March 2011 – Page 15 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Oh, And They Need Traver Too

The head of ATF is a key law enforcement position. It’s particularly critical now, as the U.S. grapples with weapons smuggling from this country to Mexico. As Tribune Newspapers reported Friday, ATF ran a weapons-tracking operation that went terribly awry, allowing hundreds of firearms into Mexico that were later used in crimes.

It went terribly awry, so clearly ATF needs anti-gun leadership at the top. The bureaucrats solution to failure is more funding. The spoils of success is more funding. They can’t lose. It’s a shame we the taxpayers certainly can.

ATF Says More Funding Needed

Now there’s other ATF agents appearing in the media to counter the whistleblowers on operation not-so-fast and not-so-furious:

Several agents said the bigger problem was not in Mexico, but shortfalls in staffing and gun laws in the U.S., which had prevented the ATF from adequately monitoring multiple sales of semiautomatic rifles to suspicious buyers.

“We have roughly the same amount of people we had when they founded us in 1972,” one agent said.

He said Congress and the Obama administration had refused to support the ATF’s proposal to require federally licensed gun sellers to report multiple sales of long-barreled rifles, as they were with handguns, to a single buyer.

“Can someone tell me how I can find out if Joe Blow just bought 50 guns at a gun store? If they do, I’ll be happy to sit outside the door and ask him why he bought them. But otherwise, I won’t know until they start showing up at crime scenes,” the agent said.

Trying to wrap my head around this one. ATF can’t keep track of guns that have been voluntarily reported to them by dealers, so the solution is to mandate even more data? There’s been some speculation, both at Uncle’s and Truth about Guns. I think empire building is a likely explanation, but I’ll speculate on a twist to that theme. The plan was hatched by bureaucrats who have little knowledge or concern for how to do proper police work. The idea would have been to allow firearms to walk, which presumably then would get trafficked to Mexico, be seized at crime scenes in Mexico, and then be traced back to the straw buyers, who could be squeezed to turn on the larger traffickers. If you’re an ATF bureaucrat looking to advance his career, the idea of making a large bust like this using data aggregation techniques, instead of sound police methods, would be pretty irresistible. Obviously agents on the ground who are familiar with sound police methods realized the inherent hazard of this type of operation, and blew the whistle.

This also would explain why they want mandatory long gun reporting, because that would mean even more data. More importantly, it would mean even more data ATF doesn’t have to take responsibility for by walking guns. They could get out of the business of telling dealers to make sales for people who are obviously trafficking.

This kind of law enforcement by data mining isn’t a substitute for good police work. Unfortunately, it would seem there’s a lot of folks in ATF leadership that thinks it is, and the desire for the big career making score is allowing guns to get into the hands of thugs and murderers.

The Need to Move Swiftly

Today, the full Senate is scheduled to take up Castle Doctrine according to an NRA email sent last night. Considering we waited the entire legislative session to see any serious action last year, the lightening speed of this is just amazing. However, there’s good reason.

Today is also the day that the Governor hands down the budget with massive cuts expected. And on top of that debate, we have to deal with redistricting. It’s a busy legislative session for a lot of reasons, so it’s a good thing we’re getting the major work on Castle Doctrine done now.

Memorial Day Weekend Blogger Shoot

The folks at Lucky Gunner are sponsoring a Memorial Day blogger shoot, and it looks like a pretty good time. How could you not love this:

You will get to shootÂ free ammo through a bunch of cool,Â Class III (including full-auto) weapons (and your own weapons as well).

You don’t have to ask me twice. I may not have a job in May, but I’ll be going even if I have to beg for gas money. That’s not all they are planning though. So if you’re a blogger, I would consider pre-registering. It looks like a good time.

Felon-in-Posession Upheld in Third Circuit

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, argue that the “presumptively lawful” language in Heller is not dicta, under the following criteria:

We agree with the Second and Ninth Circuits thatÂ Heller‘s list of “presumptively lawful” regulations is not dicta. As we understandÂ Heller, its instruction to the District of Columbia to “permit [Heller] to register his handgun [and to] issue him a license to carry it in the home,” was not unconditional.Â See Heller, 554 U.S. at 647. Rather, it was made expressly contingent upon a determination that Heller was not “disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”Â Id. The District of Columbia could comply with the Supreme Court’s holding either: (1) by finding that Heller was “disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights” under a “presumptively lawful” regulation (such as a felon dispossession statute); or (2) by registering Heller’s handgun and allowing him to keep it operable in his home.Â Id. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s discussion inÂ Heller of the categorical exceptions to the Second Amendment was not abstract and hypothetical; it was outcome-determinative. As such, we are bound by it.

The Court probably did us a favor by preventing felons from testing the limits of the Second Amendment. I think the Third Circuit is on solid ground here. On considerably less solid ground is that among these “presumptively lawful,” restrictions on keeping and bearing arms is pretty much anything the courts or gun control activists think is reasonable. I would also argue that laws banning certain misdemeanantsÂ from possessing arms is neither longstanding nor covered in this opinion. Many courts have taken bans on misdemeanants seriously, but others have not.

Channeling Admiral Ackbar …

… or perhaps a bad Fark meme. I wouldn’t go anywhere near this.

Federal Overreach on Tucson Shooter Prosecution

Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy has some interesting observations on the matter, namely that they are trying to federally pin all victims on Loughner. This adds to what Dave Hardy was saying early after the shooting that prosecuting Loughner federally is a mistake, and that Arizona courts would have been the better venue to get a conviction.

TSA In Hot Water

Apparently Amtrak is none too pleased with a TSA stunt at a Savannah Train Station:

In late February, the Transportation Security Administration took over the Amtrak station in Savannah, Ga., and thoroughly searched every person who entered. None of the passengers got into trouble, but the TSA certainly did â€” big time.

Amtrak Police Chief John Oâ€™Connor said he first thought a blog posting about the incident was a joke. When he discovered that the TSAâ€™s VIPR team did at least some of what the blog said, he was livid. He ordered the VIPR teams off Amtrak property, at least until a firm agreement can be drawn up to prevent the TSA from taking actions that the chief said were illegal and clearly contrary to Amtrak policy.

I would imagine there would be Fourth Amendment implications as well. Imagine if they had done this at, say, Amtrak’s 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. How many armed passengers are proceeding through that station on a daily basis? The status of Amtrak is actually a matter of dispute. In a First Amendment context, they are considered a government actor. But for the purposes of prohibiting firearms, they claim to be a private corporation and are thus can exclude people with firearms from their property, including their stations, as a matter of private property.

It’s probably a good idea if you’re carrying in an Amtrak station to leave if they ask you to. But I really wonder with what statutory authority TSA thought it was operating under. And could you be arrested for carrying a gun through their checkpoint, as you would be at an airport?

UPDATE: Hat tip to Ian Argent for the story.

Vote Nearing in House Judiciary on Castle Doctrine

From Rep. Bryan Cutler. After the knock down drag out fight we’ve waged to get this, this is speeding through the GOP legislature faster than I would have imagined last year. I think we’ll have Castle Doctrine before summer at this rate.

And remember, the Brady’s tried to tell everyone we lost the 2010 elections.

UPDATE from Bitter: And here’s the outcome:

Castle Doctrine passes out of committee with only 1 negative vote

Woo hoo. Now on to the Senate for more action this week.

Self-Defense in Canada

It still exists, even if you use a pistol:

For thousands of Canadians who fully comply with the country’s strict, convoluted firearms regulations, this is a familiar story. Police officers and the Crown routinely deter citizens from taking steps to protect themselves, by forcing them to justify lawful acts of self-defence. Edward Burlew, Mr. Thomson’s lawyer, believes that there is indeed a deliberate, if unstated, desire among Crown prosecutors to send a message that discharging a firearm, even as intruders attempt to burn down your home with you inside it, is not condoned by authorities.

It appears in this instance the Crown dropped charges because they knew they weren’t going to find a jury that would be willing to convict. Even so, the authorities can still make your lives miserable without even taking the case to trial. It would appear they are trying to harass people out of defending themselves, particularly with firearms.