legislation: The Tiahrt Amendment

For the past four years in Congress, legislation making appropriations to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has contained language severely restricting the release of information about guns traced to crime scenes contained in the agency's Firearms Tracing Systems database. This restriction is known as the "Tiahrt Amendment" (named after Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas).

The problem with this restriction on crime-gun information is basic: Law enforcement officials, among others, absolutely need this kind of data to do their jobs. The House version of this bill is bad, but the Senate version (from the Senate Appropriations Committee) is even worse when it comes to protecting law enforcement access to crime-gun tracing information.

Despite strong efforts by law enforcement and gun violence prevention groups, an effort to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment was denied this month by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the two chambers will come together and agree on a version later this year, though that will not happen until the fall.

There is positive news here, however. In terms of reaching Illinois members, our efforts have been successful. Two members of the Illinois delegation who serve on the committee voted for the repeal - Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th District) and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-2nd District). In fact, Rep. Kirk was one of only two Republicans who voted against his party on this amendment. People in Illinois should thank these legislators for their support of the repeal.

In the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin also voted to repeal Tiahrt. The majority of the Illinois House delegation, in fact, as well as both Illinois senators, are on our side. Your calls and efforts in trying to influence members of the Illinois delegation have made a difference.

What This Means for Gun Violence Prevention

Overall, the news about the Tiahrt Amendment tells us that, while we have seen a change in power from Republican to Democratic in Congress, the NRA continues to have significant control over both the Congressional agenda and votes. One reason for this is that only about half of all states have state groups working on gun violence issues, and many of these groups are small and have limited resources and staff to work on the multiple issues that they are facing at any one time. In other words, in half of the country the NRA doesn't get any opposition at all; there is no comprehensive grassroots network to challenge or counter what they say and do in many states, and that is one reason why it is difficult to have an impact at the federal level.

The situation with the Tiahrt Amendment also tells us that there are many members of Congress in both chambers who don't seem to care about the fact that law enforcement agencies around the country, who are on the front lines in fighting gun violence, strongly oppose the Tiahrt amendment and have been working to repeal it.

Even though the Tiahrt amendment was defeated by this House committee, our efforts have led to a collection of allies working together to oppose the Tiahrt amendment on a national level. A number of key legislators, many law enforcement agencies, and more than 200 mayors around the country, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have joined forces to oppose this amendment.

We know from our experience in Illinois that mobilizing on such issues makes a difference. Illinois is one of the only states where the NRA is continuously on the defensive as we push a progressive agenda on gun violence. As we have seen in the Illinois legislature, both this year and in previous years, we are always within a handful of votes from passing key bills.

Obviously they lie about what the Tiahrt admendment does, which they spread to the public and the police. If they're willing to lie about this what else are they willing to lie about ????