Only problem is, that abuse of the data WILL occur.

If you were asking for the trace data on a specific item, that is one thing, but you are asking for a dump of the data that the BATFE has.

There is a big difference.

Sincerely,

Alan Chwick, Editor
Nassau County News Flash

I must Identify myself as a life member of both the NRA, and The NYSRPA, but the views I express are mine alone, and not those of these august organizations. I had run for office in Queens several years ago, but the NRA wouldn't give me an "A" rate at the time, becuse I felt that Machine Guns (full Automatic) had no place in civilan hands in large metropolitan areas. I also felt that in these areas all firearms and their owners should be screened,licensed, and the firearms registered at least for tracking purposes when and if they are stolen.

While I applaud the mayor's efforts, NYC dosen't have jusrisdiction outside of its borders, except if there is a coresponding state law. It can not enforce its laws in another state. The sting operation could have been done as a joint state, or a federal
task force operation.

But I understand more than most that it is the actions of the shooter that causes the harm, if the weapon is a baseball bat, or a lawnmower, or an SUV, or a Chipper, or a Boeing 757. The Victim is still dead. Up here in NYC the horror of the actions in Virgina don't seem as severe, because we are still numb from 911, from the HappyLand Fire, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, and the Ferry Crash. Death comes in all degrees, from many causes, caused by man and machine, and acts of G-D. But a gun left on a counter doesn't kill, it needs an operator. A 757 doesn't kill it needs a pilot, a ferry kills without a pilot, the list trundles into oblivion.

In places where firearms ownership is restricted there are still crimes committed with firearms. Bad guys don't go through the insta check, don't buy their firearms the right way, and don't care. In several cases the perp went to the trouble of securing the firearms properly, through legal cahannels, then became illegal in their transportation and use of the firearm(this shows premeditation). Beside the current shooter, there is Colin Ferguson, and the Bouncer on Bell Blvd all those many years ago.

Enough rambling, I have not put this on my screen, nor worked my fingers to the bone on my LC Smith Corona model 12, with a phlanx of lawyers checking my every word, nor do I as Mr. Schneiderman does , have the benefit of access to the resources of government to prepare my documents.

It's all about law suits, isn't it. You can't condemm the criminal or get any money from them, so go where the money is. The problem isn't guns, it's ILLEGAL CRIMINALS.

small resrictions are neaded but you cant just remove civilin gun all to gather
eany coments email me at corpfink@yahoo.com

small resrictions are neaded but you cant just remove civilin gun all to gather
eany coments email me at corpfink@yahoo.com

This comment is posted on behalf of Eric Schneiderman's Office:

Thank you to the readers of this blog for participating in this discussion. I would like to respond to a few of the comments about Senator Schneiderman's post that are either factually inaccurate or misleading.

On the issue of jurisdiction, I can promise you that the twelve gun dealers who settled the City's lawsuits against them would not have done so if a simple motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction would have been likely to prevail. It would not, and here's why: the city is not attempting to 'enforce its laws in another state.' The laws in question are federal laws, and the city is not bringing criminal enforcement actions. The city has legitimate civil grounds to sue these gun dealers for negligence per se, because their violations of federal laws (against selling to guns to individuals who obviously intend to transfer them to persons who have no legal right to buy guns themselves'more on this below) directly resulted in the occurrence of harm to others that those federal laws were intended to prevent (namely that criminals with no right to possess guns would come to possess them, and then use them to commit crimes). The equivalent is that if you break the speed limit law and injure someone in a car accident, you are per se negligent, and therefore liable, because the speed limit law is intended to prevent car accidents. The stings were not criminal enforcement actions outside of the city's jurisdiction. They were documenting evidence of civil negligence. This is no different from you photographing the ice on your neighbor's sidewalk after your child slipped on it for use as evidence in a slip-and-fall case.

Regarding this 'guns don't kill people' argument, the writer relies on two fallacies: 1) the argument that 'death comes in all degrees, from many causes,' which is obviously true, but doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to prevent it by enforcing criminal and civil sanctions where deaths are wrongfully caused, either by outright criminal behavior or negligence as defined by common law. We can't simply throw up our hands because 'shit happens'; 2) the argument that 'if the weapon is a baseball bat' etc the victim is still dead and it's still the person who wields the weapon that is at fault. This boils down to the assertion that firepower doesn't matter, which is obviously false. We may not be able to prevent psychotic people from deciding to go on murderous rampages, but if the Virginia shooter's only weapon for his rampage had been a baseball bat, he wouldn't have killed 32 people. If he'd had an Apache helicopter handy for his rampage he could have killed hundreds. Access to firepower obviously makes a difference, as does keeping it out of the wrong hands. If it didn't, we would not be so worried about North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Finally, with regard to the assertion that bad guys don't go through background checks: yes, but that's the whole point. They also don't manufacturer their own guns in their basements either. In many cases, they get them through straw purchasers, whether its an individual felon buying a gun for his own use and getting his girlfriend, who lacks a criminal record, to fill out the federal background check, or large scale gun traffickers who hire front men with clean records to buy ten guns per week that they can turn around and sell on the illegal market. BUT, not every gun dealer has the same proportion of the guns they sell turn up in crimes, because most gun dealers obey federal laws that are intended to prevent straw purchasers from buying guns on behalf of gun traffickers and other felons. The 1 percent of dealers who sell most of the crime guns know exactly what they're doing because the warning signs for spotting straw purchasers are spelled out in standard industry practices and federal law, and they continue to violate those laws, knowingly sell guns that are destined for the hands of criminals.

Lawsuits aren't all about the money (New York City's lawsuits have been settled with court imposed monitoring, but no monetary damages), but money is a factor. If dealers are profiting from selling guns they know will be used in crimes, when they could easily do what 99% of their colleagues in the industry do and NOT make those sales, then they should pay for the medical bills, and wrongful death losses of the families who are suffering because of their negligence.

* Posted on behalf of Eric Schneiderman's Office.

Thank you to the readers of this blog for participating in this discussion. I would like to respond to a few of the comments about Senator Schneiderman's post that are either factually inaccurate or misleading.

On the issue of jurisdiction, I can promise you that the twelve gun dealers who settled the City's lawsuits against them would not have done so if a simple motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction would have been likely to prevail. It would not, and here's why: the city is not attempting to 'enforce its laws in another state.' The laws in question are federal laws, and the city is not bringing criminal enforcement actions. The city has legitimate civil grounds to sue these gun dealers for negligence per se, because their violations of federal laws (against selling to guns to individuals who obviously intend to transfer them to persons who have no legal right to buy guns themselves'more on this below) directly resulted in the occurrence of harm to others that those federal laws were intended to prevent (namely that criminals with no right to possess guns would come to possess them, and then use them to commit crimes). The equivalent is that if you break the speed limit law and injure someone in a car accident, you are per se negligent, and therefore liable, because the speed limit law is intended to prevent car accidents. The stings were not criminal enforcement actions outside of the city's jurisdiction. They were documenting evidence of civil negligence. This is no different from you photographing the ice on your neighbor's sidewalk after your child slipped on it for use as evidence in a slip-and-fall case.

Regarding this 'guns don't kill people' argument, the writer relies on two fallacies: 1) the argument that 'death comes in all degrees, from many causes,' which is obviously true, but doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to prevent it by enforcing criminal and civil sanctions where deaths are wrongfully caused, either by outright criminal behavior or negligence as defined by common law. We can't simply throw up our hands because 'shit happens'; 2) the argument that 'if the weapon is a baseball bat' etc the victim is still dead and it's still the person who wields the weapon that is at fault. This boils down to the assertion that firepower doesn't matter, which is obviously false. We may not be able to prevent psychotic people from deciding to go on murderous rampages, but if the Virginia shooter's only weapon for his rampage had been a baseball bat, he wouldn't have killed 32 people. If he'd had an Apache helicopter handy for his rampage he could have killed hundreds. Access to firepower obviously makes a difference, as does keeping it out of the wrong hands. If it didn't, we would not be so worried about North Korea and Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Finally, with regard to the assertion that bad guys don't go through background checks: yes, but that's the whole point. They also don't manufacturer their own guns in their basements either. In many cases, they get them through straw purchasers, whether its an individual felon buying a gun for his own use and getting his girlfriend, who lacks a criminal record, to fill out the federal background check, or large scale gun traffickers who hire front men with clean records to buy ten guns per week that they can turn around and sell on the illegal market. BUT, not every gun dealer has the same proportion of the guns they sell turn up in crimes, because most gun dealers obey federal laws that are intended to prevent straw purchasers from buying guns on behalf of gun traffickers and other felons. The 1 percent of dealers who sell most of the crime guns know exactly what they're doing because the warning signs for spotting straw purchasers are spelled out in standard industry practices and federal law, and they continue to violate those laws, knowingly sell guns that are destined for the hands of criminals.

Lawsuits aren't all about the money (New York City's lawsuits have been settled with court imposed monitoring, but no monetary damages), but money is a factor. If dealers are profiting from selling guns they know will be used in crimes, when they could easily do what 99% of their colleagues in the industry do and NOT make those sales, then they should pay for the medical bills, and wrongful death losses of the families who are suffering because of their negligence.

As a former prosecutor who has seen the damage that guns can do , no matter whose hands they END UP IN, all I can say is, "You reap what you sow". Despite the fairy tales to the contrary, more guns have NOT stopped gun violence. The more guns, the more shootings and the more innocent victims who will suffer.

When the "x% of dealers sell xx% of traced guns" stories were first reported, some gun control groups named names and several newspapers printed articles about the "worst" dealer in their city. In most cases, the newspaper articles reported that the local police AND the local BATF office had scrutinized the dealers and found NO evidence of wrongdoing.

In the first round of the current NYC lawsuits, the city targeted 45 dealers with a high incidence of gun traces to NYC -- BUT found NO evidence of lax vigilance against straw sales in two-thirds of them.

In other words, 30 of the 45 TURNED DOWN the possible straw sale.

Many of the previous lawsuits by NYC and other cities were based mainly upon gun trace data (not all of which occurred because of a crime, and there is no indication whether any crimes alleged resulted in dropped charges or aquittal). Bloomberg admitted in a press conference that the majority of dealers with a high incidence of gun traces refused the straw sales and appear to be innocent of wrongdoing.

Under the type of lawsuits that Bloomberg and other gun control advocates wanted (and were stopped only by the Federal law against such suits), the innocent majority of gun dealers could have been found liable based almost solely upon gun trace data, now shown by the sting to be an inaccurate indicator of wrongdoing in the majority of cases. Bloomberg and other gun control advocates also wanted to hold firearm manufacturers and distributors liable for selling to dealers with a high incidence of gun traces, (again) now shown to be an inaccurate indicator of wrongdoing in the majority of cases.

Perhaps of even greater importance, they wanted all firearm manufacturers and distributors to "cut off" dealers with a high incidence of gun traces, which of course puts a gun store out of business with no REAL evidence of wrongdoing (as we have seen from the sting results).

Finally, I have not seen anyone address a question that occurred to me about the NYC gun dealer suit and the several settlements that were announced:

What if NYC achieved 100% compliance and all dealers behaved as did the one that NYC cited in their press conference as behaving correctly?

A dealer would say to a REAL straw buyer, one with a criminal record who wants a gun: "I cannot complete this sale, as the supposed buyer did not participate in the selection process."

The criminal and his accomplice exit the store empty handed. He still wants a gun, the Yellow Pages book in still in the car, and the day is young. What next?

Yes, criminals are often dumb, but how many are SO dumb as would not make a simple and easy change to their behavior in their next straw purchase attempt?

I can see abuse of data being a priority here. Preventing it anyway!

In the first round of the current NYC lawsuits, the city targeted 45 dealers with a high incidence of gun traces to NYC -- BUT found NO evidence of lax vigilance against straw sales in two-thirds of them. In other words, 30 of the 45 TURNED DOWN the possible straw sale. Many of the previous lawsuits by NYC and other cities were based mainly upon gun trace data (not all of which occurred because of a crime, and there is no indication whether any crimes alleged resulted in dropped charges or aquittal). Bloomberg admitted in a press conference that the majority of dealers with a high incidence of gun traces refused the straw sales and appear to be innocent of wrongdoing. Under the type of lawsuits that Bloomberg and other gun control advocates wanted (and were stopped only by the Federal law against such suits), the innocent majority of gun dealers could have been found liable based almost solely upon gun trace data, now shown by the sting to be an inaccurate indicator of wrongdoing in the majority of cases. Bloomberg and other gun control advocates also wanted to hold firearm manufacturers and distributors liable for selling to dealers with a high incidence of gun traces, (again) now shown to be an inaccurate indicator of wrongdoing in the majority of cases. Perhaps of even greater importance, they wanted all firearm manufacturers and distributors to "cut off" dealers with a high incidence of gun traces, which of course puts a gun store out of business with no REAL evidence of wrongdoing (as we have seen from the sting results). Finally, I have not seen anyone address a question that occurred to me about the NYC gun dealer suit and the several settlements that were announced: What if NYC achieved 100% compliance and all dealers behaved as did the one that NYC cited in their press conference as behaving correctly? A dealer would say to a REAL straw buyer, one with a criminal record who wants a gun: "I cannot complete this sale, as the supposed buyer did not participate in the selection process." The criminal and his accomplice exit the store empty handed. He still wants a gun, the Yellow Pages book in still in the car, and the day is young. What next? Yes, criminals are often dumb, but how many are SO dumb as would not make a simple and easy change to their behavior in their next straw purchase attempt?

Other opinions:

Setting the record straight about firearms trace data --

Michael J. Sullivan -- Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041

Don't buy claims about Tiahrt gun amendment --

Chuck Canterbury -- National President of the Fraternal Order of Police

http://www.kansas.com/205/story/52390.html

Hi Jay,

Thanks for your comments.

Before responding I want to note that providing a link to sources to backup your assertions would not only greatly strengthen your points, it would allow and encourage continued discussion of the subject.

Simply stating things as true without providing a link requires those who doubt the validity of those assertions to dig through google to find proof of a point they already contest.

This reality makes people less likely to respond to your point of view, and can de-base the discussion into an I feel this way because I do discussion instead of a spirited discussion between people with divergent viewpoints. I'm especially interested in your characterization of the trace data as not being crime related.

That said, here is my response.

First of all, despite all that you say here, I still struggle to see what your objection to the repeal of the Tiarht Amendment is based on.

You seem to take issue with the legal theory upon which the litigation is based. However, what we're talking about here is Congress prohibiting federal state and local police officers from sharing information on the tracing of guns used in crimes between each other. Even if you take issue with the particular lawsuits that were filed, how can you conscionably object that the data be shared AT ALL, not just in regards to civil litigation.

Moreover, while the already in effect law preempting many if not all lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers has many shortcomings that can be discussed a different day (as Alan Morrison, Founder of Public Citizen Litigation Group, does here), as can be the shortcomings of the general industry preemption arguments (as discussed by Brian Wolfman, the Director of Public Citizen Litigation Group here), that's not the litigation that is being discussed in the above post that is currently being hampered by Tiarht Amendment.

You assert that the city used gun trace data to focus their investigation and testing of the small sub-set of gun dealers with the highest amount of gun traces based on their guns involvement in crimes, and that amongst this group, only 15 of 45 dealers who were tested with undercover police agents, violated federal law in front of them.

First of all, 1/3 is FAR TOO high an incidence rate for me to sleep well with at night.

I'm surprised you're not alarmed by that number in and of itself. Secondly, it's entirely possible that the gun dealers realized those purchasers were police "testers," and thus did not violate federal law in front of them at that particular moment. Nevertheless 30% is an incredibly high percentage. These police efforts helped stop 15 gun dealers, and probably would not have were it not for the trace data.

The litigation that Senator Schneiderman is discussing resulted from violations of federal law, that were discovered because gun trace data focused police investigations on a small sub-set of gun dealers.

What sharing this gun trace data allows is the focusing of police and federal policing resources. It ultimately saves police resources from being wasted, or the over policing of gun dealers who are following the letter of the law (at least to a degree that they don't sell a disproportionate amount of guns that are sued in crimes).

Your final point, at its core, seems says we can't stop all guns, because criminals will always find a way to purchase guns. That's like saying we should get rid of an age limit on buying cigarettes or alcohol because it's impossible to keep underage kids from getting these products through other means. I don't think many people would accept that view, and it is what your view represents at its core.

The very fact that gun trace data has been able to locate a large number of dealerships that would so easily be caught by undercover cops, speaks to the fact that gun trace data does significantly help identify and deter systemic practices of violating federal law.

It is simply not sane public policy to make it ILLEGAL for different levels of government to share data on firearm crime statistics.

Take issue (I believe improperly) with a lawsuit if you wish, but to say information sharing alone should be ILLEGAL... is so very wrong.

(Pardon this repost, but it is almost a week since I last tried to post this and I still don't see any sign of it.)

Cyrus, thanks for your response. Regarding a link to my sources, you are right (I did not save links) but my source was the NYC press releases and accompanying press conferences by Mayor Bloomberg regarding the initial batch of current lawsuits. It seems to me that you should have easy access to this data. It also seems to me that the desire for the data is 100% designed for civil litigation. If you want to convince us otherwise, why not provide numerous past examples of genuine and productive law enforcement use of data now blocked, rather than arguing in the abstract? If there are "shortcomings" in the current lawsuit ban, you brought that ban on yourselves by the previous wave of suits, which sought to punish ALL dealers with high rates of traces, not the 1/3 which NYC actually got to procede with a possible straw sale. As to the other 2/3 still being guilty -- nonsense, watch the videos released by NYC. There was never any indication of actual criminality -- "I am not eligible to buy so my friend will do it for me" -- that never happened. You have a shot at a civil suit but criminal charges would fail because the ambiguousness of the recorded transactions are grounds for reasonable doubt. At least the lawsuit ban forced the city to do this type of suit rather that suits to put ALL dealers with high rates of traces out of business (as was being attempted). For other reasons against repeal of the Tiarht Amendment, see the links I subsequently posted separately. Those two distinguished gentlemen are in authoratative positions from which to comment, and they do not find it "very wrong" at all. Finally, I am not saying we can't stop all guns because criminals will always find a way to purchase guns. I am saying that the current effort resulting in suits against the 1/3 of targeted dealers appears to have almost no chance at all of reducing gun trafficking even if almost totally successful. A colossal waste of effort --reread my reasoning as to why that will happen and explain how I am wrong. If repeal of the Tiarht Amendment is to facilitate more such useless efforts, then you will have to do better.