Sunday, July 5, 2009

Gun Flow into Mexico - Part 3

The New American site reports on the latest efforts in Houston to stem the tide of weapons flowing from that city into Mexico.

At the behest of the Mexican government, federal agents are scouring the streets of Houston in search of guns and information. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently sent 100 agents from around the country to do the job. The plan is part of the ATF’s project Gunrunner, the agency’s battle plan to slow the flow of American guns into Mexico.

I couldn't help but notice the famous 90% figure was missing. Why do you think that is? Is this New American site known for more accurate and non-inflammatory reporting? Or could it be that finally the claim that 90% of the Mexican guns come from America is being recognized as too high? For me it's much preferred because in any report which contains the 90% claim, the pro-gun commenters immediately become more concerned with it than with the substance of the report, which is basically the same. Too many guns are moving from America to Mexico.

As an example of the kinds of leads these 100 additional ATF agents are following up on, the article offered this.


One of their targets, according to the Houston Chronicle report, was a police officer. “He said he bought a few military-style rifles, left them in his car and — on the same night — forgot to lock a door. He couldn’t explain why he didn’t file a police report or why he visited Mexico the day after the alleged theft.” Another tip led them to a pastor’s house who said he bought two pistols for target practice.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's right to investigate situations like these? Wouldn't stricter controls such as background checks for all transactions eliminate much of this problem?

Is it all a big waste of time, given the Iknadosian case? Even when overwhelming evidence that a particular FFL gun dealer is supplying this market, convictions are not forthcoming.

Please tell us what you think?

12 comments:

  1. Wouldn't stricter controls such as background checks for all transactions eliminate much of this problem?

    Eliminate much of what problem--cops trafficking guns to drug gangs? Cops tend to pass background checks.

    The article you found, by the way, makes the pastor and his two handguns sound suspicious. The one I saw gives a different impression:

    It turned out two handguns, of a type drug gangsters prefer, were bought by a pastor for target practice.

    The impression that gives me is that they really were bought for target practice. I wonder, though, what type of handgun "drug gangsters prefer"--the kind with "Homeboy Nyte-Sytes" ;-)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a great idea; some third world corrupt cesspool can't control their own criminals so our government sends federal cops door to door asking about guns that were purchased.

    "I couldn't help but notice the famous 90% figure was missing. Why do you think that is?"

    By now, everyone knows that the 90% number is bogus.

    "For me it's much preferred because in any report which contains the 90% claim, the pro-gun commenters immediately become more concerned with it than with the substance of the report, which is basically the same. Too many guns are moving from America to Mexico."

    Yes, I am much more concerned with government lies to advance a political agenda than I am about guns in another country. Mexico has gun laws and they have a border. If they wish to stop the flow of guns in their country, maybe they should try some law enforcement. Restricting Americans because their president is an incompetent fool is not the solution.

    "Wouldn't stricter controls such as background checks for all transactions eliminate much of this problem?"

    These agents going door-to-door are targeting people that have already passed the FBI NICS background check--that's where they got their list of people to intimidate from. Surely you didn't really think they are actually investigating black market sources of illegal guns did you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is it all a big waste of time, given the Iknadosian case? Even when overwhelming evidence that a particular FFL gun dealer is supplying this market, convictions are not forthcoming.

    Wait a second--what "overwhelming evidence"? The case was dismissed (rather forcefully dismissed, I seem to remember reading) because of a lack of evidence of broken laws on Iknadosian's part.

    I remember that the "sting operations" that led to Iknadosian's arrest involved "simulated straw purchasers." How the hell would that work? A straw purchaser is defined, after all, as someone who pretends to buy guns for himself, but actually buys them for someone who could not legally buy them himself. How does one fake that? Were the guns not really intended for anyone else? Were they intended for someone else, but that "someone else" actually could buy them himself? In either case, what crime has been committed?

    Basically, your government hired muscle idols didn't think their little entrapment scheme through very well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 45superman, Thanks for those links especially the one for the Homeboy Nyte-Sytes.

    You're right about Iknadosian, but I'm too cynical to accept that. Just like I didn't accept the Ladon Jones decision as having been "self defense," I don't believe for a minute that just because the guns traced back to Iknadosian were legally purchased that he's unaware of what's going on. I'm all for the presumption of innocence and the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the price we pay for those goodies is that some dirty people go free.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whether or not Iknadosian is dirty I'm not in position to say (nor, would I think, are you, but you don't seem to be one to let that stop you). My objection was to your statement about "overwhelming evidence." The state made its case, and the judge found it wanting--badly. So I ask again, what "overwhelming evidence"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love it Mike, Iknadosian is let off because the prosecution has NO EVIDENCE. NONE. and you still say "That's not enough to convince me he's innocent."

    Once again you believe in guilty until proven innocent, or should I say guilty even after proven innocent?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm all for the presumption of innocence and the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the price we pay for those goodies is that some dirty people go free.

    Yes Mike, that's true of ALL of our rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike W. and the other Iknadosian supporters, I remember the story was that several weapons from Mexico were traced back to his store in Phoenix. He couldn't produce the paperwork on their sales. Meanwhile the bumbling sting operation recorded him giving advice about how to get the guns across the border.

    At trial, charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. What that is is a dirty guy who got off on a technicality. But, because he's a gun guy all you guys a screaming about innocent until proven guilty. If a junkie allegedly beats up an old lady and takes her pension check but gets off on a technicality, what do you say then?

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB,

    He couldn't produce the paperwork on their sales

    I would like to see you support that statement.

    Nothing I saw or remember goes along that line.

    Let's see if you well provide even the smallest amount of evidence for your claim

    ReplyDelete
  10. Go read Helmke's latest post on HuffPo...

    Even the Brady Campaign has finally admitted the 90% figure is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bob S. in his typical nitpicking way said, "He couldn't produce the paperwork on their sales

    I would like to see you support that statement.

    Nothing I saw or remember goes along that line."


    This is nitpicking because the other two reasons I mentioned which I assume you remember, are more than enough to cast doubt on Iknadosian. They were that 650 guns were traced back to his store and that he actually advised the undercover ATF agents how to smuggle the guns into Mexico. That makes him dirty to any reasonable person, even if his charges were dropped.

    But, you Bob, picked up on the one idea that you don't remember, as if that would make a difference. It doesn't.

    I admit I couldn't find where that idea came from, although I do remember it. I may have confused it with the other upstanding FFL guy, one of whose guns ended up with the Waashington / Virginia snipers. Remember that one, Bob, the owner of Bull's Eye? Nice company you keep, Bob. Nice people you support.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "more than enough to cast doubt on Iknadosian."

    And yet the prosecution had NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. They could not prove his guilt beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.

    The case was thrown out entirely for lack of evidence. I guess in your twisted reality "no evidence" means "more than enough."

    I'm sure as hell glad we don't follow the MikeB legal system.

    ReplyDelete