Like a school yard bully…

Mayor linked to anti-gun bullying
BY AARON CAHALL
aaron.cahall@newsday.com

July 13, 2007

WASHINGTON - Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s aides threatened to run negative ads against House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey if pro-gun legislation opposed by the mayor was passed in that committee, Obey claimed yesterday. The mayor’s office denied the charge.

Speaking during a committee session, Obey (D-Wis.) said Bloomberg aides told his staff that TV ads painting him as anti-law enforcement would be run in his district if the provision, known as the Tiahrt Amendment, restricting police use of federal gun checks, was passed.

“The Mayor’s staff came into my office, and rather than discuss the merits, they simply did what so many bullies do … they threatened to run ads in my district if I didn’t bow to their wishes,” Obey said according to a transcript provided by his staff.

Obey also took issue with the National Rifle Association, saying the organization didn’t endorse him despite his votes against gun control legislation.

“I don’t react very well to bullying, and I don’t react very well to threats,” he said. “I wish I could find a way to vote against both sides of this issue.”

The Tiahrt amendment was included in the bill, which passed the committee by voice vote. Obey voted for the bill, his office said.

Bloomberg is co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group of 225 mayors, and lobbied against the amendment Tuesday in Washington.

ProtectPolice.org, a media campaign of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, lists districts of nine representatives and two senators, both Republican and Democrat, in which an anti-amendment ad runs. The ads are paid for by supporters of the organization, Bloomberg’s office said.

The mayor’s Washington staff said Bloomberg aides had met with Obey’s staff, but denied the congressman’s charge. Bloomberg called the amendment’s passage “a profound disappointment.”

Share/Save

In Defense of the Tiahrt Amendment

The anti-gun forces would have you believe that the Tiahart Amendment is somehow evil and needs to be repealed. The New York Times even ran an op-ed recently calling for it’s repeal, based on the erroneous idea that it somehow keeps law enforcement from getting the valuable firearms trace data they need to investigate crimes. As you can see from the below article from ScrippsNews, this is a lie, pure and simple.

“Setting the record straight about firearms trace data
By MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
Monday, April 30, 2007

During the past several weeks, numerous questions and articles have arisen in the media, regarding the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share firearms trace data among members of the law-enforcement community. With the recent tragic events surrounding the senseless criminal use of firearms; I felt the need to clarify this important issue.

Firearms trace data is critically important information developed by ATF to assist state and local law-enforcement in investigating and solving violent crimes. This data tracks the transfer of a firearm from the manufacturer to the gun’s first purchaser, and can assist law enforcement in ultimately pinpointing the individual who used the gun to commit a particular crime.

During the investigation of the recent Virginia Tech incident, ATF provided the Virginia State Police (VSP) with trace information that allowed the VSP to determine where and from whom Seung-Hui Cho purchased the two handguns he used in the shootings. Firearms trace information was also used to solve a theft of 22 firearms from a security service in Atlanta that were subsequently purchased by an undercover police officer on the streets of New York.

ATF considers this information law-enforcement-sensitive because it is often the first investigative lead in a case. We treat it no differently than fingerprint matches and other crime-scene information, since disclosure outside of law enforcement can tip off criminals to the investigation, compromise cases and endanger the lives of undercover officers, witnesses and confidential sources.

Our agency routinely shares trace data with state and local law-enforcement agencies in support of investigations within their respective jurisdictions. Once a requesting agency receives law-enforcement-sensitive trace data from ATF, it becomes the agency’s data to disseminate and share with other law-enforcement entities as it deems appropriate.

Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.

ATF has a proud tradition of supporting its law-enforcement partners at every level of government. We will continue to provide them with the information they need to protect our communities from individuals who would use firearms to further illegal activity. Congress has recognized ATF’s crucial role in that investigative process and has protected our ability to share that sensitive data with law enforcement. The restriction did nothing more than to codify ATF’s longstanding policy of sharing trace data with other law-enforcement agencies for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation.

Our priority will continue to be to release trace data in a manner consistent with our longstanding policy, and to support the over 17,000 federal, state, local and foreign law-enforcement agencies that avail themselves of this crucial tool.

(Michael J. Sullivan is acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Department of Justice.)”

Share/Save