Onward and upward, then. The entire WP “Hidden Life of Guns” series, including the various multimedia presentations and chats, is linked here.
Part II of the series focuses on Virginia. Of the first three antidotes in the story, at least two reflect illegal “straw man” sales to prohibited purchasers. But the article goes on:
and
The Realco argument again:
Let’s talk a little about tracing data:
Sounds bad, right? Actually, tracing data is still available to law enforcement. What Congress really did is to bar the release of tracing data to people outside of law enforcement, such as cities suing gun makers, anti-gun organizations, and the news media.
You wouldn’t know this from the WP article, but both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police support keeping the trace data confidential, since it may contain information that endangers ongoing investigations.
I’m unclear as to which database this is: the previously referenced Maryland database, or a separate Virginia database? From context, I think it is the latter.
This is a point that I should have made in part one, and didn’t: there are a lot of reasons why guns might wind up in the Maryland or Virginia databases. They might have been seized in a crime. They might have been recovered stolen property. They might have been turned in by widows who don’t know what to do with their late husband’s guns. I’m not familiar with Maryland or Virginia gun laws: could this database include guns registered in those states? Do the Maryland or Virginia State Police departments run BATFE traces on guns registered in those states, just to make sure that the guns aren’t stolen or illegally aquired? Point being, just because a gun shows up in the database, or is traced, doesn’t mean it is involved in a crime. (The NRA-ILA “Tiahart Amendment” fact sheet includes a claim that “The BATFE trace request form lists ‘crime codes’ for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.” This is a place where I’d like to see a citation.)
Moving along,
A-ha! A statistic! Let’s run those numbers: homicide guns account for 0.005%, robbery guns account for 0.007875%, suicide/attempted suicide guns 0.012%, “brandishing” for 0.021625%, shooting guns for 0.037625%, “drug probe” guns for 0.081875%, and “weapons-related violations” for 0.130375%. Added up, the guns mentioned above work out to 2,371 out of 800,000, or about 0.296375% of the total. This is assuming that there’s no overlap; that is, that no guns show up in both the “homicide” and “suicide” categories, for example. Nor does the WP break this out and tell us how many of those homicides, shootings, and brandishings were ultimately ruled justified for defensive reasons. And I have to wonder if “drug probe” includes guys caught with a dime bag of weed and a Glock? Not that I condone that, but there’s a big difference between casual marijuana users caught with guns and guys moving kilos of coke with guns.
(Edited to add: looking over this again, there’s something else I noticed. Assuming that the figures given for the guns seized by police are also since 1998, that’s an average of one homicide gun, 1.575 robbery guns, 2.4 suicide guns, 4.325 brandishing guns, 7.525 shooting guns, 15 “drug probe” guns, and 26.075 “weapons violations” guns, per shop, in a 12 year period. That seems pretty low to me, even before you start asking some of the other questions I asked above. How does this compare with gun shops that aren’t in the top 40?)
A-ha! So the ATF does have enforcement power! They can revoke people’s licenses!
(Let me add here that “technical violations” may include such things as writing “TX” instead of “Texas”, or “Apt.” instead of “Apartment”, on the Form 4473 you fill out when you buy a gun. Really, I’m not making this up; there was a rash of BATFE-issued violations for exactly those reasons a couple of years back, and the gun stores I went to were very careful to warn you “Don’t abbreviate anything.” BATFE has apparently issued a clarification stating that recognized postal abbreviations are okay.)
What’s your takeaway from this; that the vast majority of gun dealers obey the law, and don’t want to jeopardize their businesses? Or that BATFE doesn’t have sufficient enforcement power?
Uh, yeah. The WP article omits some significant facts here. The ATF didn’t just try to track buyers suspected of straw purchases:
- They were going to people’s homes and asking family members and neighbors if they knew someone was purchasing a gun.
- They were stopping people with no probable cause, confiscating guns, and handing them letters stating they were suspected of violating Federal law.
- They were confiscating Form 4473s from dealers with no connection to a specific criminal investigation, which is a violation of the law.
- They detained several people who were legally selling firearms in private sales.
In short, BATF acted like a bunch of jackbooted thugs, and got their hands slapped. It amazes me that every other Federal and state law enforcement agency is the target of skeptical investigation and criticism by the news media. But BATFE? They apparently can do no wrong. When’s the last time you read a critical investigative article on that agency?
Removing the WP spin from this (“simulated straw buyers”?) Bloomberg sent a bunch of people out, had them pretend to commit crimes, then tried to blame the gun dealers for these pretend crimes. At least two of those gun dealers sued Bloomberg, and the state of Virginia made Bloomberg’s sting operations a felony. (I’m not sure those operations weren’t illegal already.)
The WP goes on to talk about one gun dealer in the top 40 who went out of business:
Again, illegal straw man sales. What do you suppose would happen if local law enforcement went after straw purchasers, especially women?
“Thinking about buying a gun for your man? Why doesn’t he buy his own gun? If he’s a felon and you’re caught purchasing a gun for him, here’s what’s going to happen: you’re going to go to jail for ten years. We’ll make sure to pursue the maximum sentence on your ass. Do you love your kids? Kiss them goodbye, because once you’re sentenced, we’re going to petition the court to remove your parental rights. They’re going to become wards of the state and you’ll never see them again. So think before you sign that form 4473, honeybunch.”
The WP keeps saying things like this, but the whole point of the series seems to be to undermine those statements.
This sort of seems to be Lawrence’s demographic argument about Realco, but the point about “inexpensive guns” is well taken.
Good to see the WP make the point that recovered stolen guns can also be “crime guns” or “trace guns”. Even if they did make that point near the bottom of their second day article. In a disused lavatory. With a sign on the door that said “Beware of the leopard.”
“They can do the bare minimum, or they can do more.” In other news, the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. (See also: 37 pieces of flair.)
All right! The dreaded Hi-Point rears its ugly head!
ATF officials say that years of tracing has shown that low-priced handguns have greater appeal to violent criminals and gun traffickers.
Wow! You don’t say! Criminals, a cowardly and superstitious lot, also like a bargain!
Sounds like a high-volume dealer selling a lot of cheap guns in an area where people probably couldn’t afford better ones.
But the WP doesn’t mention if violations have continued, or if the number of traces has increased, decreased, or remained constant after Sonny’s ATF license changed. I’ll confess that it bugs me a little that Sonny’s was able to remain open in the face of chronic violations, but the WP doesn’t detail what the relationship is between the old and new owners, either. Did the new owners just keep the name? Are the old owners actively involved in the business? Again, has the history of violations continued?
Likewise, the Norman Gladden story that ends part two bothers me a little bit.
…
…
But, again, are there ongoing, continuing, violations? The WP doesn’t tell us.
In response to questions, an attorney for Gladden said The Post’s information contained “factual inaccuracies, half-truths, dated information, unsubstantiated allegations by convicted felons and hearsay.”
I particularly like the “unsubstantiated allegations by convicted felons” part. That’s an interesting question; how many convicted felons get deals on their gun possession charges, in return for rolling over on the dealers who sold the guns? And how credible is their testimony?
I’m hoping to get to part 3 of the series and the related material tomorrow.