Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has called for Congress to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. A law passed in 2003 and made permanent in 2008 that Bloomberg claims is hampering the investigations of people such as Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who went on the shooting spree in Fort Hood, Texas.
The same Nidal Hasan was already under investigation for posting on the Internet that Muslims should rise up against America and was declared to be mostly harmless.
It seems Bloomberg’s real problem isn’t that the Tiahrt Amendment prevents the investigation of firearm related crimes. If it did, we wouldn’t know that Hasan had bought the pistol he used from a Gunshop in Keleem, Texas.
Bloomberg’s problem is that his group Mayors Against Illegal Guns have been trying to get their hands on confidential law enforcement data for their lawsuit against American firearms manufacturers.
Both the FOP and ATF have voiced support for the amendment, saying that it protects the lives of undercover agents and their families.
If Mayor Bloomberg were actually interested in going after the time limit on how long transfer records are kept perhaps he should turn his attention to the 1994 Brady Law. This law is considered one of the most important pieces of gun control legislation in recent history which states:
(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall —
(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.
It seems strange that the law Bloomberg is going after is the law that protects the lives of law officers, their families and private citizens. Which happens to be the same law preventing his organization from filing a law suit against various American firearms makers.
I do suppose it would be a bit dangerous if anyone and everyone could easily figure out who bought a certain gun and when and where. Indeed, the safety of law enforcement officers is at stake here. I especially don’t understand the objection to the Amendment because such data apparently is available to law enforcement itself.
It’s not about the investigation, it’s about Bloomberg wanting to sue the gun makers in the hopes that if the makers can be held accountable for their usage then more draconian gun-laws can be put into place, or at the very least bankrupt the gun companies making them scarcer, leaving them affordable to only the rich and powerful.
What, it’s the fault of gun manufacturers that people are getting killed because of firearms? Isn’t that a bit like suing McDonald’s because you got fat eating too many hamburgers?