InformationWeek On ATF’s Gun Tracing System

I came across an article from InformationWeek today that discusses the antiquated system (in their terms) of the BATFE’s gun trace system. Much of the data used for a gun trace requested by law enforcement must still come from manually looking it up on microfilm or microfiche.

You may remember that President Obama in his list of gun control proposals made tracing of firearms used in crimes part of his plan. It is number 12 on the list and mandates that all Federal law enforcement agencies submit a trace request for any firearm that they recovered at a crime scene. Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on this on January 16th.

There are two obstacles to updating the system. The first is organizational and has to do with BATFE’s priorities.

ATF CIO Rick Holgate, an experienced technology executive with degrees from Princeton and MIT, is the first to agree. In an hour-long interview with InformationWeek Government at the agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters, Holgate described the microfilm system as a “target of opportunity.”

He would like to replace the microfilm with a modern imaging system capable of processing gun records much faster and more efficiently. A new system would cost about $4 million, Holgate estimates — not cheap, but a small price to pay to expedite this important process. The ATF’s tech budget is about $80 million, minus $10 million to $15 million if sequestration takes full effect.

But as important as it is, upgrading the Firearms Tracing Systems hasn’t risen to the top of the ATF’s priority list. Holgate has his hands full with a long list of other projects: moving the agency’s email system to the cloud, making aggregate gun-trace data available in an open format, modernizing and integrating the agency’s other legacy systems and, most recently, moving its email archive online to facilitate e-discovery. “It’s not that [replacing] microfiche isn’t important,” Holgate says. “It just has to compete with other priorities.”

The second obstacle is legal. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 forbids BATFE from creating a national database of gun registrations, sales, or owners. This is as it should be. If the BATFE does get around to upgrading the system, it must do so in a way that makes the data available faster but does not create the forbidden database. The article and the comments section do explore some alternatives.

I’m not an IT professional or a computer expert. However, when the BATFE does get around to upgrading their search system, we need to keep on top of it to make sure that they don’t surreptitiously develop a gun registry. This is where watching detailed budget requests becomes important. It will provide the clues needed to let us know in advance when BATFE plans to start their upgrade.

This One’s For Sebastian

I didn’t know about Google shutting down Google Reader until I read about it yesterday on Shall Not Be Questioned. I thought no big deal until I realized that the Reeder app that I use on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Air is just an extension of Google Reader.

Holy crap! This is a problem. I use it to keep up with stuff for blog posting and to see what my friends are posting in their blogs.

So this one is for Sebastian for alerting me to the problem. Now to just find a usable substitute. I’ll let the more tech savvy hash it out and then see if their solution works for me. But in the meantime, there is always the Twitter feed from Stalin.

CCRKBA Blasts Passage Of S.150 Out Of Committee

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms issued a statement this afternoon blasting the party-line vote on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.

From their statement:


CCRKBA BLASTS PARTY-LINE PASSAGE OF FEINSTEIN GUN BAN MEASURE

BELLEVUE, WA – Thursday’s strict party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to move anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s measure banning so-called “assault weapons” was an insult to millions of law-abiding American citizens who own such firearms and have harmed nobody, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

“Instead of banning the most popular firearm in the country,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we need to ban politicians who assault our rights. We are appalled and disappointed that Sen. Feinstein and her cronies have advanced this measure, which demonizes firearms that are used thousands of times each year to protect lives and property from criminal attack.”

Gottlieb noted that FBI crime data says that rifles of any kind are used in only a fraction of violent crimes annually, “yet Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have allowed this legislative travesty to move forward.”

“Demonizing certain firearms, and by default the people who own them, has become a scapegoat strategy by politicians who have allowed a broken justice system to release violent offenders back on the street while disarming their potential victims,” Gottlieb said. “By focusing their energy on disarming law-abiding citizens, politicians like Sen. Feinstein are perpetuating a myth that firearms cause crime. That’s as foolish as believing that cars cause drunk driving.”

Sen. Feinstein acknowledged that her legislation faces an uphill battle when it reaches the full Senate.

“We will encourage our members to contact their senators about this legislation,” Gottlieb said. “Public policy and constitutional rights should not be subject to the whims of gun prohibitionists who are quick to exploit the crimes committed by a few crazy people, in order to advance their agenda of public disarmament.”

Feinstein Gets Her Way

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got her assault weapons ban (sic) – S. 150 – out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 10-8 party line vote. It now goes to the full Senate.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) offered four amendments to the bill which were all defeated on an 8-10 party line vote. His amendments would have made exceptions for those in rural areas; for those who had obtained a protective order; for those who certified they were the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking; and for those people who were residents in a county or municipality that borders Mexico to protect themselves against the narco-terrorists. I think Cornyn’s intention was to put the Democrats on record as anti-rural, anti-woman, and anti-self defense.

The votes on Jane Kelly to be an Appeals Court judge in the 8th Circuit and on Kenneth Gonzales to be a District Court judge in New Mexico were held over.

 The results of the business meeting as reported are below:

Results of Executive Business Meeting – March 14, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee held an executive business meeting to consider pending nominations and legislation on March 14, 2013.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Jane Kelly, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit
Held Over

Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico
Held Over

II. Legislation

S. 150, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein)
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13181 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13116 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13117 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

Amendment OLL13118 (Cornyn)
Failed by Roll Call Vote, 8-10

The webcast of the meeting for anyone with the stomach enough to watch it is here.

UPDATE: According to Politico, the White House is urging swift action on Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Press Secretary Jay Carney had this to say:

“Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary committee voted to send the full Senate an important piece of legislation to help keep weapons of war off America’s streets,” Carney said Thursday. “As you know, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is an important piece of the president’s plan to reduce gun violence.

“We urge congress to swiftly vote on and pass this legislation and other common-sense measures like requiring a background check for all gun purchases and cracking down on gun trafficking and straw purchasers. There’s been significant progress this week on these proposals and the president welcomes that. We urge congress to keep it up.”

Frankly every time I hear the words “common sense” out of Jay Carney or President Obama’s mouth, I shudder at the perversion of the English language.

If This Guy Tries To Sell You An AR, It’s A Trap!

If a kinda short balding guy with a wispy moustache who looks like the guy in the picture below tries to sell you a used Sig M400 for a good price and you aren’t a resident of Arizona, you might want to ask for some identification. If the name is Mark Kelly, you better run because it is a set-up.

As has been reported many times and many places, Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords and born again gun control advocate, recently purchased a used Sig M400 AR-15 clone from a Tucson gun shop. He bought it when he didn’t think anyone was looking. Once held up to public scrutiny, his alibi became he bought it to show how easy it was to purchase and that he was going to turn it in to the Tucson Police Department.

Now it seems, if his comments in the video below are to be believed, he is going to try to sell the AR-15 to someone across state lines in a private sale. However, that would be illegal under 18 USC Section 922(a)(5). That section of the law which is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 states that it is unlawful:

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to
transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to
any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not
reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business
entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in
which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall
not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a
firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an
acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of
the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

In other words, unless you are a dealer you can’t sell a firearm to someone who resides in another state. To be legal, the sale has to go through an FFL who will log the firearm into his bound book, a Form 4473 is filled out, the NICS check is run, and then and only then, can the firearm be transferred. The statutory maximum for violating 18 USC 922(a)(5) is 5 years.

Moreover, willful receipt of a firearm from an unlicensed person such as Mr. Kelly from out of state is a violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3) which also carries up to 5 years of imprisonment.

So the bottom line is if you are not a resident of Arizona and Mark Kelly tries to sell you any firearm, run! It’s a trap and TV cameras will be nearby.

Comm2A Files Suit Over Denial Of License To Carry

Commonwealth Second Amendment filed suit earlier this month in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They are challenging the lifetime ban by Massachusetts on the issuance of a license to carry for even minor drug offenses. Named as defendants are the towns and police chiefs of Salisbury and Natick.

The individual plaintiffs, Michael Wesson of Salisbury and Thomas Woods of Natick, each had a misdemeanor conviction for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in other states over 30 years ago. They are both well into middle age. Massachusetts law treats simple possession of an amount of marijuana this size a civil offense and not something which can be used to deny someone a LTC.

From Comm2A’s release:


Comm2A, the organization dedicated to preserving rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, has filed suit in federal court against Police Chiefs in Salisbury and Natick for denying plaintiffs the right to possess a firearm for self defense.

Massachusetts law currently imposes a lifetime ban on the issuance of a license to carry to anyone convicted of even minor drug related offenses.

“Practically speaking, what this means is that someone who plead guilty to possession of less than an ounce of marijuana when they were a teenager, paid a fine and served no jail time, isn’t eligible for an LTC, even if they’ve led an exemplary, law-abiding life for the past thirty or forty years. ” said Brent Carlton, President of Comm2A. “This represents an utterly unreasonable denial of a fundamental right and in no way can be justified by the legitimate need to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible or dangerous individuals.”

Both plaintiffs have a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and have faced no other charges in the past 30-40 years. One plaintiff was convicted in 1982 and fined $10.00. The other plaintiff was convicted in 1973 and fined $300.00. Neither plaintiff was represented by an attorney at the time of their conviction.

Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is currently a civil offense in Massachusetts punishable by a $100 fine and by law cannot be used to deny someone a License to Carry.

Comm2A and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Attorney Jeff Scrimo.

The complaint, Wesson et al v. Town of Salisbury et al, seeks injunctive relief for the plaintiffs and a declaratory judgement stating that both the Massachusetts law and the denial of the plaintiffs’ LTC constitutes a violation of their 2nd and 14th Amendment rights.

The full amended complaint can be found here.

The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters

My fellow LuckyGunner Blogger Shoot alumnus Tom McHale of the My Gun Culture blog has just published his The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters. I just downloaded the Kindle version of it and it looks good. It is illustrated with his Half-Cocked cartoons as well as lots of really helpful information on a wide assortment of holsters.

To make things even better, Tom is making his 259-page book available for FREE on Amazon Kindle through March 14th. If you have a Kindle or Kindle software, you can get this very helpful book by clicking here. It is normally $9.99.

Tom’s press release about The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters is below and will give more information on the book.

Americans are flocking to buy guns like never before. The political
climate, a “foaming at the mouth” media and the desire to win the
neighborhood arms race are creating millions of first-time gun owners.
But how do folks learn about guns, holsters and concealed carry in an
amusing and approachable way?

Enter the team of My Gun Culture. They specialize in making sense of all that complicated shooting stuff with a large side helping of humor.

Their new book, The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters is now available on Amazon.com.

From Chapter 5: 10 Ways to Spot Someone Carrying a Concealed Gun

“If you see someone cruising around with a steady or intermittent
glow emanating from their pocket area, it means one of two things.
Either they have a really, really serious urinary tract infection, or
their holster is causing the pistol laser to activate.”

The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters
educates on a myriad of ways to safely carry a gun. Whether packing
heat on your belt or in your underwear, this book will teach new
shooters about the dizzying array of gun holsters on the market. In
addition to discussing numerous methods of carry in detail, The Insanely
practical Guide to Gun Holsters profiles over 120 specific holster
models. Dozens of photographs and Insanely Practical Tips help readers
learn how to carry a gun safely and invisibly.

Readers will learn important concepts including:

  •      A brief and entertaining history of gun holsters.
  •     

  •     How to weigh concealment versus gun accessibility.
  •     

  •     What’s better? Open or concealed carry? How to start a really enthusiastic argument.
  •     

  •     What options are available for ladies only?
  •     

  •     Is belt carry the best overall option? If so, how? Inside or outside?
  •     

  •     How to carry a gun using undershirts, belly bands and harnesses.
  •     

  •     How to use an ankle holster without making your ankles look fat.
  •     

  •     Pocket holsters. Why some work and others don’t.
  •     

  •     How folks can carry one or more guns in their underwear!
  •     

  •     Effective ways to stash guns in clothing: pants, shirts and jackets.
  •     

  •     Using off premises parking — ways to carry a gun not attached to the body.
  •     

  •     Home, office and car holster options.
  •     

  •     How to easily carry extra ammunition with magazine and ammo holders.


Let’s face it. Holsters are a tough thing to buy — especially for
someone new to the world of guns. Stores rarely have a big selection,
everyone has a different opinion, and it’s hard to try them on with your
specific gun. Holsters are expensive, and most experienced shooters
have a whole box of unused, and very expensive, holsters. This book will
dramatically improve the odds of making the right buy the first time.
It’s also filled with helpful tips, like how to make sure your gun stays
secure.

From Chapter 8: A Word on Gun Belts

“Wearing your jeans with the waist band around your knees is in
vogue these days. While stylish and trendy, this doesn’t work so well
for concealed carry with waist holsters. It’s bad enough having your
wallet swinging around at knee level. Having a gun swinging around that
low would certainly make you the center of attention. Unless of course,
you live in Mogadishu.”

The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters
is free for three days only! Download The Insanely Practical Guide to
Gun Holsters from Amazon.com at no charge Tuesday, March 12, 2013
through Thursday, March 14, 2013.

###

About Insanely Practical Guides

Insanely Practical Guides author Tom McHale was born a helpless,
shooting-deprived infant. Later in life, he created Insanely Practical
Guides to pursue his passion of creating slightly offbeat, but
educational, content related to guns, shooting, concealed carry and self
defense. He also produces a website, MyGunCulture.com
that is a half-cocked but right on target look at the world of shooting
and all things related. If you want to learn with a laugh about all
things shooting, visit him there.

You Go, Girl!

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), one of the more notorious gun prohibitionists in Congress, held a town hall meeting yesterday entitled, “Preventing Another Newtown: A Conversation on Gun Violence in America.”

The panel included such gun control luminaries as CSGV’s Josh Horwitz and the Brady Campaign Legal Project’s Jonathan Lowy. There were no one but two people affiliated with Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors – former ATF Special Agent David Chipman and Karen Marangi of the Raben Group, their PR firm.

Given this lineup, I’m sure Rep. Moran was a little surprised when the young and very attractive Celia Bigelow confronted him in the Q&A session. She asked why he wasn’t “pro-choice when it came to self-defense for women”. His response – next question.

Is This A False Flag Operation?

In my email this evening I got an email entitled, “Gun Control and the Cultural Divide.” It was from the “Southern Conservative Newsletter” and discussed what they termed Northern and Southern views on guns.

It starts off by saying:

To understand the gun debate, one must know how each side comes to understand guns in the first place. As federal and local lawmakers consider new gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens, how do we shape the debate to actually solve problems such as the safety of our children and the reduction of crime – which are the stated purpose of all gun control efforts?

The email says in the South everyone grew up with guns and if you were part of the gun culture you were left out.  Of course, even in the South, not everyone grows up with guns.

When it comes to discussing the gun culture of the North, this email starts talking about Newtown and how gun control measures are a reactionary response. I can agree with that but I also know that response is not “Northern” but more urban in character. While still “discussing” the gun culture of the North, this email says we as Southerners can’t just “cross our arms and just say ‘no’ to any discussion of keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally disturbed” or we’ll be shut out of the discussion.

Now I don’t see anyone in the gun culture, Southern or Northern, just crossing our arms and saying “no” to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. In fact, I see most of the impetus on the mental health front coming from us and not the gun prohibitionists.

The email concludes by saying:

Long prison sentences for those using a gun in a crime, mental health and criminal checks for those wishing to purchase a gun, safety courses – all of these are reasonable ways politicians can reduce criminal use of firearms and protect rights of those who use guns lawfully. We must be the ones to tell them, but we must first understand the nature and thought process of those on the other side of the debate.

Since when did anyone need a “safety course” to enjoy their enumerated rights under the Constitution? And are those “mental health and criminal checks” for firearms purchases meant just for those buying from a dealer or do they extend to private sales as well?

The email has buttons to either signup for the newsletter or to forward it. Both buttons seem to designed to capture email addresses. What makes me even more suspicious of this email is that if you Google “Southern Conservative Newsletter”, you get five results. They are all links to a blog by a liberal Floridian called The Spencerian who is dismissive of the newsletter.

The email address given is for the domain “southernconservativenewsletter.com”. The only problem is that this domain is a parked domain by GoDaddy.Com and they are offering it up for sale.

Call me paranoid or call me suspicious but I don’t trust any so-called conservative newsletter pushing background checks and safety courses in order to own a firearm.

If anyone has heard of this bunch, I’d like to know more.

The Revised S. 374 – Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

Today in the Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) submitted a substitute amendment for S. 374. This substitute not only changed the name of the bill from the Protecting Responsible Gun Owners Act of 2013 to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 but it also provided that action component that had been missing from the earlier version.

Title I of the bill deals with records submission by the states to the Federal government for purposes of integrating that information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This section provides a carrot and stick approach to getting the states to submit data. It provides for a $100 million appropriation for grants to the states to improve their databases and to help them submit the necessary data to the FBI for NICS check. Up to 10% of this money could be used for a relief from disabilities program. That is, a program to report those to whom firearm rights are restored. I must say this would be a change coming from Chuck Schumer who has stymied the relief from firearms disabilities for years.

The improved data that the bill concerns would be the court records of  those convicted of a felony and those under either a court order or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as well as the mental health adjudications that would cause the loss of firearms rights. The stick component that goes with the grants from Attorney General would be a reduction in monies from the grants under Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The states would have two years to bring the records submitted to the 50% or greater level or lose 3% of the Federal monies. It goes up to a 4% reduction after three years if the state didn’t submit at least 70% of the required records. Finally, after the third year there would be a mandatory 5% reduction for any state at less than 90% compliance.

All in all, I can’t argue too much about the intent of Title 1. It is in the interest of everyone to have the records at state level be as accurate as possible and it is also in the interest of everyone that the records in the NICS check system be accurate.

Title II of the S. 374 is a gun controller’s wet dream.

First, Section 202 makes it illegal for a firearm transfer to be made between unlicensed persons. It would required a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to first take possession of it, enter it in their bound book, perform a NICS check, fill out a Form 4473, and then and only then, complete the transfer.

The exceptions include:

  • Bona fide gifts between spouses
  • Bona fide gifts between parents and children
  • Bona fide gifts between siblings
  • Bona fide gifts between grandparents and grandchildren
  • Transfers made from a decedent’s estate by will or operation of law
  • Temporary transfer between unlicensed persons if
    • It occurs in the home or curtilage (adjacent property) of the transferor
    • The firearm is not removed from the home
    • And the duration is less than 7 days.
  • Temporary transfers in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes
    • At a range if kept within the premises of the range at all times
    • At a “target firearm shooting competition” under the auspices of a State agency or non-profit organization and the firearm is kept within the premise of the shooting competition.
    • If while hunting to a person with the requisite hunting license during a designated season for a legal game animal.

Section 202 would set a maximum fee for doing the paperwork. It would also require the Form 4473 be kept by the FFL doing the transfer.

The penalty for violating this section is not at all clear. However, it seems to fall upon the FFL who would be liable for a $5,000 civil fine and an up to six months suspension of his or her license. (If you can find another penalty for violating Section 202, please let me know.) Sec. 202 become 18 USC 922 (s) which under 18 USC 924 (D)(5) stipulates a year’s imprisonment and a unspecified fine.

Section 203 is equally egregious. It mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery to the “Attorney General and to the appropriate authorities.” More importantly, the penalty for knowingly violating this provision is 5 years imprisonment!

If passed, the law goes into effect in 180 days from passage. So far, it has passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote.

While the gun prohibitionists would like to have bans on standard capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms with ugly cosmetics, universal background checks is what they really want because the only way to make enforcement of them possible is a national firearms and firearm owners database. As Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel Corporation, famously said, only the paranoid survive.