The Washington Post makes me testy. (Part IV)

For this installment, I’m going to cover the three chat sessions associated with the WP series:

Robert Marcus, owner of Bob’s Gun Shop in Norfolk, VA, “…one of the leading crime-gun sources in Virginia, with Norfolk police alone recovering 88 of its guns in 2008. Marcus says his store’s traces are likely fed by Norfolk’s demographics and the more than 32,000 guns the store has sold since 1998.”
Jim Cavanaugh, “a retired ATF Special Agent in Charge”.
Washington Post staff writers David S. Fallis, Sari Horwitz, and James V. Grimaldi, the authors of the series.

I’m going to go over all three of these chats in some detail, though I only plan to quote parts I find significant or enlightening. Since this is going to be long, I’ll insert a break here…

I’m actually pretty impressed by the Marcus and Cavanaugh chats; both gentlemen, especially Mr. Marcus, maintained their composures in the light of some pretty hostile and ignorant questioning by WP readers, and scored some good points. For example, the first question from the Marcus chat:

When you know so many of the guns you’ve sold have ended up killing and maiming people in crimes, why wouldn’t you support registration of all guns and requiring gun owner’s death and maiming liability insurance?

Answer:

I was looking for something like this to use to debunk the notion of “crime guns.” Every gun that comes to the attention of law enforcement is traced, and the only way a firearm can be traced through the Federal system is as a “crime gun.” So, a man dies and his wife asks the police to come get his guns out of the house. They are traced as “crime guns,” even though no crime took place. A person who is charged with carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia will usually have his handgun confiscated and it will then be traced, again, becoming a “crime gun” even though the person has not (or might not) even been convicted of a crime. That is why I am not too concerned with being considered a “crime gun” source. The vast majority of these traces are nothing more than recovered stolen firearms or carry-type issues.

Mr. Marcus continues on to make two more good points in his answer:

I am going to answer someone else’s question about why firearms dealers are concerned about trace information being kept secret. We are concerned that activists such as New York’s mayor bloomberg will misuse this data to harm our businesses. Virginia had to enact a law to prevent him from conducting his “investigations” down here without the involvement of our State Police.

and

…I would urge Mr. Fallis to provide the public with the circumstances involving the 88 firearms traced back to us in 2008. I believe the overwhelming majority will be nothing more than recovered stolen guns and carry-related issue guns.

Another good point made by Mr. Marcus in response to this question:

The Post article asserts that “more than 2,500” guns sold by Realco (sic) were traced the past 18 years. But the article does not compare that figure to your total amount of guns sold during the same period, which surely must be much larger. Would you be willing to estimate what that total is?

Response:

It would have to be well in excess of 50,000 firearms, as an educated guess.

Also a good question/response pair:

If I were to walk into your store, and have all legitimate credentials, and I kept walking into your store every few days, how long could I keep this up?

My answer to your first question is, “How much money do you have?” Seriously, Virginia currently has a law that limits a person to one handgun purchase in a 30 day period. Also, we have refused to sell people who have come in once a month to buy the exact same gun.

And this one:

In the Post yesterday the article said that the police chose NOT to prosecute a woman who made a straw purchase – the gun was later used in a murder. Since the police chose not to charge her with a crime would YOU sell her a gun next week?

If I knew the facts, I would not sell her a firearm. She committed perjury when she lied on the Federal purchase form that she was the actual buyer.

Mexican gun ducks come up:

Is there any way to use the same databases to check weapons seized in Mexico with the stores in Virginia and Maryland selling crime guns?

You will have to ask Mr. Fallis, the writer of the story, this one.

Here’s the kind of thing I’m talking about when I refer to hostile questions:

I don’t understand why the NRA and their ilk want to hide records. They should stand proud and trumpet their “success” of putting guns in virtually everyone’s hands! That’s what they want, after all. Guns for all. Honestly, in all truth, I don’t get it. They should be out there enjoying their “success.”

Another good point on stats:

You state you have sold over 30,000 guns. Approximately how much more is that compared to what the average store sells?

We have sold nearly 75,000 firearms since the enactment of the 1968 Gun Control Act. We maintain those records, and a few years prior, and all are subject to trace requests. As mentioned in the story, one of our competitors sold 900 guns in 2008 and had 72 traces against our 6,000+ sales and 88 traces.

88 out of 6,000 is about 1.4%, for the record. I like this, too:

Why aren’t “straw purchases” against the law?

Straw purchases are against the law. They carry a felony charge.

So either people who read the WP have reading comprehension issues, or the point that “straw purchases” are against the law was somehow obscured in the series.

How did Bloomberg’s detectives run stings on Virginia gun shops without violating our laws? Using a false name, address and presenting false IDs are felonies when buying a gun and the New York City police were far, far out of their jurisdiction.

Oh, they were committing felonies, in the name of getting others to do the same. That is why we now have the Bloomberg Law in Virginia. No more “investigations” from New York City without the consent and assitance of the Virginia State Police.

I’d like to add that, in a just world, Bloomberg’s people would be doing hard time, and Bloomberg would be in a Federal prison after his conviction on RICO charges.

Given the mayhem [“assault weapons”] cause, can you give a good reason to continue their sale?

What mayhem? According to statistics, they are used in relatively few crimes.

This might sound…familiar:

This article suggests that gun dealers are knowingly supplying firearms to criminals. However, a more reasonable conclusion is that if weapons are sold in areas with high crime rates, a legitimately sold weapon will more likely be involved in a crime. How is this revelation newsworthy?

Hey, I just read newspapers. I don’t know how to print them or sell them!

That pretty much covers what I think are the high points of the chat with Mr. Marcus. I’d encourage you to read the whole thing for yourself; as I said earlier, I think he comes off pretty well. (I’d also encourage folks in Norfolk to visit his shop.)

Likewise, I think Jim Cavanaugh sounds like an eminently reasonable guy, for a former jackbooted ATF thug. In his cases, the questions were less hostile, but the relative ignorance remained constant.

Wouldn’t a requirement to register all weapons with either cities or counties, and all data available on a national registry solve the problem?

I am not an advocate of firearms registration, having spent almost 4 decades as a uniform police officer and federal agent. I think it can be needlessly burdensome on citizens. I prefer that we target criminals and criminal trafficking to promote the common weal and safety.

It only took three questions for “assault weapons” to come up:

One possible solution has been to give the director of the ATF the authority to ban any weapon that he/she deems as “unneccesarily dangerous.” This would presumably include “assault weapons” like the AR-15 and handguns designed to fire an armor piercing bullet such as the FN Five Seven.

No, I don’t think the Director should have the power to ban assault weapons. I think that power should rest with the Congress. The problem with the assault weapons ban is that it had good intentions, but in reality, it did not work. Manufacturers were able to take off bayonets, muzzle extensions, pistol grips, and other designs on the gun and produce a cheaper gun that fired the same ammunition, at the same velocity with the same function. This kind of ban really isn’t going to help us fight crime. I know it has a lot of supporters, and I believe that they are sincere in wanting to reduce violence, but I don’t think this is the answer. Armor piercing ammunition is already regulated under the law.

I do wish Cavanaugh had gone on to point out that only certain ammo for the FN Five Seven can penetrate armor, and that ammo is tightly controlled (available only to law enforcement and military customers). I also wish he’d pointed out that your (not you personally, the metaphorical “you”) grandfather’s hunting rifle can also penetrate armor. It seems to come as a shock to many folks that body armor is not a magical talisman that confers protection from every known type of bullet.

Cavanaugh makes what I think is an excellent point here:

Do you have a sense as to how significant an issue [gun trafficing to Mexico] is? And could you explain what’s going on and how/if it should be remedied?

Gun trafficking to Mexico is the March of the Lilliputians who bring guns and ammo constantly across the Border in small amounts. There are some large shipments, but most of the traffic is this constant movement. There are many arguments about how many guns come from America to Mexico, but one thing we can be sure of is that many do.

One thing that’s left out of the discussion is that civil society has broken down in Mexico in some cities. Citizens of Mexico then want to acquire firearms in the U.S. for the protection of themselves and their families as well.

Yes, the car registration argument comes up:

Someone yesterday equated owning a gun to driving a vehicle — i.e, requirement for passing a competency test before owning a gun, getting liability insurance, being held liable when the gun is used in a crime, etc. Do you think this is the right approach?

No, I don’t think we need to have competency tests or liability insurance just to own a firearm. We all know that if you shoot someone, lots of lawsuits will be filed already, and under our current laws everyone is already held responsible for their actions. The overwhelming, overwhelming majority of gun owners are not involved in any type of crime. Rather, it is the criminals who misuse and victimize that we need to target and focus on. I am for stiff penalties for gun crime and violent crime with a gun, tougher gun traffic statutes, and more resources for ATF and the police.

Cavanaugh could have gone to point out that once you pass your driving test, issuance of the license is pretty much automatic, not subject to denial because some county sheriff disagrees with your political opinions. He also could have gone on to point out that your Texas driver’s license lets you drive in any state of the union, including New York; you don’t need a special New York City driving permit to use your car in NYC. Have the people who advocate treating guns like cars really thought all the way through that analogy?

Here’s a place where I do think Cavanaugh whiffed:

What good does it really do to have firearms traceable? How often does traceability really prevent crime? A few times, maybe? After all, by the time the ATF steps into the picture, a crime has already been committed. In a few cases, a chain of custody may lead back to a criminal gun dealer, but more than likely it leads back to a stolen gun. The situation in Mexico is a good example. My understanding is that a majority of modern rifles used by the cartels are traceable back to the U.S. as former U.S. government supplied weapons, not civilian manufactured weapons. What good is traceability in preventing crime?

Firearms tracing is an awesome tool against violent crime. Let me just use one example, although there are scores: 3 people were murdered at a convenient store in my Division. Homicide detectives asked for our help in tracing a firearm left at the scene.

Cavanaugh goes on to recount the story of how they were able to use trace data to find the people responsible for the murders. Nice story, but it doesn’t really respond to the point that trace data doesn’t prevent crime; it only comes into play after the crime has already been committed.

Wrapping up, let’s go ahead and see what the WP writers have to say. I was fully prepared to come down on them like the hammer of Thor, but their answer to the very first question put me off guard:

What crime can people who buy guns for others be charged with? How often are straw purchasers sentenced and how long is the time in prison or the price of the fine?

Straw buyers can be charged with felonies in federal court and many states have corresponding laws on the books. The crime is that they are lying about who the gun is for when they fill out the 4473 at the gun dealer that sold the gun. That said, one of the main complaints I have heard from law enforcement officers on the street — and gun dealers alike — is that the straw buyers are rarely hammered in court.

Anecdotally, I must say this seems to be true. Of the hundreds of federal guntrafficking cases I studied, the nominees or buyers were often given probationary type sentences or very short time behind bars. [Emphasis added – DB] In gun trafficking rings, the ring leaders are the ones who usually get the stiffest prison time. What I heard in some of these cases was that the buyer had no idea what was going to be done w/ the gun they were buying. Prosecutors use the straw buyers as witnesses against the ringleaders.

So is the problem really with dealers, or with law enforcement allowing “straw man” purchasers to basically get out of jail free? If you ask the average WP reader, I’d be willing to be they blame the “gun lobby”:

I know this was not the subject of your current writings, yet I am wondering if you might consider delving into how gun laws are created on and the influence that the National Rifle Association has. The NRA has never, and legally needs not, disclose their funding. Yet, the way they consistently fight any law that might impede the sale of any gun makes it suspicious that they are, if not funded by, defenders of gun manufacturers who oppose any law that would prevent the sale of a single one of their guns. It seems to me, and this is my opinion, that the political dialogue over gun laws would be better served if advocates for hunters were conducted by organizations that respect their needs yet are willing to consider laws that get at illegal guns that are not used for sporting purposes. Have you given any thought to expanding your writings into these legislative battles and the politics and lobbying behind creating these laws?

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.

As far as the NRA’s funding goes, I pay them money every year. As far as “organizations that respect their needs”, is the questioner talking about the American Hunters and Shooters Association, for example? How’s that working for you?

While I agree that inventory checks are good, by comparing what ATF would require of firearms dealers to other retail inventory checks, your article underestimates the effort that would be required of a dealer to conduct such checks. Every firearm a dealer receives is required to be logged in. Information as to the manufacturer, model, type, caliber, date acquired, from who it was acquired and the serial number is recorded. Therefore if the dealer gets 10 glocks in a shipment each one is entered as a unique entry, even if they are all the same model and caliber…they have a different serial number. When sold the entry for firearm sold is updated to include the date sold and the name and address of who it was sold to. An inventory check of firearms would require more that just a check of quantity (checking if the dealer has the 10 glocks in stock) that another retail business may do. The firearms dealer would be required to check that the guns with the serial numbers entered in their records are indeed the ones that may be on the shelf. Imagine if Best Buy, during the course of an inventory check, had to also check the serial number of every TV, stereo, camera, appliance, etc., that it had in stock. That would require more effort than just counting quantities. Did you even ask a firearms dealer how much time such an inventory would take?

Thank you for your comment and question. In an interview, an official with the National Rifle Association Cox, said “an annual physical inventory would provide very little additional benefit and would impose a huge cost on the industry.”

Jim Cavanaugh, former ATF agent, said in a Post discussion yesterday that there would be a lot of benefits to having an inventory done. Also, the Post’s editorial page (which we don’t have anything to do with) wrote on this issue today as well.

When the guns come in, the FFL logs them in his book. When the guns go out, the FFL logs them in his book. Not seeing how an inventory would help things here; if a gun turns up that wasn’t logged in or out of the bound book, the FFL has problems. If the inventory turns up missing guns, the FFL has problems. (This question also makes the assumption that FFL’s don’t do inventories; I suspect if you asked, the vast majority do.)

Is the NRA, in their lobbying efforts, responsible for the inability of the ATF to effectively do its job?

It depends on whom you ask. Many of the current and former ATF agents we spoke with think that the NRA and the gun lobby have hamstrung the agency by imposing lots of restrictions on the agency. We found 87 lines of direction in the appropriations legislation for the ATF, and many if not most of those were added at the urging of the gun lobby.

Gee, do you suppose those directions might be there because the BATF has a long history of abuses? How do the “87 lines of direction in the appropriations legislation for the ATF” compare to other appropriations bills for other agencies?

I said it in part III, and I’ll say it again; if the BATF were any other law enforcement agency, the WP and other news media would be all over them covering their enforcement tactics and management. But because the BATF deals with guns, I’m convinced the news media gives them a free pass.

Of the dealer that were mentioned in the article, what percentage did the crime guns from these dealers represent of the total number of guns sold over the same period? What percentage of the crime guns changed hands after the gun was sold by the dealer and before they were used in a crime?

Of the few dozen or 40 dealers that had the most traces reported to state officials, they sold over that same time frame (1/1/98 forward) about 30 percent of the guns. Or in other words, they supplied about 60 percent of the traces that were reported to Virginia State Police and recorded in their records, but sold 30 percent of weapons over that time. We calculated sales using archived paper annual reports generated by Virginia State Police. The state police conduct all the background checks in Virginia, so they keep track of how many transfers a dealer has every year.

As far as changing hands, that unfortunately was very hard to determine. In many cases, we chased down paper records on individual crimes to look for clues as to how the gun moved once it left the counter and by the time it was seized by police. In most cases, it’s not apparent. Prior ATF research has found that that about 90 percent of the guns traced have been taken from someone other than the person who was listed as the buyer of record. This is why time to crime is important, because the shorter that is, the better the chance that diversion was planned at or soon after the purchase, and the better the chance that the trace has meaningful investigative leads.

Here’s an interesting question:

My question is will you be publishing a list of the top 40 crime gun dealers in Virginia?

The reason we didn’t provide a top 40 list or ranking for Virginia, as we explained in the box that ran with the story, is that the Virginia data collected by the state police is not complete. Since Congress made trace data a secret, the state data is best-available window unto the universe of traces in the state.

When we went in and scrubbed and analyzed the data, it became very apparent very quickly who the dealers were that were having the greatest number of traces reported to state police. But I also found that some police agencies were better at reporting traces than others, and at the end of the analysis felt that given the uneveness in reporting by local police, one dealer could rank higher or lower among the top 40 than another based on the absence of reporting by a local agency.

To helpf fill the gaps as much as possible we requested trace data from local departments (like Norfolk), some of whom complied with our request. The snapshots they gave us confirmed the broader patterns and dealers with greater number of traces that we saw reflected in the state police data. But, still in the end I felt it was more appropriate to point out the broader point — that a small number of dealers account for most of the traces — vs. who ranked where.

That said, all of the dealers we identified in the stories were among the leading 40. If Congress would allow the ATF to disclose the data, we’d have a more comprehensive picture. Unfortunately, the public is left to triangulate state and local records to get a sense of what is going on.

I should just point out in comparison that the reason we ranked Maryland dealers for the region was that they were identified through different data sources: We had, from the gun recovery logs, a very complete pool of all guns ever seized by Prince George’s and DC police over the past 18 years.

Related to that, here’s part of the response from Fallis on traces:

One of the main complaints I heard from dealers about guns traced back to them, or “crime guns” as the ATF officially refers to the weapons traced– is that the guns include weapons turned in voluntarily for destruction, safekeeping, found guns, or guns that may not have been physically used to execute a crime. In some cases, this is correct.

But based on the tens of thousands of guns we looked at in the region and the ATF’s own reports the vast majority of guns police recover are taken in the course of investigating suspected criminal activity at some level. The vast majority of these are situations in which the weapon was possessed illegally (such as carrying loaded weapon concealed w/o a permit) or the circumstances of the possession made having the weapon illegal (i.e. possession of cocaine along with a loaded gun).

Here’s the ATF’s breakdown (from their website) for Virginia for last year for the , most common categories for guns recovered as reported by police:

Possession of weapon – 2160

Firearm under investigation – 1297

Weapon offenses – 568

None provided – 562

Found firearm – 559

Dangerous drugs – 533

Carrying concealed – 429

Suicide – 224

Homicide – 212

Family offense – 178

The ATF by policy does not tell dealers why they are requesting a trace, thus leaving it up to them to guess what might be the reason for the trace. This also frustrates dealers. The ATF says they do this to protect the integrity of any potential criminal investigation. This leaves a lot of room for guessing, filled in with anecdotes from customers or dealer’s personal experiences w/ guns they personally know were traced (like maybe a gun stolen from the gun shop).