Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Williamstown NJ ( Peoples Socialist Republic), New Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,240
    Rep Power
    657083

    Default The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    For years , gun control groups , clueless politicians and the media have touted the magical properties of the ATF's Firearms Trace Information as it relates to patterns of gun crime . Lets see what the REAL Story is and why even Law Enforcement doesnt want this information available to the public under " open public records laws " or the Freedom of Information Act .
    http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/CluelessBATFtracing.htm
    Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law Spring 1999
    Clueless:
    The Misuse of BATF Firearms Tracing Data
    David B. Kopel [a1] Copyright © 1998 Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University; David B. Kopel Table of Contents
    Introduction .................................................. ............ 171
    I. Traced Guns Are Not a Surrogate for Crime Guns in General ............ 173
    A. Only a Small Fraction of Crime Guns Are Traced by BATF ............ 173
    B. Most Gun Traces Are Not Associated with Violent Crime ............. 175
    C. Traces Do Not Reveal How or Why a Gun Was Moved Interstate ........ 177
    II. "Assault Weapons": Police Data Show BATF Traces to Overestimate
    Criminal Use by 1000% .............................................. 179
    Conclusion .................................................. .............. 184

    Introduction
    In ancient Greece, priests would slaughter a sacrificial animal, and then carefully examine the animal's entrails. The priests and their followers both believed that by "reading entrails," one could forecast the future. This process, fortunately, has become less messy these days: rather than using entrails, our modern fact-inventors use something much cleaner, but no more reliable: trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF"). Today, powerful leaders also make unsupportable claims based on "information" which was never intended to be used in such a manner.
    Almost every major firearms control proposal (including "assault weapons" bans, [1] the Brady Act [2], gun purchase rationing, [3] bans on small handguns [4], and eliminating home-based firearms dealers [5]) is touted on the basis of the "scientific" evidence provided by BATF traces. The staff of Representative Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) earned itself a large amount of favorable publicity in 1997 by using BATF traces to create what Representative Schumer called "the first study that shows conclusively that gun control works." [6] Unfortunately, BATF tracing data was never intended to be used for policy guidance and is unsuitable for that purpose. To build the case for a particular gun law on the basis of BATF traces is to admit that there is no relevant data to support the law.
    Only a small and unrepresentative fraction of guns which are seized by the police are ever traced by BATF and, for this reason, BATF has repeatedly stated that its trace data cannot be used to draw conclusions about patterns of criminal gun use or acquisition. The BATF's National Tracing Center advises police departments that the trace data "ONLY reflects trends relating to those firearms for which a trace request is submitted and is only as accurate as the information provided by the trace requesters." [7]
    In contrast to certain other federal programs (such as the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system), BATF's tracing program was never designed for sociological data gathering. To the contrary, BATF tracing was designed to provide law enforcement with a quick, easy, low-cost opportunity to trace the history of a particular gun as part of an investigation of a particular crime. But do the BATF traces also provide accurate information about the nature of armed crime in general? [8]
    Part One below explores various reasons why gun traces are not good substitutes for information about actual gun use and sales patterns. Part Two examines one case in which it is possible to compare BATF trace data with actual police crime data, namely, the use of "assault weapons" in crime.
    I. Traced Guns Are Not a Surrogate for Crime Guns in General
    Under federal law, all firearms manufactured or imported into the United States must have a serial number. [9] Firearms manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are required to keep precise records of the serial number of each gun they transfer. [10] Thus, if a particular gun is found at a crime scene, the BATF can, using the serial number, trace the chain of custody of the gun from its manufacture to its sale at retail. From there, law enforcement authorities can interview the retail buyer, to attempt to investigate how the gun eventually came into criminal hands (e.g., the gun was stolen from the lawful retail purchaser).
    A. Only a Small Fraction of Crime Guns Are Traced by BATF
    In an average year, there are at least a million violent crimes committed with firearms. [11]Each year, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF") is asked to trace about 25,000 violent crime guns (plus many more guns associated with possessory offenses), or about less than one gun per forty violent gun crimes. About one in two gun homicides results in a BATF trace, compared to one in fifty gun assaults, and one in a hundred gun robberies. [12]
    One reason that few violent crime guns are traced is that information about the chain of custody from manufacturer to retail sale is often not necessary for prosecution of state and local gun crimes. [13] After all, a District Attorney bringing an armed robbery case needs to prove that the defendant used a gun, not that the defendant used a gun with a particular pedigree. In some cases, local police may find it faster to conduct a trace themselves than to ask BATF to perform the trace. [14]
    Further, some jurisdictions, such as New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, keep detailed records of all legal ownership of handguns, or of all guns. [15]These jurisdictions would logically use their own records first for gun tracing, and would turn to BATF only when their own data failed. [16]
    The small percentage of guns selected for a trace request are not a random sample, but rather a select group chosen by local police departments. [17] According to basic statistics theory, a non-random sample is very unlikely to accurately represent the larger whole. [18]
    Accordingly, the Congressional Research Service cautions that the "firearms (which the) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms selected for tracing cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals or any subset of that universe," because "the firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample." As a result, "ATF tracing data could be potentially biased." [19]
    One reason that BATF traces are not representative is that BATF currently rejects most requests to trace pre-1990 guns, since data for these guns are less readily available. [20]
    It is easy to see how the pre-1990s exclusion could skew results. In the 1990s, the majority of handgun sales were semiautomatics, while most handgun sales from earlier years were revolvers. [21] A trace sample limited to post-1990 guns would likely overstate the prevalence of semiautomatics relative to revolvers.
    Similarly, the refusal to trace pre-1990 guns will also skew the types of long guns which are traced. So-called "assault weapons" were big sellers in the 1980s and early 1990s, but were a very small part of the firearms market in most prior decades. [22] Thus, limiting traces to only guns made after 1990 will artificially inflate the percentage of "assault weapons" which are traced.
    Finally, studies have found that between forty and sixty percent of BATF gun traces fail. [23] This creates a situation similar to a pollster finding that half of the persons polled refuse to answer certain questions. Elementary statistics theory requires that a data gatherer not ignore the "non-response bias." [24] Thus, the subset of guns for which traces are successful is even less likely to resemble crime guns in general.
    B. Most Gun Traces Are Not Associated with Violent Crime
    Violent crimes account for only one-seventh of BATF traces. [25]At least half of BATF traces are for possession offenses. [26]To the extent that any generalizations can be drawn from BATF trace data, these generalizations are about gun owners whose gun possession violated some kind of ordinance or statute, but who did not use their gun for illegal violence.
    In 1992, anti-gun lobbyists touted BATF trace data from the first nine months of 1991 to argue that as much as forty-one percent of New York City "crime" guns came from Virginia. [27] But of the New York City firearms traced to Virginia during the first nine months of 1991, only thirty- two guns (or one-sixth of the traces) were used in a violent crime. [28] The rest were associated with technical violations of New York City's arduous handgun licensing scheme, or other non-violent offenses. [29] Forty-seven percent of the violations involved weapons possession crimes (including simple possession of an unlicensed gun in the home); thirty-five percent involved other non-violent offenses (such as possessing a handgun and a gram of cocaine in the same apartment). [30]
    A 1970s national analysis of handgun seizures found that twenty to twenty- five percent of police handgun seizures were not associated with any crime, not even a licensing violation. [31]Some of the guns traced by BATF might just have been turned into the police by lawful owners who wanted to get rid of them. (For example, a widow who wanted to dispose of her husband's hunting rifle). [32]
    In New York City, obtaining a handgun license is very difficult. Although New York law requires the police to act on license applications within six months, delays of nearly a year are routine-even for crime witnesses who are being threatened by criminals out on bail. [33] In addition, it is nearly impossible for an applicant to get a license to carry a handgun, unless the applicant is named "Donald Trump," in which case the carry permit will be granted in a few days.
    Because obtaining a New York City handgun permit is very difficult for unwealthy people who cannot afford lawyers, many citizens obtain handguns illegally; they adopt the adage that "it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six." They would rather face the risk of prosecution for an unlicensed handgun than face the risk of living in New York City without a handgun.
    Much the same story can be told for Washington, D.C., where crime is even worse than New York City, where the police are notoriously ineffective, and where handgun purchases and possession are entirely illegal. [34]
    Thus, to the extent that any conclusions could be drawn from BATF trace data, the conclusions show that guns from other states are used to evade a prohibition (Washington, D.C.) or near-prohibition (New York City) on handgun ownership by non-elites. The trace data, by themselves, do not show that other states are the main source of guns for violent criminals in New York City or Washington D.C., because five-sixths of traces do not involve violent crime.
    Indeed, the artificially-created "gun criminals" in New York or Washington D.C., who own handguns under circumstances which would be entirely lawful in Virginia or other states, (possession of a handgun for home protection) are much more likely to own a traceable handgun than are actual violent criminals. A person owning a handgun for home defense would have little reason to file off the serial number. However, according to a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, sixty percent of actual felons consider a gun's untraceability to be "very important" and another twenty-one percent consider it to be "a little" or "somewhat" important. [35]
    Of course no one would even bother to attempt to trace a gun from which the serial number had been removed (sometimes the serial number can be removed through advanced forensics, but the process is difficult, and used very rarely). This is one more reason why the traced guns are generally not similar to non-traced guns.
    C. Traces Do Not Reveal How or Why a Gun Was Moved Interstate
    Gun traces show the history of the gun from its manufacture, purchase by a wholesaler, sale to a federally-licensed gun dealer, and then retail sale. Except when special investigators are assigned to perform field interviews, traces do not, and cannot, trace the history of the gun beyond retail sale. Hence, a trace may discover that a gun was manufactured in Connecticut, purchased by a Florida wholesaler, and sold to a customer at a Houston gun store. If police confiscate the gun in New York City, the trace does not tell us whether:
    . The gun was purchased in Texas by a gun-runner and then sold to a New York City criminal;
    . The gun was stolen from the lawful Texas owner, sold several times on the black market, and eventually sold in New York City; [36]
    . The gun was carried into New York City by a Texan who moved to New York City. The ex-Texan committed no crime other than failing to spend hundreds of dollars to obtain a New York City handgun license.
    The widely-publicized study by Representative Charles Schumer's staff presumes that the first possibility is the only possibility, since it attributes all interstate gun movement to gun-running, never mentioning other, more common possibilities. [37]The BATF data which Schumer used does not specify how the guns moved between states.
    The tracing reports conducted by BATF do not even investigate how a gun moved from its state of retail sale to the state where the gun was found. For example, the 1991 BATF report on gun traces from New York City to Virginia cautioned, "Project Lead does not attempt to determine if a Virginia gun found in New York had been stolen from a Virginian, and then transported to New York." [38]
    Contrary to the Schumer assumption that interstate gun movement must be the result of organized gun-running, a BATF study of interstate gun transport found "that the majority of firearm movement from (s)tates is occurring on an individual basis. That is to say that an individual will acquire a firearm in another (s)tate through the actual purchase by relatives and friends and then transport the firearm back." [39]Self-protection is the primary motive for such transfers, the BATF reported. [40]
    Of course, an intra-family transaction might not necessarily be legal; federal law makes it illegal for persons other than licensed dealers to sell handguns to persons from another state. And criminals, like ordinary citizens, do buy guns for self-defense. Nevertheless, the BATF data make it clear that interstate gun transfers are usually small-scale and involve guns sold through private transfers, not from retail outlets. [41]Thus, the picture painted by gun control advocates such as Representative Schumer-a picture of large volume interstate transfers of guns purchased directly from licensed retail dealers-is contrary to the known data.
    The difference between the Schumer scenario and the BATF facts has major policy implications. If the Schumer scenario were true, it would support his proposals for even greater federal regulation of retail gun sales. Federal regulation not only would make sense because licensed dealers, wanting to keep their license, would obey federal gun laws, but also because licensed dealers are (supposedly) the main source of interstate guns.
    But in truth, the data shows just the opposite. Interstate transfers are primarily private transfers between family and friends. There is no realistic possibility that these individual transfers can be controlled by federal statute. To the extent that the interstate transfers involve transfers between two family members, both of whom are criminals, it is especially unlikely that federal statutes would have any preventive effect. If the private interstate transfer is somehow discovered by the police, current federal laws already provide severe mandatory sentences for illegal interstate gun sales and for the transfer of firearms to persons with any felony conviction or with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. [42]
    II. "Assault Weapons": Police Data Show BATF Traces to Overestimate Criminal Use by 1000%
    "To hell with statistical theory," some people might say. "Whatever the objections raised by skeptics, we still think that gun traces provide good data about gun crime and gun sales in general, even if the figures might be a little rough here and there."
    If one accepts this argument, then one policy conclusion becomes inescapable: one-handgun-per-month laws are a failure and should be repealed. The laws specifying that citizens may purchase only one handgun per month are based on the premise that purchases of multiple handguns from gun stores are a major source of supply for interstate gun-runners.According to the Schumer study, two of the three states that supplied the most guns to New York were Virginia and South Carolina, the only states in the nation with one-gun-a-month laws at the time of the study. [43]
    But dropping one-gun-a-month laws solely because of the Schumer study (or because of any other analysis of trace statistics) would be a mistake.We know that trace statistics can result in errors of more than 1000%, and therefore, trace statistics are so far removed from real-world experience to be of no value in determining crime policy. (Again, to point out this fact is not to denigrate the BATF tracing program; the program was designed to solve individual crimes, not to gather sociological data). One of the most notable real-world instances in which tracing data was used to "prove" facts which were wholly contrary to reality was in regard to so-called "assault weapons."
    "Assault weapon" is a marketing term, whose meaning varies depending on whether the user of the term is a member of the gun industry or a gun control advocate. The term generally refers to firearms that have a military-style appearance. Appearance notwithstanding, "assault weapons"are functionally indistinguishable from normal-looking guns: they fire only one bullet with each press of the trigger and the bullets they fire are intermediate-sized and less powerful than the bullets from big game rifles.
    But starting in 1989, Handgun Control, Inc., and other anti-gun organizations, gained national attention by claiming that assault weapons were the "weapon of choice" among criminals. [44]
    The political gun ban campaign was significantly bolstered by an article on BATF traces-a report that, considerably later, was shown to be grossly misleading. In May 1989, two reporters from the Cox newspaper chain conducted a study of BATF firearms traces. [45] The reporters found that for some crimes, assault weapons were involved in approximately ten percent of the traces. [46] Since "assault weapons" constitute only about one percent of the total firearms stock (the reporters asserted), the ten percent trace figure indicated that "assault weapons" were disproportionately involved in gun crime. "An assault gun is twenty times more likely to be used in crime than a conventional firearm," Cox newspapers claimed. [47] Politicians who wanted to ban guns took up the line. [48] Police data, however, showed the ten percent figure to be false. [49]
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud

    Proud to be an Enemy of The State

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Williamstown NJ ( Peoples Socialist Republic), New Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,240
    Rep Power
    657083

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    MORE, continuation from OP due to length


    The Cox report gave trace percentages for both the nation as a whole (ten percent) and for selected major cities. [50]The percentage of "assault weapons" reported by Cox newspapers, based on the BATF traces, was ten percent for Chicago, nineteen percent for Los Angeles, eleven percent for New York City, and thirteen percent for Washington, D.C. [51]In each of those cities, police departments conducted complete counts of all guns that had been seized (not just the guns for which the police department requested a BATF trace).[52]According to the actual police department counts of crime guns in each city, the percentage of "assault weapons" were only three percent for Chicago, one percent for Los Angeles, one percent for New York City, and zero percent for Washington, D.C. [53]Thus, when the BATF trace sample was compared with the comprehensive police gun seizure data, BATF traces over- stated the percentage of assault weapons used in crime by over 1000% for Los Angeles, New York, and Washington.


    "Assault weapons" were a high percentage of BATF gun traces, but a small percentage of total crime guns.
    Sources: BATF; police departments in respective cities.

    There are several reasons why "assault weapons" are more likely to be selected for a trace request. [54] Many "assault weapons" have an unusual appearance, which might raise curiosity (and a trace request) compared to an "old-fashioned" gun, such as a Smith & Wesson .38 Special. [55]
    The publicity surrounding "assault weapons" also may have increased police interest in these weapons, increasing the likelihood that a trace would be requested. [56] As the Congressional Research Service noted, "a law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason." [57]"If . . . law enforcement offices in certain regions have determined that certain types of firearms (such as military-style semiautomatics that accept large capacity magazines) should be traced because they are thought to be used by dangerous offenders, the data in the tracing system will reflect those specific concerns." [58]
    Polling data show that high-ranking police administrators, such as big- city police chiefs, may be far more supportive of gun control in general, and assault weapon prohibition in particular, than are mid-ranking or street-level law enforcement officers. [59]As a result, for the reasons explained by the Congressional Research Service, heightened policy administration concern about "assault weapons" could result in a disproportionate percentage of such guns being submitted to BATF for tracing.
    In addition, almost all "assault weapons" were first sold at retail after 1968. Before 1968, gun retailers who sold only to in-state customers did not need a federal firearms license. [60] Also, before 1968, federal law did not require firearms dealers to maintain registration records of retail sales. [61]Thus, successful traces are more likely to be conducted on guns made after 1968-a category which includes a higher percentage of the total stock of assault weapons than of the total stock of, for example, bolt-action rifles. While the Cox study was in progress, BATF had a policy of not accepting trace requests for guns made before the early 1980s. This policy certainly would cause an increase in the percent of traces involving "assault weapons."
    It should be noted that the discrepancy between the BATF traces and the actual crime gun seizures was not confined to the four major cities discussed above. Researchers have now obtained comprehensive crime gun data for many cities based on actual inventories of firearms seized by the police, in not one of the cities does the percentage of "assault weapons" seized even remotely approach the BATF trace figure of ten percent. The highest figure was four percent; one percent (or less) was much more common. [62]Accordingly, it can only be concluded that BATF firearm trace requests are not an accurate mirror of actual firearm use in crime.
    To accompany the temporary federal prohibition on new "assault weapons," [63]Congress in 1994, ordered the Attorney General to study whether the ban was changing patterns in "assault weapon" use by criminals. When asked if data existed to allow such a study, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Section replied, "The UCR Section knows of no existing data to provide a basis to address the question." [64] Stated less delicately, the FBI's statistical experts do not believe that gun traces provide reliable information about the general use of guns in crime. Lobbyists and politicians who attempt to use trace data for this purpose should explain why they think that they are right and the FBI is wrong.
    Conclusion
    To advocates of restrictive gun laws, BATF traces are like psychoanalyst's inkblots: the viewer always finds in them exactly what he wants to see. Thus, BATF traces are used to create allegedly "scientific" data to promote the banning of small and inexpensive guns, [65] to demonize certain large handguns, [66] to prove that the Brady Act is working, [67] to prove that the federal assault weapons ban is working, [68] to prove that more controls are needed on "assault weapons," [69] to make the case for eliminating firearms dealer licenses for persons who operate small businesses from their home, [70] and to prove that gun rationing laws work. [71]
    Last edited by son of the revolution; February 15th, 2010 at 11:58 PM.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud

    Proud to be an Enemy of The State

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Williamstown NJ ( Peoples Socialist Republic), New Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,240
    Rep Power
    657083

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Still more


    Now lets see why Law Enforcement doesnt want trace information "out there "
    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...GResponse.html
    Tiahrt Responds to MAIG Campaign of Lies and Distortion


    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today blasted the organization behind a comprehensive campaign aimed at repealing current law that prohibits public release of critical data related to ongoing criminal investigations. In addition to a full page ad in USA Today last week, Internet ads and a series of television ads, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has now hired someone to drive a truck up and down busy streets in Wichita falsely claiming the so-called Tiahrt Amendment “puts police at risk.” “I am no longer surprised with the outrageous claims made by this group,” said Tiahrt. “It is unfortunate that a few media outlets and advertising companies are actually willing to publicly disseminate this misleading and blatantly false propaganda.”At issue is a campaign urging repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing gun trace data to the public. The ATF gun trace database contains investigation-specific information and is made available to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors for criminal investigations.The ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s largest law enforcement organization, support the Tiahrt Amendment and have requested its reauthorization every year since 2003.

    Both organizations claim repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and risk the lives of undercover law enforcement officers.The organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns is behind the Tiahrt repeal campaign. The group claims to have the support of numerous police chiefs across the country, which is also misleading according to National FOP President Chuck Canterbury.“The mayors would have you believe that law enforcement supports giving them the information on gun traces because many of their employees -- namely police chiefs, who often serve at the pleasure of the mayor -- have publicly backed their coalition,” explained Canterbury. “But the officers in the field who are actually working illegal gun cases know that releasing sensitive information about pending cases can jeopardize the integrity of an investigation or even place the lives of undercover officers in danger. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has always supported language protecting firearms trace data, now known as the ‘Tiahrt amendment.’ For the men and women in uniform who are fighting illegal guns, it is a matter of officer safety and good police work.”The ads and billboards contain numerous false claims, including the most frequent ones outlined below:False Claim # 1“Congress has been undermining police work by quietly refusing to allow police and prosecutors access to crucial crime-fighting information.”FACTThe Tiahrt Amendment allows local law enforcement and prosecutors access to ATF gun trace data. (First page of attached Tiahrt Amendment)False Claim # 2“The real reason (for blocking the data) is special interest politics.” A 2002 Tiahrt quote is then printed.FACTNY Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the FOP have all requested this language to protect investigations and law enforcement officers.

    Hopefully it is true that not one law enforcement officer ever died prior to the enactment of the Tiahrt protection—Rep. Tiahrt joins the FOP, ATF and others in supporting a policy that will keep it that way. Are the mayors suggesting they need a police officer to die to justify the Tiahrt Amendment?The Tiahrt quote was related to a different provision of an amendment regarding part-time federal firearms licenses, which affected several of his constituents who sold firearms to supplement their income. It was in no way related to the ATF Gun Trace Data amendment.False Claim # 3 “This new Congress has a chance to stand up… in the fight for public safety by ending the Tiahrt Amendment.”FACTRepeal of the Tiahrt Amendment means any member of the public will have access to investigation-specific information that could jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and risk the lives of law enforcement officers.Excerpt from 2002 letter from NY Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:The prospect that information obtained through these traces may be available for release by request to ATF under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is therefore quite disturbing. Even more alarming is the possibility that this information might be released while the investigation remains open. The release of trace information under FOIA seriously jeopardizes not only the investigations, but also the lives of law enforcement officers, informants, witnesses, and others.

    Even when the information does not identify specifics individuals who may be endangered, merely disclosing that a trace was conducted may be enough to create a grave threat to life, to result in the flight of the suspects or the destruction of evidence, or to otherwise compromise investigations in which law enforcement agencies discontinuing—or at least curtailing—their use of the trace system. Thus, the effectiveness of the overall trace system, as well as the essential relationship of cooperation that has been cultivated between federal and local law enforcement, also would be seriously undermined.Excerpt from 2007 Fraternal Order of Police letter to Congressional leaders:The FOP has supported this language since the original version was first enacted several years ago because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigation. For example, the disclosure of trace requests can inadvertently reveal the names of undercover officers or informants, endangering their safety. It may also tip off the target of an investigation, as appears to be the case in New York City. According to media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as “four cases were compromise and an additional 14 were put at risk” by private investigators employed by the city who acted on the basis of trace data. In this case, the investigators conducted “sting” operations for the city’s civil suit against several gun stores that had been identified through firearms trace data. As a result, several gun trafficking suspects under investigation by law enforcement changed their behavior to avoid scrutiny.

    This is exactly the type of interference that caused the FOP to originally support the language restricting the use of the data to law enforcement.Excerpt from 2006 ATF letter to Congressman Todd TiahrtThe Department of Justice supports this provision because it protects this law enforcement sensitive data from indiscriminate disclosure. The provision reflects ATF’s long-standing policy of disclosing firearms trace results only to the law enforcement agency that recovered the firearm at the crime scene and requested ATF to trace the firearm. This policy, which preceded the passage of the appropriations restrictions in question, recognizes the legitimate interest of the law enforcement agency that provided the investigative information to ATF concerning the traced crime gun in deciding how to utilize and whether to disseminate sensitive law enforcement information that could jeopardize pending investigations. The premature and indiscriminate disclosure of law enforcement information regarding open criminal investigations and prospective investigations based on the leads derived from this data would allow wrongdoers to take action to evade detection and could potentially jeopardize the safety of witnesses, informants, and law enforcement personnel.

    Improvements vs. Repeal Tiahrt acknowledges there are ways to improve the Tiahrt Amendment to make some provisions more clear. However, it is false to claim that law enforcement does not have access to gun trace data, even from other jurisdictions. Local law enforcement agencies are allowed to share the data from their jurisdictions with any other entity they choose.Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment means anyone can receive the names of investigators, targeted gun dealers and other specific information related to criminal investigations. There is at least one website that exposes police informants. Tiahrt is concerned the mayors are now opening up the possibility of new websites exposing undercover agents as well.“I have reached out to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others to try to reach compromise on some of the Tiahrt Amendment provisions. However, the current version of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects law enforcement officers and their investigations, is better than repeal that results in total public access to data that could help criminals and end up killing cops,” Tiahrt said.

    June 12, 2007

    Anyone that wants to continue to question this issue should feel free to google the ATF Director's and other Law Enforcement officials position and see for themselves
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud

    Proud to be an Enemy of The State

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    94

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Its amazing how Heeding Gods call can twist facts. Its amazing what a little editing can do!!

    Please, if you come out on Sat. introduce yourself

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Pennsylvania
    (Luzerne County)
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,079
    Rep Power
    1882

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Another good (albeit older) read by David Kopel on the matter is Do Federal Gun Traces Accurately Reflect Street Crime? — Small Fraction of Guns Selected for National Trace may not be Typical of Ordinary Crime Guns. It contains many of the same points as in the above cited Clueless article, but expands on some other relevant points.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dushore, Pennsylvania
    (Sullivan County)
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Which Saturday? Adress Please.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Williamstown NJ ( Peoples Socialist Republic), New Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,240
    Rep Power
    657083

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyXjer View Post
    Which Saturday? Adress Please.
    Next protest is next FRIDAY !! ( Good Friday ) supposedly at 4pm , but theres reason to suspect they might be early. Just Google " The Shooters Shop " in Philadelphia and you'll get the address
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmund Freud

    Proud to be an Enemy of The State

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    94

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    2001 E. Allegheny Ave
    Philadelphia, PA

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    94

    Default Re: The fallacy of ATF Trace Data and "crime guns" / Heeding God's Call claims

    Heeding God's Call - Taking Action to End Gun... + FansJust Heeding God's Call - Taking Action to End Gun...Just Fans
    Heeding God's Call - Taking Action to End Gun Violence ... Good Friday Prayer Service and Vigil ...

    at
    The Shooter Shop
    in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia
    April 2 at 4:00 pm

    Gather for prayer at
    The Salvation Army
    1920 E. Allegheny Ave, 19134

    and walk to The Shooter Shop in prayerful procession …


    “…for the law of the Spirit of life sets us free from the law of sin and death.” ~ Romans 8:2


    taken from facebook page. If you can make it out please stop by, they will have tons of people, we need to match thier numbers!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 24th, 2013, 08:44 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 21st, 2009, 06:29 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 27th, 2008, 07:48 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 12:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •