Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed...
&
(Credit: CBS)
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
You write the law that would have prevented this and post here for all to read. It must not infringe on the rights of the second amendment of the Constitution.
You have one week from now until noon on 8-17-2012.
We had a guy try to poison our water supply for our county when I was a kid. Fortunately he got caught before. People are the problem. We need to identify and get help for these troubled people.
The guns control laws are more than sufficient, in fact, they should be eliminated.
Any and all gun control laws *ONLY* affect the *LAW-ABIDING*.
Those that commit rape, robbery and murder, simply ignore any and all gun possession laws as well.
But just like immigration laws, the ones that are in place are ineffective if you don't enforce them. Besides, the ATF and DOJ will just give 'em away.
The UN seems to think so everyday we are losing freedom,this is so serious I joined the NRA on the weekend and got two others to,now I am imploring the same of SH Users,thanks.
More gun control will never stop the lone nut case like Holmes because they don't care about the law, all it will do is make it easier for someone like him to do the same thing. The ability to easily get a concealed carry permit for qualified American citizens is the only way to make things safer because then some armed citizen would have the ability to shoot someone like Holmes before he killed so many innocent people. The cities with the toughest gun laws often have the highest violent crime rates.
If people want to hurt or kill others, they will find a way and any tool to do that with. 911 their was no guns, Ok City Bombing their was no guns. Their is something wrong with people wanting to kill or hurt others for their own satisfaction.
Go down and try to buy a pistol and see the paperwork, and waiting time. And of course the background check.
I just did just that. We picked out our pistol, and had to fill out paperwork for the FBI background check, and then paperwork for the local Sherrif's department. The weapon was then put back on the shelf, and we were notified that with 7-30 days, we would either be approved or disaproved for the purchase. Then to get a Carry permit, we would have to go through a Training program, and apply for the permit at the Sherrifs office.
So it is not as easy to get a gun legally as you might think. We decided to not get a Pistol, but rather a Shotgun, which requires a lot less paperwork.
The Theatre killer had a clean record, and college degree and up till a few months ago seemed to his friends etc to be a normal guy. Then for some unknown reason, he dropped off the Radar till he reappeared and killed those people. With his record, education, and funding, there was no red flags raised when he bought the stuff he amassed.
I live in a country with some of the most strict gun control laws in the world it doesn't some people killing people with guns, criminals accessing and using them and it doesn't stop the occasional rampage.
really, ask any other G7 country if they work...they're all better off and will tell you they work. .only the US lives in the dark ages, still thinking they are cowboys and american revolutionaries.
No my answer is fix the background check system, and enforce the laws.
Banning an item by law has never once actually stopped people from getting it.
It didn't work for alcohol, it didn't work for drugs, it doesn't work for guns.
The one trend these mass shootings tend to have is a location that bans guns.
There was an attempted mass shooting in Aurora in April. The shooter managed to shoot and kill one person before he was shot himself by someone carrying a gun.
The Church in Colorado Springs, where two died and three were wounded before someone carrying a gun stopped the shooter.
Even the St James Church Massacre in South Africa where over 50 died.
4 Terrorists armed with machine guns, hand grenades, and gasoline bombs, attacked a church, and killed dozens. But one preacher armed with a single 5 shot handgun returned fire and the attackers fled before igniting the firebombs.
As horrible as the attack was, it was far better than it would have been if nobody could fight back.
I just don't think it is worth it. Yes guns help to a degree, but so much bad could have been prevented with stronger gun control. Take for example, the Colorado shooting. It was said that the James Holmes's purchase of a gun was made easier because of such weak laws. Yes guns don't kill people, that is the actual person's doing, but guns make it EASIER to do so. Why give them an easier opportunity? There are other mechanisms of defense, which is also a reason why guns are purchased and seen as necessary.
He also spent over six months planning this thing. And paid off about $11,000 of the $14,000+ he spent preparing for his attacks.
I mean he rigged his apartment to blow when someone opened his door, and left his door unlocked when he left...
He also apparently set his radio alarm to go off at full volume while he was committing the attack, I assume hoping one of his neighbors would open that door.
I just don't get why all of you focus so much on the guns and fail to look at how much damage his bombs could have caused.
Even if he'd been unable to get a single gun, he'd have killed just as many.
No law would have stopped him.
I find it odd the city he was in has a law banning the carrying of guns, and the theater he attacked had signs banning guns, but he still went in and committed those those crimes.
Why is it that these shooters almost always pick places that ban guns to attack?
Maybe the results of these attempted shootings explains it:
"It was in Aurora earlier this year that an off-duty officer shot and killed a man who had just murdered a woman in the church's parking lot. Because of his quick action, no one else was hurt.
In nearby Colorado Springs back in 2007, a woman CHP holder stopped an attempted massacre at a church by shooting the criminal af...
Yes he did all four of them.
He also spent over six months planning this thing. And paid off about $11,000 of the $14,000+ he spent preparing for his attacks.
I mean he rigged his apartment to blow when someone opened his door, and left his door unlocked when he left...
He also apparently set his radio alarm to go off at full volume while he was committing the attack, I assume hoping one of his neighbors would open that door.
I just don't get why all of you focus so much on the guns and fail to look at how much damage his bombs could have caused.
Even if he'd been unable to get a single gun, he'd have killed just as many.
No law would have stopped him.
I find it odd the city he was in has a law banning the carrying of guns, and the theater he attacked had signs banning guns, but he still went in and committed those those crimes.
Why is it that these shooters almost always pick places that ban guns to attack?
Maybe the results of these attempted shootings explains it:
"It was in Aurora earlier this year that an off-duty officer shot and killed a man who had just murdered a woman in the church's parking lot. Because of his quick action, no one else was hurt.
In nearby Colorado Springs back in 2007, a woman CHP holder stopped an attempted massacre at a church by shooting the criminal after he had killed two people in the parking lot. The badly wounded criminal, realizing he could not continue the massacre, killed himself.
In both cases the carnage was limited by the immediate reaction of a gun owner on site."
Good read on the subject below. Is it possible that when a bad guy is in an environment where there "Might" be others carrying, he has a tendency to be fearful?
As to his apartment, can you be sure that there is not a neighbor of yours that has his apartment rigged to blow you away with a shotgun if you open the door?
We had a Meth Lab 2 doors down for 6 months and it could have blown up half our Mobile Home Park. Not a Clue, they were nice middle aged folks, and kept to themselves.
We're living in a dangerous world, and have abdicated our safety to the government over time. And this is the consequence. When in a life or death situation, the cop 10 minutes away on 911 will get there in time to clean up. A weapon in your hands can let him clean up a bad guy, not you or your family.
James Holmes also targeted a "Gun-Free Zone" too. Name the last 4 U.S. Massacres that wasn't in "Gun-Free Zones" as well.
You state: "There are other mechanisms of defense, which is also a reason why guns are purchased and seen as necessary."
But *NOTHING* is as effective as *GUNS* for defense against deadly criminal attacks. Here, let's interject some reality into your beliefs:
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured. April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free Zone”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”. Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage. Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone incidents: 5 Defenseless victims murdered in “Gun-Free Zones”: 86 ...
James Holmes also targeted a "Gun-Free Zone" too. Name the last 4 U.S. Massacres that wasn't in "Gun-Free Zones" as well.
You state: "There are other mechanisms of defense, which is also a reason why guns are purchased and seen as necessary."
But *NOTHING* is as effective as *GUNS* for defense against deadly criminal attacks. Here, let's interject some reality into your beliefs:
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured. April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free Zone”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”. Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage. Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone incidents: 5 Defenseless victims murdered in “Gun-Free Zones”: 86 Defenseless victims injured “Gun-Free Zones”: 117
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS. October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal. January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students. Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church. May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have "enough bullets to do the job" (murder their victims). One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance incidents: 5
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; murdered: 7 Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus *TIMES* higher body count.
Yep, a higher body count is "morally superior" to a lower body count based on emotions and unsubstantiated beliefs.
Too many can't keep it in a 2" circle at 25 paces - including cops.
We do need more control on criminals too!
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed...
&
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
The issue isn't with the gun. We need to do more to identify these people before the bullets start flying.
It must not infringe on the rights of the second amendment of the Constitution.
You have one week from now until noon on 8-17-2012.
Good luck.
and did I mention no?
THEY HAD THE GUBMENTS HELP.
Any and all gun control laws *ONLY* affect the *LAW-ABIDING*.
Those that commit rape, robbery and murder, simply ignore any and all gun possession laws as well.
I just did just that. We picked out our pistol, and had to fill out paperwork for the FBI background check, and then paperwork for the local Sherrif's department. The weapon was then put back on the shelf, and we were notified that with 7-30 days, we would either be approved or disaproved for the purchase. Then to get a Carry permit, we would have to go through a Training program, and apply for the permit at the Sherrifs office.
So it is not as easy to get a gun legally as you might think. We decided to not get a Pistol, but rather a Shotgun, which requires a lot less paperwork.
The Theatre killer had a clean record, and college degree and up till a few months ago seemed to his friends etc to be a normal guy. Then for some unknown reason, he dropped off the Radar till he reappeared and killed those people. With his record, education, and funding, there was no red flags raised when he bought the stuff he amassed.
Not fun here in NY either.
PS: I watch ForaTv!!!
There isn't a single country in the world where someone willing to break laws can't get their hands on a gun.
Anyone with a little bit of mechanical knowledge can build a functional gun.
Banning an item by law has never once actually stopped people from getting it.
It didn't work for alcohol, it didn't work for drugs, it doesn't work for guns.
The one trend these mass shootings tend to have is a location that bans guns.
There was an attempted mass shooting in Aurora in April. The shooter managed to shoot and kill one person before he was shot himself by someone carrying a gun.
The Church in Colorado Springs, where two died and three were wounded before someone carrying a gun stopped the shooter.
Even the St James Church Massacre in South Africa where over 50 died.
4 Terrorists armed with machine guns, hand grenades, and gasoline bombs, attacked a church, and killed dozens. But one preacher armed with a single 5 shot handgun returned fire and the attackers fled before igniting the firebombs.
As horrible as the attack was, it was far better than it would have been if nobody could fight back.
He was a PHD Student with no record.
He also spent over six months planning this thing. And paid off about $11,000 of the $14,000+ he spent preparing for his attacks.
I mean he rigged his apartment to blow when someone opened his door, and left his door unlocked when he left...
He also apparently set his radio alarm to go off at full volume while he was committing the attack, I assume hoping one of his neighbors would open that door.
I just don't get why all of you focus so much on the guns and fail to look at how much damage his bombs could have caused.
Even if he'd been unable to get a single gun, he'd have killed just as many.
No law would have stopped him.
I find it odd the city he was in has a law banning the carrying of guns, and the theater he attacked had signs banning guns, but he still went in and committed those those crimes.
Why is it that these shooters almost always pick places that ban guns to attack?
Maybe the results of these attempted shootings explains it:
"It was in Aurora earlier this year that an off-duty officer shot and killed a man who had just murdered a woman in the church's parking lot. Because of his quick action, no one else was hurt.
In nearby Colorado Springs back in 2007, a woman CHP holder stopped an attempted massacre at a church by shooting the criminal af...
He also spent over six months planning this thing. And paid off about $11,000 of the $14,000+ he spent preparing for his attacks.
I mean he rigged his apartment to blow when someone opened his door, and left his door unlocked when he left...
He also apparently set his radio alarm to go off at full volume while he was committing the attack, I assume hoping one of his neighbors would open that door.
I just don't get why all of you focus so much on the guns and fail to look at how much damage his bombs could have caused.
Even if he'd been unable to get a single gun, he'd have killed just as many.
No law would have stopped him.
I find it odd the city he was in has a law banning the carrying of guns, and the theater he attacked had signs banning guns, but he still went in and committed those those crimes.
Why is it that these shooters almost always pick places that ban guns to attack?
Maybe the results of these attempted shootings explains it:
"It was in Aurora earlier this year that an off-duty officer shot and killed a man who had just murdered a woman in the church's parking lot. Because of his quick action, no one else was hurt.
In nearby Colorado Springs back in 2007, a woman CHP holder stopped an attempted massacre at a church by shooting the criminal after he had killed two people in the parking lot. The badly wounded criminal, realizing he could not continue the massacre, killed himself.
In both cases the carnage was limited by the immediate reaction of a gun owner on site."
http://teapartyeconomist.com/...
As to his apartment, can you be sure that there is not a neighbor of yours that has his apartment rigged to blow you away with a shotgun if you open the door?
We had a Meth Lab 2 doors down for 6 months and it could have blown up half our Mobile Home Park. Not a Clue, they were nice middle aged folks, and kept to themselves.
We're living in a dangerous world, and have abdicated our safety to the government over time. And this is the consequence. When in a life or death situation, the cop 10 minutes away on 911 will get there in time to clean up. A weapon in your hands can let him clean up a bad guy, not you or your family.
Just one reason I carry a gun.
Name the last 4 U.S. Massacres that wasn't in "Gun-Free Zones" as well.
You state: "There are other mechanisms of defense, which is also a reason why guns are purchased and seen as necessary."
But *NOTHING* is as effective as *GUNS* for defense against deadly criminal attacks.
Here, let's interject some reality into your beliefs:
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free Zone”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone incidents: 5
Defenseless victims murdered in “Gun-Free Zones”: 86
...
Name the last 4 U.S. Massacres that wasn't in "Gun-Free Zones" as well.
You state: "There are other mechanisms of defense, which is also a reason why guns are purchased and seen as necessary."
But *NOTHING* is as effective as *GUNS* for defense against deadly criminal attacks.
Here, let's interject some reality into your beliefs:
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free Zone”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free Zone”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, “Gun-Free Zone” 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone incidents: 5
Defenseless victims murdered in “Gun-Free Zones”: 86
Defenseless victims injured “Gun-Free Zones”: 117
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have "enough bullets to do the job" (murder their victims). One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance incidents: 5
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus *TIMES* higher body count.
Yep, a higher body count is "morally superior" to a lower body count based on emotions and unsubstantiated beliefs.