I’m glad Obama’s personal website is back up and running. now maybe you’ll believe us.
Obama and Biden are now publicly admitting to trying to disarm United States citizens, as was predicted by thousands of gun-owning americans, and denied by thousands of foggy-heacded Obama supporters.
In addition to trying to impose a permanent ban on ‘assault rifles’ (which are one of the least used domestic murder weapons in the country, but are demonized because they are black — i’ll leave it to you to snicker at the ironic audacity), Obama/Biden also want to destroy the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming the amendment hinders law enforcement:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
The truth is below, in more detail, but essentially the Tiahrt Amendment provides for ‘trace information’ on gun ownership. As i’ve said before, when a person goes to buy a gun, they submit to a background check (even at gun shows!). IF they pass the background check, they may purchase the firearm(s). The serial number(s) on their weapons are recorded in a federal database, along with their name, address, etc., and that information, thanks to the Tiahrt Amendment, is ONLY available to law enforcement, and only IF law enforcement needs to trace the ownership of the weapon.
This information is not made public, because it doesn’t need to be. In fact, it shouldn’t be, anymore than maintaining a public database of who is a ‘registered homosexual’ should be. The public doesn’t need to know who has a gun and who doesn’t, but police do.
Eliminating the Tiahrt Amendment, like Obama and Biden have threatened to do, doesn’t advance law-enforcement’s ability to catch criminals at all. it would, however:
– push many otherwise ‘legal’ gun owners to “go underground” so their personal ownership of private firearms would not be a matter of public record (i.e., some people who wouldn’t have otherwise, might slip off to ‘black market deals’ instead of legal purchases, just to avoid having their rights violated)
– criminals could check firearms records. this can mean a lot of things: they could find ways to *not* be traced. they could choose victims not known to be armed, rather than have to guess who could fight back and who couldn’t.
– violent anti-american protestors who ‘hate guns’ would have the same ability to stalk and harass law-abiding gun-owners in the same way some hunt sex offenders, or people whose political affiliations are made known.
– our country would be ONE STEP CLOSER to Obama’s emulating Hitler’s Nazis. It would create a national list of gun owners, which would allow his “National Police Force” to more easily disarm the citizens who might mount a resistance to the sneaky move to socialism (and later communism). Honestly, i feel like their desire to crush the ammendment is rooted firmly in a desire for a list of firearms-friendly citizens that can be accessed by persons (or more likely, groups) who are not law-enforcement. Just like the Nazis … a paramilitary/political group that was not (initially) a government police force or army … when we remove this power from the exclusivity of valid law-enforcement officers, we create a tool for a dangerous group to attack one of our consitutional freedoms.
Eliminating the Tiahrt ammendment is NOT what law enforcement wants, and it is more likely to encourage some crimes and hinder the ability to protect against others.
So, like the move to reinstate the ‘assault weapon’ ban, and other anti-gun legislation, such an attempt would be based more on
faulty faked statistics, emotional lobbyists, and ignorant voters.
Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit. Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the BATFE database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt ]
The “Tiahrt Amendment” on Firearms Traces: Protecting Gun Owners’ Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety
For more than five years, cities suing the gun industry and anti-gun organizations have sought access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) compiles these records when it traces firearms in response to requests from law enforcement agencies.
Every year since 2003, the U.S. Congress has passed increasingly strong language to keep this information confidential. The legislation—a series of “riders” to the appropriations bill that funds BATFE—is widely known as the “Tiahrt Amendment,” after its sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.).
There are good reasons for keeping this information confidential, and for strengthening the Tiahrt Amendment and making it permanent:
- Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said “firearm trace data may be biased” and “cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public.” These limitations exist because the “tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics.”
- Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
- Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies “in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution” or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—which is, of course, the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers.The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
- Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep the databases confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers’ lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search databases for names of “straw purchasers” he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and other witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
- Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information. For instance, anti-gun groups and the media have repeatedly received confidential trace data from government “leaks.” And Judge Jack Weinstein of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who presides over New York City’s lawsuit against the firearms industry, has “creatively” ruled that the riders do not protect the information that Congress so clearly intended to protect.
and, if you didn’t get it above: http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda <– here’s where you can see the official plans of our soon-to-be president.