Posts Tagged ‘anti-gun asshattery’

  It will be interesting to note differences in tone and attendance between  Thursday's group-supported "Rally for Your Rights" and last month's "I Will Not Comply" rally.

Taking a different approach than December’s “I Will Not Comply” rally, in which participants defiantly flouted I-594 prohibitions against “unapproved” firearm transfers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the Washington Firearms Leadership Advocacy Group (WFLAG), which did not participate in last month’s protest, will instead be driving forces behind this Thursday’s “Rally for Your Rights” in Olympia. The event is deemed moderate enough that even the National Rifle Association is sending a speaker — not that “progressive” media critics won’t still assail them for being “uncompromising” and “extreme,” regardless if that’s true or not.

Among those scheduled to address gun owners will be Democrat Rep. Brian Blake. Unfortunately, that’s part of the “bipartisan” strategy that doesn’t pay off as much as we might believe when examining what else such politicians enable. But Blake looks good on paper.

After all, he supported I-591 (which not everyone agrees was the optimum use of resources) and he’s been given a 100 percent A+ rating by NRA.

He’s also been endorsed by “Washington State Labor Council, SEIU Healthcare 1199NW, Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest” and Progressive Voter Guide. That means he lives in one of those areas where union-first members hunt and sport shoot, and want to have their cake and make the rest of us swallow it too, so the party can give him a pass on guns as long as the rest of its agenda is advanced.

Still, where’s the beef?

Just this: If the guy is that great a pal to gun owners, why did he enthusiastically help a committed anti-gunner get elected to Congress?

Why did he endorse Denny Heck?

That guy’s rated “F” by Gun Owners of America, meaning he’s an “Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner.” Heck voted against prohibiting Washington DC from implementing “gun control,” and has been rated 50 percent by NRA. Heck also supports Obama’s immigration plan to create millions of new anti-gun Democrat voters (as does Blake), and anti-gun Obamacare (as does Blake).

But wait, as the late pitchman Billy Mays used to say, there’s more. Blake also endorsed Bob Dingethal for Congress. That a guy who used the “I’m a gun owner with a big BUT” oxymoron to tell voters how he supports the Second Amendment AND Michael Bloomberg’s registration/confiscation precursor plan, and a mental health blanket dragnet.

In other words, “Who’s infringin’? We’re usin’ common sense.” We’ve heard that type of transparent equivocation before, but this time, it’s not entertaining.

I could highlight more, but the point has been made. Blake is going to stand up there and tell everyone how he supported federally-licensed, registered and taxed sport shooters using suppressors, and go heavy on the rah-rah about how the Second Amendment is a right and he’s a leader in protecting it. What he won’t address is why he values that behind putting party über alles and enabling Democrat allies to legislate against the rights to keep and bear arms. He’ll present himself as a gun rights leader, but he won’t be able to point to one act of leadership where he has worked to expose, condemn and unseat any from his side of the aisle who betrayed their oath of office to advocate disarmament of the very people Blake will be eliciting cheers and applause from.

But don’t take my word for it. Ask him.

Anyone who helps citizen disarmament advocates gain power is no true friend to gun owners and has no business being presented as one. And anyone who politically supports someone playing to both sides of the street likewise relegates gun rights to a lower priority than doctrinaire political and economic special interests. To them, the Second Amendment comes second, or third, or even lower. No amount of pointing out what bills have been advanced or voted on “the right way,” and no amount of “dinner dates” can alter that fundamental reality.

No matter. There will be no shortage of “pragmatic” apologists who will make excuses for the inconvenient truths that apply to all so-called “pro-gun Democrats.” After all, we’re constantly told, politics is the art of the possible, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Let them keep enabling enemies of the right to keep and bear arms and we may just find out what really is possible, along with just how “good” those who place party loyalty above the Bill of Rights really are.

http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-rights-rally-to-headline-supporter-of-gun-control-politicians?CID=examiner_alerts_article

"Progressives" who hate and harass gun owners want to make this man a criminal. They want to make you a criminal.

A Pennsylvania “lawmaker” has once more demonstrated why mentally-challenged “progressives” (but I repeat myself) should never be trusted with power and responsibility. Representative Thaddeus Kirkland, a Democrat, naturally, plans on introducing a bill that “prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth…”

Naturally, he plans to include an exception for the “Only Ones.” Whether he intends to also mandate targets they use be accompanied with the words “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” is left unstated.

“Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth,” Kirkland declares, as if using the word “shooting” four times in one sentence justifies subjecting everybody else to his heavy-handed foolishness. “Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.”

We’ll just see what PETA has to say about that. Setting collectivist stooges on each other can be great fun to watch. And as an aside, Kirkland’s presuming to “allow” implies there’s an “obey me or be destroyed” mandate he’s willing to have armed enforcers kill citizens over.

We’ll have to see about that, too.

It’s probably lost on Kirkland that the people in the section of Delco he represents who are doing the lion’s share of the “gun crime,” including missing their targets and hitting someone else, are no doubt overwhelmingly “prohibited persons” and unlikely to be spending time at ranges. The bottom line is, this will hamper the effective self-defense training of good people, and interfering with that actually makes things more dangerous for everyone. Not that “progressives” blathering about “gun safety” and achieving Opposite Day results should surprise anyone who is, you know, rational…

Still, why stop at silhouettes? What about targets that actually show figures of people? What about popular “zombie” targets? They’re not human any more, are they? Fortunately, for Kirkland’s esteemed “peace officers,” they’ll still be able to blow away “No More Hesitation” models of “white-privileged” pregnant women and kids, at least while their already-purchased supplies last. And I guess as long as we’re exploring the absurd, another ridiculous question or two is in order: Could I have a silhouette target of someone who looks human, but isn’t? For some reason Star Trek’s android Data comes to mind

Still, the stupidity isn’t limited to Kirkland. Come on – it’s not like compulsive gun-grabbers are known for originality (just like the “Authorized Journalists” who make sure everyone has the latest talking points to parrot).

“Pennsylvania is not the first state to consider a ban on human-shaped targets,” Outdoor Hub reports. “Massachusetts has already banned the use of any shooting targets in licensed gun ranges “that depict human figures, human effigies, human silhouettes or any human images thereof, except by public safety personnel performing in line with their official duties.’”

Massachusetts. It’s OK for cops to train to shoot back at bad guys, but you, not so much. Well that just figures, doesn’t it Gomer?

Trying to trace back legislative origins is a daunting task for anyone unfamiliar with the Acts and Resolves library system the state uses (guilty!), but the prohibiting language, applying to licensed “clubs,” appears in “An Act Relative to Gun Control in the Commonwealth” from 1998, back when “Republican” Paul Cellucci ruled the roost. Whether the language was a holdover from earlier legislation is unknown, but that it survived his and Mitt Romney’s tenures as governor without apparent objection shows it’s unfair blaming it all on Democrats.

Can you imagine being one of the privileged, exempted “law enforcers,” and being willing to escalate things through the entire continuum of force against someone who could appropriately argue (in spite of what totalitarians would claim) that his supposedly guaranteed freedom of expression was being violated?

It would be interesting to see this challenged, and see how a “compelling state interest,” generally required under strict scrutiny for First Amendment cases, would be backed up. Which qualified trainers and certified programs teach that everyone is safer when targets used in self-defense training are limited to concentric circles and to pictures of game animals under force of law? And just what qualifications do ignorant, anti-gun bigots have to impose their ignorance on others, including on people whose advanced classrooms they couldn’t even safely participate in, let alone understand core concepts being taught, without first mastering prerequisite basic and intermediate skills?

It’s also interesting seeing how far some, living in places from which the demand for liberty arose, have repudiated freedom won for them by worthier men, and demanded shackles in its place. Sadly, it’s just not surprising to those who have noted them ceding their — and our — birthright to turkeys. Literally and figuratively.

http://www.examiner.com/article/human-silhouette-target-ban-bill-shows-absurd-dangers-of-anti-gun-solutions?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Advocates for gun control are liars. They specialize in taking some little snippet of fact and presenting it in a way that totally misrepresents reality. Statements like “3000 children are killed with guns every year,” don’t inform people that most of those “children” are late-teen gang-bangers who are actually killed by adults, or that accidental firearm deaths among children and youths have been falling for decades and are currently at historic lows, despite the fact that guns and gun ownership are up dramatically. The claim that “gun deaths exceed traffic deaths” in this or that state, conceals the fact that two thirds of those deaths are suicides, and that suicide rates in “gun friendly” states are comparable to rates in “gun restrictive” states. Still these misleading “factoids” are unquestioningly parroted by “journalists” based solely on press releases from professional anti-rights lobbyists.

Advocacy organizations like Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Gun Violence Policy Center, or the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, all have “gun safety” or prevention of “gun violence” in their names, but even their names are lies. All of them focus exclusively on restricting firearms – gun control – while ignoring the fact that gun control laws have no impact on gun violence and no relation to gun safety.

They don’t just lie in their names and about their objectives, they also lie about who and what they are. They present themselves as grassroots organizations – some claiming as many as two million “supporters” – or as research foundations, but they have few, if any, actual members, and they don’t do any actual research. None are funded primarily by contributions of regular concerned citizens, though they will take some misguided rube’s $20. These not-for-profit corporations are funded primarily by huge grants from “charitable foundations” like the Joyce Foundation or the deep pockets of billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and George Soros. A little digging reveals that their “supporters” include anyone who ever “signed” one of their on-line petitions, signed up for their email alerts, or “Liked” their page on Facebook, and many are probably counted two or three times. I, like many gun owners I know, am probably counted as a “supporter” because I signed up for their email alerts as a way of monitoring their activities. And the “research” these charlatans put out could be compared to me calling my columns research papers. The only difference is that my columns are more factual and less biased.

Back in December of 2012, shortly after the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, columnist and Obama sycophant Jonathan Alter wrote a piece for Bloomberg View in which he laid out a blueprint for advocacy operations wishing to advance a gun control agenda. The piece was titled “To Get Better Gun Control, Don’t Use the Phrase.” In it Alter called for the building of a “smarter, more effective movement for commonsense gun laws” to counter the intimidating influence of the NRA. He compares such a movement to the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, noting that “every great stride forward in U.S. history has come from ordinary people defying the odds and bringing organized pressure to bear on politicians.”

He advises the retirement of the phrase “gun control,” in favor of more appealing terms like “gun safety,” “anti-violence regulation,” and especially, “common sense.” The Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which changed their names from Handgun Control, Inc., and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, respectively, apparently figured some of this out decades ago, but Alter insists that lack of funds kept these groups from being able to reach “moderate, compassionate people” in the suburbs.

Alter’s solution to the problem of ordinary people not rising up in righteous indignation to demand that the government repress their constitutional rights, take away their means of protecting themselves, their families, and the Constitution, and make criminals of them should they dare to swap guns with their shooting buddies, is to further obfuscate the language of the debate and inject massive funding – which he intimates is on the way – into the coffers of those who advocate for further restrictions.

One year later, the guy who signs Alter’s paycheck, Mike Bloomberg, rolled out his new and improved gun control gun safety advocacy conglomerate, Everytown for Gun Safety, which incorporated his previous gun control common sense advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and a floundering new group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Bloomberg, who was already propping up other gun control gun violence prevention agencies with hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, promised to fund the new effort with at least $50 million of his personal fortune to take on the NRA head-to-head.

This past November he did just that and was trounced at the polls nationwide. It wasn’t because he didn’t spend enough money, or because his sophisticated social media campaign didn’t burn up the internet; the reason was, unlike his astroturf organizations, the pro-rights movement has actual grass roots organizations with real, live members who refuse to be swayed by his impressively deep pockets and his deceptive marketing.

The only real win Bloomberg and his minions managed to pull off was in Washington state where NRA made little effort, and fellow billionaires like Bill Gates and Paul Allen gave Bloomberg an 8 to 1 spending advantage. With that he managed to dupe a majority of voters into believing that forcing all firearm transfers – even swaps with buddies or loans to friends – through federal dealers, with all of the associated paperwork and expense, isn’t gun control.

Now Bloomberg is bringing his lie machine to Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, and Maine, while already pushing additional restrictions in Washington State. Let’s hope voters are smart enough to realize that any organization that is unwilling to openly disclose their full agenda to the people cannot be trusted to be working for the benefit of the people

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/anti-gun-groups-even-their-names-are-lies

Lately, along with gun control supporters claiming that the number of gun owners is declining, some in the media have been saying that Americans’ gun purchases are declining as well. Last summer, Time.com went so far as to say–and we’re not kidding, here–that guns are one of the 10 Things Americans Have Suddenly Stopped Buying. And this week, a Washington Post headline, Gun sales in Virginia drop in 2014 following 3 years’ growth, suggested that there are fewer gun purchases today than there were three years ago.

The media’s claims about gun purchase trends are based upon the annual numbers of firearm-related background checks conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS statistics are not a perfect measure of gun purchases, but to the extent they illustrate trends in purchases, they show that the rate at which Americans are acquiring firearms is actually increasing.

As the accompanying chart shows, in 2014, the number of firearm-acquisition NICS checks was 45 percent greater than the average number for all preceding years, including 2012 and 2013, during which Americans bought guns at an extraordinarily high rate in response to President Obama’s re-election and subsequent campaign for gun control.

View Related Articles

The increase in firearm acquisitions may actually be greater than indicated in the chart, however. Firearm-acquisition check numbers do not include checks conducted for the purpose of acquiring firearm carry permits, the number of which has risen to an all-time high, and which in some states enable their holders to acquire firearms without going through additional NICS checks.

In the future, let’s hope that reporters show enough pride in their work to do a little basic research, so they can get the facts right. They can begin with the following data, posted by the FBI on its NICS website: NICS Firearm Checks: Year, by State/Type, NICS Firearm Checks (National): Month/Year, NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year, by State, and NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year, by State/Type.  Reporters, save these links!

https://db0a4kq1jrpf.cloudfront.net/articles/20150109/media-fail-americans-gun-purchases-are-soaring

As President Obama dodges a reminder of the veterans’ health-care scandal this week, the Department of Veterans Affairs is offering free gun locks to veterans if they provide details on the number of guns they own and their home address, raising concerns about a government-run gun registry.

Some veterans have received a form letter in recent days from the VA offering gun locks if they return a completed form listing their name, address and number of guns in the home.

“As your partner in healthcare, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe,” states the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. “Gun locks have been shown to greatly reduce death and injury caused by firearms in the home. If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock.”

The letter said agency officials “hope to reach all our veterans with this offer.” The VA said it will mail the locks to the address provided by a veteran.

One veteran who received the letter said it raises concerns about “a gun registry in disguise.”

“Young soldiers are already notoriously reluctant to admit any problems with post-traumatic stress disorder,” said the veteran, who asked to remain anonymous.

“Imagine the effect if the average 23-year-old private … back from Iraq, already reluctant to ask for help … is now hearing rumors that if he seeks help from the VA for sleeplessness, PTSD, nightmares, etc., Big Brother is going take his guns away? Now young veterans will really avoid asking for help,” the veteran said.

ATF head Jones operates under the watchful eye of AG Holder to enact more executive controls over guns.

ATF head Jones operates under the watchful eye of AG Holder to enact more executive controls over guns.

In its first ruling of 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has held that businesses may not allow individuals to use their equipment to further process incomplete firearm blanks, frames and receivers , attorney Joshua Prince reported Saturday. Such businesses may not assist or provide machinery access to unlicensed individuals without being licensed firearms manufacturers.

The ruling, signed by ATF Director B. Todd Jones on Friday, also holds that the businesses must “identify (mark) any such firearm and maintain manufacturing records,” and that Gun Control Act requirements may not be avoided by allowing persons to perform processes on machinery, tools and equipment a business controls access to. Excluded from the ruling are weapons and devices regulated by the National Firearms Act.

The effect of this ruling will be to close down operations in which persons who are legally entitled to manufacture their own firearms for personal use are permitted by a business to use its equipment, either with instruction or without. Provided such firearms are not intended to be sold or distributed, marking and record-keeping requirements do not apply. By changing the rules, ATF has closed down a means by which people who lack the equipment themselves to finish off a part will be able to exercise their right to build a firearm, a practice many rely on, particularly when completing so-called “80 percent” precursor receivers.

That will not “end an era of 80% lowers,” Prince assesses, “but it will cause a substantial financial impact to the firearms and related industries … Nothing in this Ruling suggests that an individual can no longer manufacture a personal firearm without needing to mark it but the individual must be able to complete the firearm with his/her/its own tools, which causes a plethora of concerns in such process.

“Can a company offer membership, whereby any member is entitled to utilize the company equipment for free, and the member complete his/her/its firearm on the company equipment since the business would not be engage in the business?” he asks. “Do machine shops now need to inquire of the individual as to what he/she/it is going to be utilizing the machinery for?”

The answers to those and more questions are unclear and may be learned by some the hard way. For now, it would appear ATF’s motivation is to shut down as many “lawful” avenues for individuals to exercise their rights without federal oversight as it can.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf-position-on-equipment-use-threatens-private-gun-making?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Since when can the BATFE just make up new laws? Only congress can make new laws,the jackbooted thugs at BATFE can not make up shit as they go to further Holder and Jones’s anti-gun agenda.

Horsepucky like this is yet another in a long list of reasons that people need to set up their own “maker spaces” or Patriot spaces,or whatever you want to call them. We need to set up small shops where we can manufacture stuff to bring in income,there’s all kinds of work that machine shops would rather subcontract out as job lots because some processes are very labor intensive and time consuming-which does not help them pay off the half-million or more dollar turning center they just bought on payments. Most of these jobs only require a lathe,milling machine,drill press,grinders,bandsaw,maybe cutting torches and a wire-feed welder.

Get a few guys-or ladies- together,put all the tools together,then either put all the tools in one garage or pole barn,or have each guy do his-or her-part of the machining process in their garage/pole barn/shop,and you end up with an income source with the added benefit of having the equipment to manufacture anything you want or need to manufacture.

The concept of maker spaces/patriot spaces was brought up on WRSA and by Fabbersmith-now would be a good time to get your maker space together-before Mr. Jones and the BATFE decide no one can purchase a lathe or milling machine without approval from BATFE.

The BATFE leadership and their stormtroopers do not have you best interests in mind as they try to further their anti-gun,anti-freedom agenda.

Read.

Learn.

Train.

Do More PT !

Sophisticated Barack Obama reassures primitive tribal leader Vladimir Putin after making the moon "reappear" following a lunar eclipse.
Sophisticated Barack Obama reassures primitive tribal leader Vladimir Putin after making the moon “reappear” following a lunar eclipse.
Photo by Handout/Getty Images

“Stop blaming mental health for gun violence,” former Everytown director Mark Glaze parroted in a Sunday tweet. “The problem is guns.”

Glaze must miss the influence he used to have back when he was stumping for edicts he knew damn well would be useless at stopping bad people from acting out on their natures. It must have been even more intoxicating to threaten America with his then-boss Bloomberg’s whole foot, and a positively heady experience to slap Brady Campaign rival Dan Gross around over who had dibs on useful celebrity idiots.

Regardless, he took to Twitter to refer his devotees to an editorial in The Washington Post by Kimberly Yonkers, MD, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. The funny thing is, there are some gun owners, including me, who would agree with her initial premise, to stop blaming mental health. The not-so-funny thing is, they’re nowhere to be found when that’s followed up with the expectation that those in danger of legally-imposed gun disabilities for alleged mental health reasons must not lose fundamental rights without the benefit of full due process protections. Likewise, none of them are insisting those protections must include an accessible pathway to restoration of rights when evidence shows a disabling condition no longer applies.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/yale-gun-prohibitionist-shows-highly-developed-aversion-to-inconvenient-truths?CID=examiner_alerts_article

The idea of background checks for firearm purchases seems to sound sensible, but the reality is much different from the appearance. In truth, expecting firearm background checks to stop criminals is like trying to catch a few particular salmon during spawning season by placing a rock in the middle of the stream and watching for the specific fish to jump over the rock.

specious: adjective:
superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
“a specious argument”
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.
– merriam-webster.com

There are more than 15 million NICS background checks processed every year, totaling over 180 million checks since the program’s inception in 1998. Between 98% and 99% of those checks were on regular, unrestricted people – most of whom already own at least one firearm. Of the few prohibited persons caught trying to purchase a firearm, the vast majority didn’t realize they were prohibited, and who had no criminal intent. In 2010, which is typical of recent years, only about 60 individuals – out of 15 million – were considered worthy of prosecution, and only 13 people – out of 15 million – were actually convicted of illegally trying to purchase a firearm. Not a very impressive return from a program that infringes on an enumerated constitutional right – that “shall not be infringed” – and has cost taxpayers an estimated $2 billion dollars so far.

Now the same people who brought us this incredibly inefficient and wasteful system want to expand it to include private transfers between individuals. Again, the idea seems, on the surface, logical and reasonable. But again, it is just another rock in the stream – a minor obstacle at best. The arguments in favor of so-called “universal background checks” are, in part, an acknowledgement that the present system can’t work; there’s just too much stream around the rock. One more rock in a wide flowing stream won’t stop, or even perceptibly slow the flow. There will always be plenty of ways for those wishing to acquire guns for criminal purposes to easily get them. Criminals get guns by stealing them, buying them on the black market, or by convincing a girlfriend, family member, or paid associate to purchase them.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/false-promise-background-checks

“It’s been a while since I broke down a dumb, anti-gun editorial right? Well hell, let’s do just that right now.

Tom H. Hastings, in a recent column on the WisconsinGazette.com, called for a repeal of the “stupid Second Amendment”.

Here’s a sample:

What country fetishizes, lionizes, valorizes, idolizes, and sacralizes guns as much as does our United States? OK, possibly Mozambique — the only country with an AK47 on its flag, but really, it’s long past time to end this obsessive “My Precious” attachment of Americans to instruments of death.

This morning of Dec. 25, 2014, of the nine top stories from US Reuters, six were about shootings — four new ones and two about the national movement against shootings of citizens by police. This pandemic of sick violence, punctuated by mass killings of children, has gone on far, far too long. It is long past time to repeal the stupid Second Amendment.

Sounds like Tom’s issue is with media coverage. So here is Tom’s solution:

Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history.

Well, good luck with that Tom. That only takes getting about 75% of the country (including Congress and state legislatures) to agree on repealing an amendment to the Bill of Rights. Once again, good luck sir.

Here is Hastings bio from the Portland State University website:

He is a nonviolent peace, justice and environmental activist, a Plowshares nonviolent veteran of three prisons and has done nonviolence trainings for more than 30 years across the US. He is a past chair and current board member of the Peace and Justice Studies Association, and on the Board of Directors of the Oregon Peace Institute. He is on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association and on the Board of Directors of the International Peace Research Association Foundation. He is on the Academic Advisory Council of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. He lives in the Portland Catholic Worker community Whitefeather House, and hikes and bikes for fun (transportain and he owns no automobile).”

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/college-professor-calls-for-repeal-of-stupid-2nd-amendment-in-column/

Justification for New Gun Control Regulations

  • ATF’s internal Public Affairs Talking Points show the agency was using Fast and Furious to help justify new gun control regulations–without telling the public that ATF was actually facilitating the delivery of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
  • The talking points (p. 15) state:

“These cases demonstrate the ongoing trafficking of firearms by Mexican DTO’s and other associated groups operating in Arizona and the need for reporting of multiple sales for certain types of rifles in order to ferret out those intent on providing firearms to these criminal groups.”

 Gunwalking Tactics

  • While the Department of Justice was still insisting the gunwalking was a renegade operation conducted by rogue agents in Phoenix, the documents make clear ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. knew that weapons were being allowed to flow to Mexican drug cartels.
  • For example, Fast and Furious began in October 2009. Washington D.C. talking points recount (p. 17) that:

“From October 2009 through October 2010, this organization, through the use of numerous straw buyers, purchased approximately 1.25 million dollars in firearms from FFLs [Federal Firearms License’s] in the Phoenix area and trafficked the firearms into Mexico and other locations within the United States.”

  • Another example is an October 12, 2010 funding request to ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. (p. 40) from Phoenix Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell. It stated, in present tense (making clear that ATF was aware, in real time, that the weapons were being transported by ATF suspects to cartels on a continuing basis):

“The firearms are then being trafficked into Mexico using non-factory compartments in various vehicles through various Ports of Entry (POE’s) in Arizona and Texas. Since the ATF case was initiated, agents have identified approximately twenty-seven straw purchasers who have purchased a large amount of AK-47 style rifles and pistols from various FFLs in the Phoenix Metropolitan area and Prescott, Arizona, since September 2009.”

Millions of Dollars: Mission Not Accomplished?

  • The documents hint at the cost of the umbrella program that was responsible for Fast and Furious: Project Gunrunner.

(p. 6) The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided ATF with an “additional $5 million for Project Gunrunner.”
(p. 7) The Stimulus plan provided ATF with $10 million more for Project Gunrunner.
(p. 29) ATF received $37.5 million for Project Gunrunner in the 2010 emergency supplemental appropriation for border security.

  • The documents discuss that ATF developed Project Gunrunner in 2006 to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico and thereby deprive the narcotics cartels of weapons. (Instead, ATF agents helped deliver thousands of assault rifles and other weapons into cartel hands.)
  • As ATF became better funded by tax dollars and better staffed, gun trafficking and drug cartel-related violence escalated.

Justice Dept. Withholding Statistics

The Justice Department has repeatedly refused Congressional and media requests for reports on the violent crimes in which “walked” guns have been used. The newly-released documents confirm ATF has meticulously collected and reported such data in the past (p.39). In a case called “Operation Zebra,” ATF stated that 338 illegally purchased firearms were associated with 63 deaths: “18 law enforcement officer sand civilians, and 45 cartel gunmen.”

Redactions

A number of mysterious redactions remain in the 60-page document grouping. These include:

  • (p. 15)
  • (p. 30)
  • (p. 39)
  • (p. 40)
  • (p. 43)
  • (p. 52) Internal document dated Jan. 10, 2011 mentions Fast and Furious connection to Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death, though the Justice Department had decided not to release that information to the public. The document contains redactions.

http://sharylattkisson.com/belatedly-released-and-revealing-fast-furious-docs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SharylAttkisson+%28Sharyl+Attkisson%29