Law Enforcement: repeal Tiahrt amendment

Coyote33 · Jun 12, 2007

LoginName · Jun 12, 2007

The national organizations signing the letter include the International
Association of Chiefs of Police; International Brotherhood of Police
Officers; Major Cities Chiefs Association; Police Executive Research Forum;
Police Foundation; Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
(HAPCOA); National Black Police Association; National Latino Peace Officers
Association; National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and
the School Safety Advocacy Council.

These same groups canalways be counted on to support any legislation backed by the Brady Campaign . Ninety percent of them are either CLEO or 'minority interest' organizations. Why do Hispanic and Black CLEOs need their own separate organization is a question I'd like to know the answer to [rolleyes]

.

FWIW... The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), supports the Tiahrt amendment.

http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages/public_news_individual.xsl

More info at...

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=208

Marcus in the Darkus · Jun 12, 2007

That's pathetic.

IIRC, anyone can release any "press release" to prnewswire.com; someone issued a bogus press release a few years ago claining that Andy Kaufman had faked his death and was ready to return to public life.

Coyote33 · Jul 11, 2007

Marcus in the Darkus said:
That's pathetic.

IIRC, anyone can release any "press release" to prnewswire.com; someone issued a bogus press release a few years ago claining that Andy Kaufman had faked his death and was ready to return to public life.

Yeah, but the good side isn't.

Here's some new info:

Members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Stand With Police Chiefs and Members of Congress to Urge Repeal of Tiahrt Amendment

drgrant · Jul 11, 2007

Coyote33 said:
Yeah, but the good side isn't.

I think his point was that prnewswire is just a garbage dispensing
site designed to make something look more official than it actually
is.

You could write up a press release saying that pigs flew and they would
publish it.... or even that you saw paris hilton pinch a loaf into your recycling
bin, and it would be broadcast as gospel if submitted to prnewswire.
[laugh]

-Mike

Dick · Jul 11, 2007

The "press releases" (all the same release, of course, with the numbers adjusted for each state) imply that there's overwhelming support among the law enforcement community for repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, but the numbers they provide fail to support that conclusion. For example, here's the state-by-state count of police chiefs signing on, according to their own releases: CT (4), CA (23), IN (4), IL (6), NJ (47 - what a surprise!), MN (7), MD (16), VA (6), OH (6), NY ([only]4 - I thought that really was a surprise). I wonder what percent of the police chiefs in those 10 states that number represents - there are 351 municipalities just in little Massachusetts, for example, and most if not all of them have someone on the payroll who would be considered the police chief. Seems like the overwhelming majority of police chiefs across the country must be satisfied with the status quo.

That aside, could someone educate me and perhaps others on exactly what the issue is here? On the surface, the amendment appears to deal with preventing the feds from sharing information on guns used in crimes with state and local authorities, something that doesn't immediately strike me as being a bad thing. Obviously there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure what.

pdm · Jul 11, 2007

Dick said:
That aside, could someone educate me and perhaps others on exactly what the issue is here? On the surface, the amendment appears to deal with preventing the feds from sharing information on guns used in crimes with state and local authorities, something that doesn't immediately strike me as being a bad thing. Obviously there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure what.

Short description of the Tiahrt Amendment.

drgrant · Jul 11, 2007

Dick said:
That aside, could someone educate me and perhaps others on exactly what the issue is here? On the surface, the amendment appears to deal with preventing the feds from sharing information on guns used in crimes with state and local authorities, something that doesn't immediately strike me as being a bad thing. Obviously there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure what.

Basically in a nutshell the Tiahrt amendment makes it so that orgs like brady
et al will not have access to specific/detailed gun trace data so they can go
out and misuse it for a variety of reasons- eg, civil lawsuit festivals, etc.
Basically it prevents public disclosure of -detailed- ATF gun trace data. It really
doesn't effect the LE use of the data all that much, because agencies and
the like can still conduct/request traces if they have a good reason to do so.

-Mike

Dick · Jul 11, 2007

OK, got it. Thank you both.

As usual, the Brady Bunch and their stooges are misrepresenting the facts.

pdm · Jul 11, 2007

Dick said:
OK, got it. Thank you both.

As usual, the Brady Bunch and their stooges are misrepresenting the facts.

Of course. They just want to go on a fishing expedition -- and don't think for a second they wouldn't publish who owns what.

Chris · Jul 11, 2007

You have to remember that not all firearm traces involve criminal misuse of the firearm in question. It is simply that, a trace. Someone somewhere wanted to find out something about the history of a gun for some reason. That is ALL the info can provide.

Any LE agency can request a trace. This amendment does not stop that. What it does stop is a Bloomberg backed chief from asking for ALL the data or releasing data to non LE organizations.

Since the data only shows an ownership/possession history of LEGAL transfers, such data would only be of use to allow anti-gun groups to harass legitimate commerce. You can be sure that if the same names pop up the BATF would have already investigated. High Volume shops, and victims of crime might show up as the end of multiple trace reports, but that does not mean that those people are involved in anything illegal.

You can be sure that any report or press release from such groups would NOT include the relative details, only the "sensational" results.

We as a country don't need all that much press wasted on pure propaganda. Not to mention the fact that there could easily be investigations compromised by such misuse of the data.

boltonguy · Jul 11, 2007

The wikipedia link posted above states:

" ... Tiahrt Amendment ... shields the ... BATFE ... from having to release information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. ... Some groups ... believe that having further access to the BATFE database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime."

I'm kind of confused. On one hand information can be released in connection with a criminal investigation. On the other hand, if repealed police departments could use the date to track down sellers of illegal guns?

Is the assumption that they would use this data outside of a criminal investigation? What would the context be for trying to track down sellers of illegal guns outside of a criminal investigation? Curiosity?

Sorry, maybe I don't understand what a criminal investigation means. Can anyone explain this?

drgrant · Jul 12, 2007

boltonguy said:
I'm kind of confused. On one hand information can be released in connection with a criminal investigation. On the other hand, if repealed police departments could use the date to track down sellers of illegal guns?

Unlikely that it would make a real difference on that front, as police can
already make formal trace requests and gather their own data from such
requests, and draw their own conclusions from it. Further, as previously
stated, every gun trace out there often times has little to nothing to do
with guys selling illegal guns. Some agencies even conduct traces of
firearms with the intent of trying to get them back to their original
owner(s).

Is the assumption that they would use this data outside of a criminal investigation? What would the context be for trying to track down sellers of illegal guns outside of a criminal investigation? Curiosity?

A few different things might arise from public release....

-Bradyites would start filing a massive amount of civil lawsuits against gun
dealers or even individuals that have had guns stolen from them and the
like. It'd make it that much easier if they had a laundry list of
dealers to pick from that have sold a large number of so-called "crime
guns".

-Gun owners who had guns stolen from them would face unwarranted
harassment from antis. The same with dealers and the like.

-Certain ongoing investigations (either at a state or a federal level) may
become compromised by information being released.

Of course, some of this is contingent on the level of data divulged; but let's
take a hypothetical here. Say joe citizen buys a pump shotgun at his
local gun shop. A week later the gun gets stolen by some thug out of his
truck. The thug then uses it to dust off a bunch of "enemies" at the local
crack house, and the cops find it, and run a trace on it. The trace
completes, and the police get their data.. but guess what... now that trace
becomes public record; and the info divulged exposes the original buyer of
the gun, etc.

It's bad enough that we have to fill out 4473s at all, but at least under the
current system the only people that can see them is law enforcement, and
only with appropriate justification.

Getting rid of Tiahrt would (possibly) open a path for the ATF to be forced
to divulge any and all trace information to virtually any person.

-Mike

Riverside · Jul 12, 2007

Here's one to get you riled up, well it got me riled upped. Sam is running for re-election and he's competing for Menino's affections. Of course I did contact my Congressman to ask him to support the TIAHRT ammendment.

Dear Friend,
I am writing you today with an urgent message. The U.S. House Appropriations Subcommitee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies is voting tomorrow on the Tiahrt Amendment tomorrow, starting at 10am.

The Tiahrt Amendment has proven itself to be the worst kind of special-interest legislation - putting the gun lobby on Capitol Hill ahead of the victims of gun violence back home in our neighborhoods. I am writing to urge you to contact your Congressman, and voice your concerns with the rise in gun violence, and the need for common sense gun legislation that helps us stop the rising violence in our streets. To find out how to contact your Congressman, click here.

Of course, we should all commend Mayor Thomas M. Menino for his leadership of the 225-member strong Mayors Against Illegal Guns and their demands that Congress repeal a senseless amendment that has been allowed for too long to stand in the way of local law enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe from escalating handgun violence.

Repealing this amendment has broad support from law enforcement, local officials, taxpayers, and all those who know that one of our top priorities is to stop the flow of illegal guns into our communities.

I encourage all who read this to contact their member of Congress and ask them to join Mayor Menino's efforts to keep us safe by getting rid of the Tiahrt Amendment.

And, afterward, please go to Stop Handgun Violence.org and see what else you can do stop illegal gun trafficking and work toward positive change so that we can stem the growing tide of gun violence and its victims.

Thank you,

Sam Yoon

Boston City Councilor At Large

Committee to Elect Sam Yoon
PO Box 51824
Boston, MA 02205

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, click here
Powered by NGP Software, Inc.

Mr Weebles · Jul 12, 2007

Well, it looks like common sense won the day.

Lawmakers block access to gun sales data

To all of the folks supporting the repeal of the Tiahrt amendment:

Suck it.

Coyote33 · Jul 27, 2007

U.S. House Continues Restrictions that Hurt Law Enforcement Efforts to Fight Gun Crime

kevin9 · Jul 27, 2007

Coyote33 said:
U.S. House Continues Restrictions that Hurt Law Enforcement Efforts to Fight Gun Crime

Well, that's certainly an unbiased source of information. [rolleyes]

Good for our Congress-critters.

Coyote33 · Jul 29, 2007

kevin9 said:
Well, that's certainly an unbiased source of information.
Good for our Congress-critters.

I only wished our side would publish press releases in the same manner/frequency. It would do wonders to have positive "press". Sure, I know this is a somewhat nebulous source, but the fact is that people do indeed use and refer to it.

KMaurer · Jul 29, 2007

Coyote33 said:
I only wished our side would publish press releases in the same manner/frequency. It would do wonders to have positive "press". Sure, I know this is a somewhat nebulous source, but the fact is that people do indeed use and refer to it.

You're assuming that

Our side doesn't in fact publish such press releases on a regular basis;
The press would pick them up and report them as often as they do press releases from "Barking Moonbats Against Satanic Guns"; and
Our press releases would be accepted as being as objective and factually correct as the information from "The Maharishi's Coalition to Ensure Peace, Eternal Life, Wealth and Happiness by Banning Invisible Plastic Guns."

My guess is that none of those would be a particularly well-founded assumption.

Ken

Coyote33 · Jul 29, 2007

Actually, what I meant is that our side should do some releases to the PRNewswire site.

1. I've only rarely seen some there.
2. A lot of people pick up info there, including "the press".
3. From what I've heard and read, I think pretty much anything gets accepted there. That is why it is so confounding that only one side contributes. If I were as eloquent as you, or as official as the NRA/GOAL/GOA, I would send something; but I am not.

You make assumptions on my assumptions.

Coyote33 · Sep 5, 2007

Looks like maybe the good side is starting to wake up to this news source:

D.C. Hypocrisy Stunning in Announced Appeal of District Gun Ban, Says SAF

Law Enforcement: repeal Tiahrt amendment

Similar threads