• Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nothing to do with the Mexican govt.

    I’m interested to know how the Mexican Government, who also had / has the trace data, is bound by the Tiahart Amendment.

    I know it’s going to be an unpopular opinion but I really see no problem with the Tiahart Amendment shielding Firearms Manufacturers and Gun Stores. The Manufacturers are already regulated and monitored directly by the Federal Government and Gun Stores can only make sales in compliance with Federal Law. They should not be culpable in either Criminal or Civil court for that reason. The truth is that most of the organization who want that data aren’t working in Good Faith and only want it so they can launch lawsuits meant to force Manufacturers and Sellers out of business.

    It gets even worse at the individual level. There is absolutely zero cause for firearm transaction records to an individual to be publicly available. It’s not only a gross violation of privacy but it’s also a security concern.

    What you SHOULD be mad about is why the BATFE, who clearly and provably does have this data, isn’t doing something with it. They already know literally everything in this article and yet they don’t seem to be doing much about it. Why?

    • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I can be both mad that this data isn’t public record and that the BATFE aren’t doing their jobs.

      I would disagree that there’s zero reason for this data to be public record. I’d agree with you if we were just shielding individuals who are purchasing like one handgun or something. That’s something that I don’t think is anyone else’s business. But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge. No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small militia.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s a huge risk for robbery and basically just asking for trouble. Shit tier idea to make that public knowledge tbh. Criminal doesn’t have a gun? Good thing they can just find someone that does. Already have one? Then they rob someone with 30 and put the guns onto the black market (still registered to the previous owner.)

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Aren’t you forgetting something? Every gun owner is a super cool action hero and if anyone tries to break into their house they’ll be all “blam blam blam” and they’ll be able to turn on their wives again.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The answer has been given over and over again but it doesn’t meet the pro-gun communities deliberately impossible standards. Why bother answering it yet again?

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Frankly the answer is “make the cops do their fucking jobs” not “make a list of gun purchasers public.Public means that you or I could access the list, what the hell do you plan to do with this list? Tell the FBI “hey that list you maintain has a new entry, as you know, because you’re the ones keeping the list?” Do you have jurisdiction anywhere on the entire planet? The literal only reason to make it public is to have a handy list of what houses it’s safe to break into when occupied vs when unoccupied. It’s basically a treasure map to arm criminals.

                • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  What made you think I cared? I’ve never advocated making gun owners public knowledge, I’m just laughing because gun owners insist their guns can keep them safe from criminals but shrivel up at the idea of those criminals knowing where they live and targeting them specifically.

                  As always with the pro-gun community, consequences are other people.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Ya mama said you did.

                    Are you really dumb enough that you can’t see how regardless of a gun owner’s ability to defend themselves while they are home, they also don’t want people targeting their house for theft while they aren’t home based on a “has gun” list? Do you want stolen guns to end up in the hands of criminals? You think they have some magical ability to shoot people while they aren’t at the location of the theft or something? This isn’t fallout with grenade bouquets lmao.

                    As always with the pro-gun community, consequences are other people.

                    The consequences are the people’s who commit the crime, not the gun owning populace as a whole who has not? Yes.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge.

        I disagree, I really don’t see why it’s any business of the PUBLIC (nor is there anything you could do about it.) But hold on…

        No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small malitia.

        That’s the thing, it’s NOT “secret”. The FBI and the BATFE both know they are just choosing not to do anything about it. I mean they literally KNOW, and not in some vague / abstract manner that is time delayed. They know in near real time that one purchaser has submitted a 4473 with multiple firearms on it and they also know if a single purchaser submits multiple form 4473s.

        So when Craig Adlong was showing up to the Gun Store and buying 15,16,17 Rifles at a time multiple times a week both the BATFE and the FBI KNEW and chose not to do anything. They could have delayed or denied any of the transfers (sales) and / or sent out a Field Agent to figure out what was going on. They didn’t.

        This is the foundation of my “The public doesn’t need to know” argument when it comes to individuals. Assuming the Gun Store is complying with Federal Law then this isn’t happening in secret. At least two different Federal Law Enforcement Agencies know about it.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          I would say that most of the PUBLIC wants to know if someone is doing illegal arms dealing to murderous Mexican cartels in their town.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            @[email protected] - I’m out of my element here:

            Would you argue the public has elected officials who write policy and hire enforcers to govern arms, so we have a pathway to preventing illegal arms deals even if it’s not via the direct publication of details of original purchasers?

            I can see tradeoffs here. I can imagine the security and harassment concern. I could also envision public benefit where our officials fail us but investigative reporters pick up the slack and shine light on specific problematic sales, leading to outcry and subsequently improved enforcement.

            Perhaps illegal sales are a top NRA priority since these discussions involve some dangerous thinking from their perspective. If not, hope so, sounds win win.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Honestly I don’t need a public record of people buying “too many” guns that may be selling them to cartels, I’m fine with the federal agents tasked with investigating such cases doing so and then reporting their findings when someone is guilty. I mean, they already know, what am I gonna do, tell em harder?

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                I should say, I’m fine with it if they actually do it, rather than being one of the largest contributers to it.

                Still though even if they don’t, I don’t have jurisdiction in, well, anywhere, so again I ask what the fuck I plan to do about it if they did release such a privacy invading “rob me” list like California does? Say “hey mister are you selling these legally or not?” Great. What next? I’m not going to assault the dude’s house and steal his guns at gunpoint myself, if the agencies tasked with doing something about it don’t, why even keep a list? Why even report multiple sales if the only people who can do anything don’t?

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Sure they could, without that information being public. Public means you or I, who are not authorities that could do anything about anything, could look up a list. The authorities, be they federal, state, or local law enforcement, I am more comfortable with them having a list than you or me, yes.

                    Although tbh I’m not actually sure the state or local PD could do anything, if it is federal’s jurisdiction because of trafficking across state/country lines (which is a thing). It’s entirely possible they’d have to go through the FBI. Still though let’s assume they could do something about it, why then would you and me need the list?

        • hakase@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Since you’re getting blasted here, I just wanted to hop on the downvote train to let you know that I think you’re exactly right on all counts.