Mayors Against Illegal Guns - NOT!

Shooting Wire ... has an article up which documents that several mayors (especially in Ohio) have been found to not actually be the current mayor, or do not espouse the anti-gun stance supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns".

DELAWARE, OH - As a growing number of mayors in Ohio and around the country resign from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control group, new evidence suggests some of their names have been added to the member list and used to promote Bloomberg's political agenda without their knowledge or permission.

"Mayor Robert Shiner" (Mentor, OH) was listed in a letter from MAIG to Congress in June 2009 opposing reforms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), as well as in a full page advertisement opposing nationwide reciprocity of concealed handgun licenses.

However, Council President Shiner hasn't been Mayor since November 2008. His office says he never agreed to be a MAIG member. Despite requesting to be removed from MAIG's membership list in July, Shiner was still listed by MAIG as the Mayor of Mentor, and as a member of MAIG, until just a few days ago.

Mayor Keith Hoffman (East Berlin) said his participation, which began about a month ago, resulted from a misunderstanding of the group's objectives, and he is currently trying to get his name off the list. "It was a mistake really," he said. "They swindle you in and then put your name on the list."

Mayor Dale Strasser (Brunswick, OH) found his name used in MAIG advertising when it was actually the Brunswick city manager, Robert Zienkowski, who signed up for the group.

According to the NRA, at least 28 other mayors have appeared on the MAIG membership list despite the fact they were not mayors of the localities as advertised:

Hmmm ... "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". That doesn't sound so bad. If someone who shouldn't legally be in possession of a gun is found to have a gun, then they should have it taken away, right? After all, most states forbid convicted felons and crazy people from having guns. Just sounds like good sense to me. What do you think?

But wait! There may be a Catch-22. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's like Justice Stewart's definition of Pornography: "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it".

To understand the philosophical, logical and legal position of MAIG, let's look at the third post on MAIG's website, dated March 18, 2008:

MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS HAILS INTRODUCTION OF THE FIREARMS INFORMATION USE ACT OF 2008

Joint Statement from Coalition Co-Chairs New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino on the introduction of the Firearms Information Use Act of 2008.

The bill strikes the Tiahrt Amendment “a rider that restricts the access of cities and states to aggregate crime gun trace data“ from appropriations legislation

"This bill would erase the soft-on-crime Tiahrt restrictions from federal law. We applaud Senators Menendez, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Reed and Schumer for putting forward a bill to restore access to the aggregate trace data that police officers, prosecutors, and others use to identify illegal gun trafficking patterns. This bill is exactly what criminals are afraid of: police officers with better information and leads. We hope the Senate takes it up - and passes it - this year.

"Last year, our bi-partisan coalition of mayors waged a campaign on Capitol Hill that resulted in the removal of some of the Tiahrt restrictions and the release of more trace data. This bill (S. 2769 [2008]) goes further, removing the Tiahrt restrictions entirely.

See: S. 2629*

(* yes, similar bills were proposed in both 2006 and 2008, and Schumer either initiated or co-sponsored both bills.)

Uh, wait a minute. Isn't this sort of like the National Instant Check System rules stating that NICS data can't be used by Law Enforcement? (In fact, it must be deleted immediately if a firearms purchaser is found to be authorized to legally purchase a firearm.) It seems to me that there have been several protests against governmental (both Federal and State) abuses of this system.

And what the heck is "the Tiahrt Amendment"?

Most folks who don't have to ask this question generally acknowledge this much of a statement by the NRA-ILA:

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.).

The NRA-ILA statement makes several points defending the Tiahrt Amendment:

• Releasing the information serves no useful purpose;
• Traced guns aren’t always "crime guns".
• Trace information remains available for law enforcement use.
• Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data
• Even the current language has allowed too many disclosures of sensitive information.

That last segment was predicated on the proposition that the NRA would be the "Right-Wing" argument in favor of the Tiahrt Amendment.

The next segment, referencing "ProtectPolice.Org" was originally intended to represent a "neutral" argument in reference to the Tiahrt Amendment. Unfortunately, after I started looking at the context, I noticed that the website is "©, 2009 ProtectPolice.org, Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund". That is to say "ProtectPolice.ORG is wholy funded, produced and maintained by MAIG.

Which hardly makes it a "neutral argument", but let's see what PPO has to say, anyway.

In regards to the Tiahrt Amendment:

1) Request Denied
Tiahrt blocks state and local authorities from full access to crime gun trace data.
2) Records Destroyed
Tiahrt Requires FBI NICS background check records to be destroyed within 24 hours
3) No Evidence on File
Tiahrt Prevents ATF from requiring gun dealers to perform inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns

Well, that was refreshing.

It seems naive to go to the MAIG website to see what their talking points are, so let's see what MAIG's Fellow Travellers have to say. A third party (The Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner) (January 30, [no year provided; but since the Obama Administration didn't take office until January 20, 2009, we may assume the article was written in 2009] ) has a few words to say about the Tiahrt Amendment and the opposition there-of:

Last month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sent their proposals for reducing gun violence to the Obama administration. The number one item on the list was repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which they say...

...severely limits the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") to disclose crime gun trace data to the public under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), bars admissibility of such data in civil suits against the gun industry, and restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement.

The first two claims are true, the third a flat out lie. This is the relevant text:

That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding

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.

(Colored Emphasis Added)

The entire quote from The Examiner makes the definitive answer that proves the lie. The Tiahrd Amendment was enacted to make firearms records available to law-enforcement polities, with the intent to solve crimes. However it is cunningly constructed so as to prevent the exploitation of this information for political purposes.

That is the reason why the Tiahrt Amendment is a continuing source of irritation to the Anti-Gun coalition.

And that is the reason why the Tiahrt Amendment is a reliable indicator that those polities (such as MAIG, as well as the more obvious "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" aka Handgun Control Incorporated [HGI]) ... which rail against the Triahrt Amendment are definitively against private firearms ownership by otherwise legal firearms owners in any context.

SUMMARY:
The Tiahrt Amendment is the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test of Gun Control.

The Tiahrt Amendment in no way restricts LEO access to Firearms Trace Data; it only disallows politicians or "non-LEO" individuals from using that data for purely political purposes.

I see no down-side in the Tiahrt Amendment. However, if you are an anti-gun political person, you are probably outraged by the restriction on your ability to use the law for political gain.


Essentially, any time you run across an opinion article which effectively proposes that the Tiahrt Amendment is "A Bad Idea" because it prevents Law Enforcement Officers from Doing Their Job (eg: tracking down Bad Guys), you may be excused from immediately assuming that the author has a Hidden Agenda. Specifically, the author isn't trying to solve crimes; he is trying to keep firearms out of the hands of honest citizens and is attempting to use the Firearms Trace System database as an (illigitimate) tool to impose his own personal civil-rights bias on YOU. Personally.
x