ATF: Struggling for relevance
Seems they were left out of the loop and the FBI traced the Navy Yard shooter’s gun without them. So, any federal agency can track guns to their owners. That database we’re not supposed to have.
Also, the bit about ATF struggling for relevance made me laugh. Good.
September 24th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
Well, the FBI’s probably done something like this before. Besides, when you can track from manufacturer -> gun store -> purchaser, why do you need a data base?
September 25th, 2013 at 8:48 am
I suspect that any manufacturer and gun store would provide the requested information to any bona fide law enforcement agency, especially the first to call, in a situation like that of the Navy Yard shooting.
And since two phone calls are all it took, I suspect that the FBI just got off the dime quicker than ATF in making those calls.
Until demonstrated otherwise, assuming ATF is slow and plodding is usually gonna be a winner, rather than going full foil-beanie conspiratorial.
September 25th, 2013 at 11:14 am
Agreeded. There doesn’t have to be a database to source this gun.
Especially if it was a new weapon just purchased. That gives a 2 transfer papertrail to follow.
Also can an FFL even refuse a request from an LEO? Or is it just the ATF that’s excempt from warrants? I’m not up to date on the limitations.
Then again, many FFL’s will simply fork over info especially in a case like this.
September 25th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
The shooter purchased his weapon 24 hours prior, the FBI probably just pulled the shooters debit/credit purchase record, no database was required.
September 25th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
> Besides, when you can track from manufacturer -> gun store -> purchaser, why do you need a data base?
Only for those cases where the gun store itself is out of business.