Gov't Too Scared Of NRA To Stop Border Gun Trafficking (TPM)

[hlthe2b]

Good God....


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/government_too_scared_of_nra_to_stop_mexican_border_gun_trafficking_atf_doj.php?ref=fpb

Just how much power does the National Rifle Association wield in Washington? Enough that a plan quietly proposed by federal agents to combat illegal gun trafficking along the Mexico border has languished at the Justice Department for months -- all because officials are worried about what the NRA might think.

The Washington Post published an account of the internal debate today, outlining the enormity of the influence the gun lobby -- led by the NRA -- holds over federal gun policy and its enforcement. With the effectiveness of their "Project Gunrunner" plan under fire, agents working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) developed a plan they thought would combat the smuggling of domestically purchased AK-47s and AR-15s to Mexico, where those weapons are fueling a violent drug war south of the border.

Despite their efforts to keep under wraps the plan to require gun dealers to report sales of multiple rifles and shotguns to ATF, the NRA caught wind of it and issued a dire warning to NRA members, the newspaper reported. The plan is gaining traction at DOJ, but sources told the Post they fear the NRA will rally its forces to kill the plan if it becomes public.

--more-- at link.

[wikileaksfan]

1. Nuts Ruining America

[katandmoon]

2. +1,000,000

[SteveM]

19. Sorry to disappoint you...

but the true assault rifles -- that is FULL-AUTO -- are being smuggled from Central America, and "liberated" from the Mexican Army.

I have no trouble with border LEOs stopping arms smuggling of other semi-auto rifles and guns in violation of the law. But your sources aren't really serious about that prospect: either they are willfully blind to the nature or prohibitionism, or they wish to carry on a culture war, blaming this group or that for hideous American policies; particularly the War on Drugs. I rather suspect the writers support (or look the other way) when it comes to the War on Drugs. If they were serious about curtailing violence in Mexico (and I contend they are not), they would use their contrived passions to push for an end to the the War on Drugs, and support instead a workable scheme of regulation. But they probably have a deeper passion against guns to ever make that possible.

[notesdev]

3. They could stop the trafficking tomorrow

just end the drug war, boom, all reason for this to be going on disappears overnight

[Glassunion]

4. What is the DOJ plan exactly?

That may tell you why the NRA "might" fight it.

[X_Digger]

8. The plan..

.. was to use executive fiat, rather than congressional action, to force FFLs to report multiple long gun purchases to the ATF. If you buy a pink 22 for your daughter and a mossberg shotgun for yourself within the same week from the same dealer, expect your name to get submitted to the ATF.

[Katya Mullethov]

20. They will need to hire people to lose the paperwork and then innitiate audits

Look on it as yet another means of jobs creation .

[SteveM]

22. Sounds like an old (1980s) Florida tax-reporting scheme...

wherein the state required businesses to report sales taxes, not each year, not each quarter, but each MONTH. The state's bureaus couldn't keep up with the paperwork, let alone the businesses'. It was dropped.

[benEzra]

5. Ummm, the NRA is 4 million people out of 80+ million gun owners...

and since one of the gun-control lobby's top priorities is banning the most popular civilian sporting and defensive rifles and carbines in the United States (aka "assault weapons"), I dare say the tens of millions of us voters who lawfully own them are probably much more of a concern to the political class than a few suits at the NRA are. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, and if the NRA vanished tomorrow it would change very little as far as gun-rights activism goes.

FWIW, the Mexican cartels are not getting their U.S.-made machineguns, grenades, and Title 2 restricted M16's/M4's from the U.S. civilian market, because those weapons aren't sold on the U.S. civilian market.





They come in to Mexico by the truckload via State Department approved arms sales to the Mexican government, or from diverted Cold War stockpiles that we provided to other nations. Nor are RPG's or actual AK-47's imported into the USA, and possession of one without a BATFE Form 4 is a 10-year felony in this country.

Of course the obvious answer to the real issue---repeal Prohibition and de-fund the cartels---will never be given serious consideration, unfortunately...

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Consumers

Consumers could stop the killing! Dopers just need to demand "dead Mexican free" dope!

It worked for tuna!

As long as dopers spend this kind of cash:



They are paying for this level of armament:



(As an aside, anyone who thinks cartels with access to that kind of money are buying their weaponry, one gun at a time, retail, over the counter in Houston has smoked a couple tons of that shit already!)

and funding this level of butchery!



You smoke it, you buy it, you pay for it and you underwrite the trade and all that goes with it, with your cash.

Grow your own or get the law changed!

[Katya Mullethov]

12. There is much risk in growing your own

Lack of fourth amendment protections being a major concern to many . They wont cut you into 16 pieces , but the risk of getting shot is very real . But times are changin' .

For your surreal viewing pleasure ... Supply reaches demand .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP5RWlK-YSQ

[one-eyed fat man]

13. Perfect point.

Repeal of the prohibition would make sense. At least to make it like beer or wine, a householder can produce up to 200 gallons of the stuff FOR HIS OWN use. As long as there is an illicit market, the cartels will be using tractor trailers to haul the cash.

With that much cash, cops, judges, and governments are corruptible.

The part that is most ludicrous is that the "drug warriors" are co-dependent. Police agencies spend more and more money to catch the crooks and the crooks spend more money to keep from being caught. They catch more crooks, build bigger jails, get bigger budgets to catch the crooks they just turned loose.

The really big crooks buy off the judges, prosecutors etc and buy military arms by the shipload from North Korea or guys like Viktor Anatolyevich Bout. Also, since their product is illicit, they can't compete for market share by paying Google to pop them up in your search results. Whey they undertake to kill the competition, it's not just a figure of speech!.

Personally, I think both those dopers who deny THEIR habit, and THEIR money, paid for the ammo and had those guys chopped into sixteen pieces and the idiots who think that the cartels are really buying their guns, one at a time, over the counter in Texas gun shops and paying retail for them prove that commercial was right after all!

[Katya Mullethov]

15. There is an important difference

Between those who actually believe the line and those who would use a position of authority to propagate such a tale in the first place . Willfully ignorant verses evil .

[Callisto32]

23. I don't deny that a lot of drug money is blood money.

I just think you need to change your message to a "strike the root" style. The root is prohibition driving up risk, and thus prices, making only the least risk averse (probably the most violent) take up the trade.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. They are co-dependent

The dopers vehemently deny their cash is funding the cartels' violence.

The prohibitionists do exactly as you say, they force the trade underground. Thereby putting the entire trade in the hands of those most likely to use violence to expand market share.

Both groups share responsibility. The which came first argument can go one forever. The dopers complain that the government made what they want illegal. And the government prohibits them "dope" for "their own good" in perfect 'nanny state' righteousness.

The repeal of Prohibition in 1933 at least took bootlegging away from organized crime. The shame is that organized crime just turned to other illegal commodities.

There are always two sides to the supply and demand equation. You can have warehouses and warehouses full of the finest quality buggy whips. Even in the heart of Amish country you won't sell enough to quit your day job.

On the other hand, a warehouse full of pre 1993 toilets will put your kids through college!.

In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, a big, honking piece of legislation that sought to codify into federal law the thousands of administrative laws put forth by the Department of Energy. It set crucial, national-security-affecting policies such as how cold refrigerators were permitted to be.

Also included in that massive bill was a tiny, barely-noticed-at-the-time provision mandating that every toilet sold in the United States after the year 1994 use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. That provision quickly became known in toilet industry circles (yes, there are toilet industry circles) as the "flush twice rule," as patriotic, beef-eating Americans who bought domestic toilets after 1994 had no choice but to flush twice to be sure all their business washed away before house guests arrived. It also created - I'm not kidding - a "black market" for Canadian toilets - toilets with big, glorious, gluttonous bowls, capable of holding 3, 3 ½, even four gallons of water.

I bring this up because despite an annual budget of $18 billion, 20,000 full-time employees, and 150,000 contract employees, smaller toilet bowls are probably the most memorable thing that's come out of the the Department of Energy in 32 years that's had a significant impact on your life. And I'd venture to guess that most of us don't see smaller toilet bowls as a positive.

With apologies to Pascal, "No one commits regulation so completely and zelously as a nanny stater doing it for your own good."

[mistertrickster]

11. Good points wholly ignored in the article.

All the "black rifles" legally sold in the US are semi-auto (on edit--as opposed to fully automatic combat weapons), no difference in function from a semi-auto hunting rifle. In fact, the AR, AK, and SKS clones are often used for hunting (deer, coyotes, etc).

The BATF has never (to my knowledge) shown that drug war weapons actually come from legal US gun dealers.

Gun control is a losing issue for liberals/Dems. I used to be a gun control advocate myself until I looked at the facts: more guns don't lead to more crime (or less crime as the CONs believe). It has no influence on crime one way or the other.

It's nice to believe that gun control would have kept the Kennedy Brothers and M. L. King safe, and it would have if we were Japan which has hardly any guns. But we've got more guns than people in the U.S. That's the reality, and we have to deal with that reality instead of wishing for something that can't happen unless the U.S. becomes a fascist totalitarian state and collects all the half a billion guns in circulation.

This is a losing issue for Dems. Just drop it and move on to what matters: money.

Put people to work, bring back the unions, bring back the jobs, protect Soc. Sec. etc. etc.

[lawodevolution]

17. I disagree with your point about Japan, they have more guns than Nigeria or Haiti

Per capita yet I'd argue that political leaders are not safe in Haiti or Nigeria. The japs are not outwardly violent, it's their culture.

[mistertrickster]

21. Really? I lived there for two years. Never saw a single gun . . . or knew anyone who had one.

On edit--

Are you thinking of Canada or Switzerland? They've got a lot of guns.

I was always under the impression that Japan had very tight gun laws and very few guns.

I could be wrong, but that was the prevailing view.

Here's what Wiki says:

Japan
Japan prohibits gun possession by citizens except for shotguns and single-shot rifles for hunting or sports. Semiautomatic and full automatic weapons are restricted to military and police. Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test. Police check on the owner once every three months on an unannounced visit. They inspect the gun locker, proper ammunition storage, and the firearm. There are no laws against owning swords or knives, however you require a license to carry any bladed object with a blade length of longer than two and a quarter inches.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. OH, this is good.

So much for their concern about protecting the border.

[pipoman]

7. So right, the DOJ has never given a shit about Mexican violence

if they did give a shit they would be fully onboard for legalization/ending prohibition...no the DOJ is only concerned with increasing their budget with fear and new restrictive laws.

[MicaelS]

10. The single biggest poltical mistake the US ever made was...

Not annexing all of Mexico after the Mexican-American War. This shit would not be happening. I'm totally serious.

[spin]

14. At the time we probably felt that we didn't have enough troops to occupy and control Mexico ...

It would have probably turned out to be a long protracted and expensive conflict like Iraq.

Maybe we were smarter in those days.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. It would just be happening one country further south. n/t

.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Good! Keep 'em scared!

From the article:

"In sum, the NRA and their $250 million in yearly revenue have been the strongest force shaping the nation's gun laws, says the newspaper.

"The White House is sensitized enough to understand it really is the third rail of American politics," Richard Feldman, a former lobbyist for the NRA, told the newspaper. "They have figured out that it is a lightning-rod issue, and they don't want it to injure them.""

I'm proud to be part of that $250 million in yearly revenue. And I'm happy to be supporting the strongest force shaping the nation's gun laws. And because of people like me and the NRA, our government is finally learning that they don't want this issue "to injure them".

Every one of my Democratic candidates in the last election had high marks from the NRA, and three of them were endorsed by the NRA. Only one had an F rating, and I did not vote for him because of it.

You can see my ballot in my sig.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Not scared, constrained by the law.

Of Arms and the Law

Dealers have long been required to report multiple sales of handguns to the same person within five business days of each other, but this is the first attempt to extend it to rifles. The core concern with the reporting is that the dealer not only logs the sale in his records, but must report it (with full description of the firearm and the purchaser) to the agency, which (it is safe to assume) computerizes it.

There are several violations of the Gun Control Act, as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act:

First, 18 USC §926(b) provides "The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations." This is stricter than the Admin Procedure Act's general provision for a "reasonable" comment period, and it has no emergency exceptions. ATFE is only giving 30 days' notice.

Second, the FOPA amendments were intended to cut off future requirements of direct reporting -- I say future because the existing regs (including reporting of multiple handgun sales were grandfathered in, but limited to those specific requirements. Thus far and no farther.

18 USC §926(a) allow promulgation of necessary rules and regulations, adding:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof..." Moreover, 18 USC §923(g)(3), which required multiple sales reporting, specifically limits it to handguns: reporting is required when a dealer "at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling two or more, to an unlicensed person."

It's time to contact legislators about this, pointing out the illegality, and asking them to lodge protests with agency and with the Office of Management and Budget, which is being called upon to approve the request, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The government is not "scared of the NRA," it is constrained by the law. Unless you want to stretch your claim to the point the government is scared of getting sued for breaking the law.

[aikoaiko]

26. If the BATFE made mandatory reporting when >10 guns were purchased, it would have gone over better

Buying 2 guns is not a bulk sale.

[slackmaster]

27. Mexico should enforce its own laws

We should enforce ours. Creating new laws by administrative fiat is not how we are supposed to do things in this country.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

28. Is the Gov't too scared to stop trafficking people? or drugs?

The border is porous. And supply/demand will determine what crosses.

I doubt if the NRA is really against enforcement of smuggling laws, or straw-purchase laws.

Legalize drugs, and the cross-border traffic in guns will drop.

:hi:

[spin]

29. Nope. Our government is supporting the businesses and corporations

who benefit from the "undocumented workers" who they underpay and treat as modern day slaves. Both political parties occasionally make promises to pass legislation to reform our outdated and idiotic immigration policies, knowing that in the end nothing will happen except the votes they will garner from those who want to see immigration reform or those who don't. People die and are robbed and raped attempting to cross the barren deserts on our border with Mexico while our elected officials play their foolish political games.

We will continue fighting the useless failed drug war because some big corporations are making enormous profits supplying our law enforcement agencies with technology that doesn't work and these agencies allow the government to become more powerful and intrusive.