From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[Jumbo]

Damn you, I was trying NOT to find out the price --also, l didn't want to continue the OT tangent.

Gentlemen (a term which apparently no longer fits the other thread, currently ), since my easy going attempt failed (and admitting again I participated) it is time to end this tangent and get back on topic if you're going to post in this thread.

[Bang]

OK what legislation specifically has handcuffed police and the ATF. Please provide with stats to back up this claim.

the links to videos which detail the entire thing have been posted all week, it's been in the news for a month.

Pay attention.You can feel free to research it, or you can sit on your ass and demand to be spoonfed.

But, for the sake of fair play, I'll get you started. Here's what the police think about rep. Tiahrt's ® law restricting police and ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft

http://protectpolice.org/facts

Here's the NRA commenting on the same legisltation, and telling us why it's a good thing that police cannot trace stolen firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/tiahrt.aspx

Here's more about why the police cannot share trace data and must destroy all background check info within 24 hours.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/

Here's a society of Mayors against Illegal guns commenting on how this tiahrt amendment has hamstrung their law enforcement efforts to get illegal guns off their streets and to track illegal guns back to their source.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

Here's an article from 2010 detailing how the NRA pushed the law, and what it does to cripple law enforcement efforts

This should be plenty of information from a variety of sources about the law and it's effects.

~Bang

[Slateman]

Hmmm...probably a little bit out of my realm of expertise having never purchased a gun, but off the top of my head.

Domestic violence charge within the last two years, conviction within the last 7 years.

DUI conviction within last 5 years.

Possession with distribution charge 5 years, conviction within 10 years...or would this already be covered as a felony? Do gun shows even check for previous felonies at this time?

Outstanding child support or child endangerment charge.

help me out here....

Being committed to a mental institute for a year.

Being convicted of a felony (any felony)

---------- Post added January-20th-2013 at 11:25 PM ----------

the links to videos which detail the entire thing have been posted all week, it's been in the news for a month.

Pay attention.You can feel free to research it, or you can sit on your ass and demand to be spoonfed.

But, for the sake of fair play, I'll get you started. Here's what the police think about rep. Tiahrt's ® law restricting police and ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft

http://protectpolice.org/facts

Here's the NRA commenting on the same legisltation, and telling us why it's a good thing that police cannot trace stolen firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/tiahrt.aspx

Here's more about why the police cannot share trace data and must destroy all background check info within 24 hours.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/

Here's a society of Mayors against Illegal guns commenting on how this tiahrt amendment has hamstrung their law enforcement efforts to get illegal guns off their streets and to track illegal guns back to their source.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

Here's an article from 2010 detailing how the NRA pushed the law, and what it does to cripple law enforcement efforts

This should be plenty of information from a variety of sources about the law and it's effects.

~Bang

Strongly suggest you research the history of the ATF, particularly in the late 70s and early 80s. Basically, they were entrapping and/or arresting law abiding citizens with minimal to no proof as well as harassing gun shops constantly. It got to the point where their own Senate approriations committee admonished them and it directly led to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

ATF has a history of being a terrible law enforcement agency and blatantly trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans

[wshngtn1]

This should be plenty of information from a variety of sources about the law and it's effects.

~Bang

I read through your links and it does sound like they are handcuffed. However I'm going to research it more. And I want find out the increase in gun crime that followed these amendments in 2003. If I read it right that information was available from the inception of tracing in 1968 through 2003. I would expect to see a decent jump between 2003 and 2005. And while I don't doubt that some of that information could be useful in fighting gun crime, it's highly doubtful it would have done much of anything in some of these mass shooting (which I realize isn't your main point). I will continue to read up on this. Sometimes spoon feeding is worth it.

[scruffylookin]

The 2nd amendment is as needed or relevant as the 3rd yet it's amusing and sad that I live in a country where there are those who think the 2nd Amendment is one of the most important "rights" there is.

Put down the boomstick and try reading a book and maybe get an education. It'll do a mind some good.

[Bang]

I read through your links and it does sound like they are handcuffed. However I'm going to research it more. And I want find out the increase in gun crime that followed these amendments in 2003. If I read it right that information was available from the inception of tracing in 1968 through 2003. I would expect to see a decent jump between 2003 and 2005. And while I don't doubt that some of that information could be useful in fighting gun crime, it's highly doubtful it would have done much of anything in some of these mass shooting (which I realize isn't your main point). I will continue to read up on this. Sometimes spoon feeding is worth it.

Well, i have no idea what the national data on gun crime as a whole will reflect, (It's been generally on the decline) but this particular bit of legislation does indeed make it very hard for police to get a handle on the bad guys who ruin it for everyone, so to speak.

I'm not a person who thinks we have a massive gun CRIME problem, and i'm not against gun ownership at all.. we have a problem with proliferation and guns landing in the wrong hands. The Tiahrt amendment certainly makes it more difficult to get those things under control, makes it easier for unscrupulous dealers to sell to crooks, and for all the world looks like the NRA speaks out of one side of it's mouth (enforce current laws) and then does something entirely different (handcuffs police from dong so).

~Bang

[twa]

Bang....Why not focus on the individual that bought the guns(and had a background check),then sold them to crooks?

attempting to punish dealers that obey the law seems sketchy

[sacase]

the links to videos which detail the entire thing have been posted all week, it's been in the news for a month.

Pay attention.You can feel free to research it, or you can sit on your ass and demand to be spoonfed.

But, for the sake of fair play, I'll get you started. Here's what the police think about rep. Tiahrt's ® law restricting police and ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft

http://protectpolice.org/facts

Here's the NRA commenting on the same legisltation, and telling us why it's a good thing that police cannot trace stolen firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/tiahrt.aspx

Here's more about why the police cannot share trace data and must destroy all background check info within 24 hours.

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/

Here's a society of Mayors against Illegal guns commenting on how this tiahrt amendment has hamstrung their law enforcement efforts to get illegal guns off their streets and to track illegal guns back to their source.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml

Here's an article from 2010 detailing how the NRA pushed the law, and what it does to cripple law enforcement efforts

This should be plenty of information from a variety of sources about the law and it's effects.

~Bang

Ok I am not entirely sure how this is a bad thing. From what I have read about the amendment in question it allows local, state, and federal law enforcement to access the data as long as it is in connection to a investigation. Not sure how they are handcuffed.

This is similar to other laws that protect personal information. The law prevents private information from being released to people who do not have a legitimate need for it. I am kind of shocked at the outrage to this. People get upset when the government collects information on them like phone calls which can potentially hinder terrorist attacks, but want them to have full access to this information. I guess as long as it fits a particular agenda then it is fine. The only thing I think should be changed is the mandatory inventories. I don't think a mandatory inventory of certain classes of firearms would be to much to ask if it was conducted once a month.

[Popeman38]

The 2nd amendment is as needed or relevant as the 3rd yet it's amusing and sad that I live in a country where there are those who think the 2nd Amendment is one of the most important "rights" there is.

Put down the boomstick and try reading a book and maybe get an education. It'll do a mind some good.

Funny how this is your reaction to the 2nd. I'd imagine if the outcry was about handcuffing the 1st amendment your reponse would be different. The 2nd amendment is the most legislated amendment we have.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Funny how this is your reaction to the 2nd. I'd imagine if the outcry was about handcuffing the 1st amendment your reponse would be different. The 2nd amendment is the most legislated amendment we have.

With good reason, what's more is that the reason so much ink has been legislated on the 2nd is because groups like the NRA kkep working to weaken the legislation, as such new legislation has to be written to close the gaps they created.

[Bang]

Bang....Why not focus on the individual that bought the guns(and had a background check),then sold them to crooks?

attempting to punish dealers that obey the law seems sketchy

strange how "attempting to catch the guilty" is transformed into 'attempting to punish the innocent".

Allowing the ATF to do their job do absolutely nothing to reputable gun dealers who operate within the law.. maybe a little more paperwork, and a bit more dilligence in their stocktaking. Heaven forbid!

But it would play hell on those dealers who don't.

Bottom line,, do we want to 'enforce current laws' , or is that just lip service?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Bottom line,, do we want to 'enforce current laws' , or is that just lip service?

~Bang

Oooh ooh I know.....:ciao: Sure hope the teacher calls on me!

[Bang]

Ok I am not entirely sure how this is a bad thing. From what I have read about the amendment in question it allows local, state, and federal law enforcement to access the data as long as it is in connection to a investigation. Not sure how they are handcuffed.

This is similar to other laws that protect personal information. The law prevents private information from being released to people who do not have a legitimate need for it. I am kind of shocked at the outrage to this. People get upset when the government collects information on them like phone calls which can potentially hinder terrorist attacks, but want them to have full access to this information. I guess as long as it fits a particular agenda then it is fine. The only thing I think should be changed is the mandatory inventories. I don't think a mandatory inventory of certain classes of firearms would be to much to ask if it was conducted once a month.

Inventories at bare minimum would go a long way in catching unscrupulous dealers.

This is where the link in the chain of 'criminals get guns" can be damaged.

In order to police current laws, at very minimum this measure needs to be reviewed. it is totally counterproductive, leaves a million holes to slide through.

The Honor System does not work.

~Bang

[twa]

Bottom line,, do we want to 'enforce current laws' , or is that just lip service?

~Bang

The amendment IS current law

[Bang]

The amendment IS current law

So the NRA wants to enable criminals.

Well, at least it's on the table now.

~Bang

[twa]

So the NRA wants to enable criminals.

Well, at least it's on the table now.

~Bang

The information is available to the police and prosecutors in criminal investigations NOW.

Did you mean enable making criminals?

add

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-is-the-tiahrt-amendment

The data in the Firearms Trace System database is clearly available to law enforcement. In fact, that was what it was created for.

What it is not for is to let anti-gun politicians use this information for their own agendas. The trace data is only useful in direct conjunction with a criminal investigation. Any other use would not yield viable results because of the nature of the data. For example, a trace might be run on a firearm that had nothing to do with a crime, such as to verify a firearm isn't stolen. This would yield a false positive if attempting to use the data out of context on a witch hunt to try to find problems that don't exist.

Hurting the gun grabbers' argument even further is that both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Fraternal Order of Police want the data to remain restricted to law enforcement. Their primary concerns are that it would jeopardize ongoing investigations and put undercover officers at risk.