Tuesday, May 10, 2011

"Disputed And Unconfirmed"

The Brady Campaign issued a new "research report" today entitled Officer Gunned Down. I won't get into a critique of the so-called study now. Rather, I want to point out what might be one of their first comments on Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker).(corrected)
Rio Rico, Arizona, Dec. 14, 2010.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, 40, was shot and killed while attempting to apprehend a group of armed subjects who had been robbing illegal immigrants as soon as they crossed the border from Mexico to Arizona.

Two of the guns recovered at the scene of Agent Terry’s murder were part of a Phoenix-based sting operation targeting major Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The shooting has engendered controversy, as it s alleged that federal prosecutors and ATF permitted 1,998 guns to be purchased and retained by suspected straw buyers in the hope that a major case could be built. While the truth of those allegations are disputed and unconfirmed. it is undisputed that if firearms laws were stronger by prohibiting multiple sales and requiring responsible sales practices, these gun sales could not have been legally completed.

Other weapons from the sting were recovered in May 2010, when a Customs and Border Protection agent confronted an armed band of criminals along the U.S. side of the border. The suspects fled but some of the guns they left behind were traced back to weapons purchased in the sting
The allegations are disputed and unconfirmed?

Are the authors of this report living in Never-Never Land? Have they not seen the CBS News reports by Sharyl Attkisson where ATF Agents have gone on camera and on record about Operation Fast and Furious? Have they not read the released documents from Senator Grassley and Representative Issa which show that the firearms dealers were told to go through with these sales even though they objected? I won't even go into the work done by Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea to bring this story to light since December 2010.

These sales would not have been completed if the gun dealers were allowed to follow their own good instincts and decline the sale. They had questions and were co-opted by the powers that be in the Phoenix Field Division.

The authors of this "study" by the Brady Campaign are engaging in willful denial of the facts. To try and blame it on weak gun laws and irresponsible gun dealers is to whitewash the complicity of ATF managers in allowing these gun to walk. Frankly, it is the authors of this study who are being irresponsible.


  1. "it is undisputed that if firearms laws were stronger by prohibiting multiple sales and requiring responsible sales practices, these gun sales could not have been legally completed."

    That's actually true, since the sales were ALREADY ILLEGAL.

  2. Not quite the first comment from the Brady Bunch. Back around March 10, Helmke humorously claimed that the "basic problem" was that BATFE doesn't have a permanent director (Fox News video). I examined that "logic" here.

  3. Of course the brady campaign to piss on The Constitution is living in never-never land. They in their history have never-never uttered a truthful statement about gun owners, the guns they own, or the means by which they acquire those guns.

  4. I'm surprised the ATF was foolish enough to put their approval for those sales in writing. If I were a gun dealer I'd sure demand it. They must have, otherwise why aren't they saying there's no proof for the allegations that the gun sales were approved buy the ATF, and that the gun dealers are lying about having received approval?

  5. @zeeke42: Actually it is not a true statement. It requires that current law would have allowed straw purchases which it doesn't. You are correct that these sales were already illegal.

    @Kurt: I'll change it to make it "one of the first".

  6. I wasn't criticizing your saying it may be the first--I just thought you'd get a kick out of Helmke saying that it happened because BATFE doesn't have a permanent director.

  7. John, why does the statement require that? If B is true, IF A THEN B is true.

    If they had said that we need these new laws so the sales will be illegal, that would be false. That's not what they said though. They said if we have these new laws then the sales will be illegal. Yes, they're being intentionally misleading by relying on readers to assume the sales were currently legal, but strictly speaking the statement is true.

    This is kind of a pedantic logical discussion, but this is the internet after all. I'm tempted to actually take heart from the fact that they're not just blatantly lying as they generally have in the past.

  8. Do these guys live in the same world that I do?

  9. @ Sean: No - They live in Jade Gold's world. :-)