A few days ago, a sure-to-be controversial report was released, titled "Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico." It was sponsored and put together by three US senators - Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Sheldon Whitehouse - for the US Senate Caucus on International Narcotics control.
Feel free to read the entire report HERE. What I'm hoping to do with this blog post is to summarize the key points, and try to suss some meaning out of all the statistics and recommendations:
Analysis: This is a relatively lengthy and detailed report (although I've seen MUCH longer on this issue). But the section of the report that will garner the most attention is this one: Based on updated ATF tracing data, of the 29,284 firearms seized and successfully traced in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, 20,504 came from a US source (meaning a gun shop, gun show, or private sale). That comes to 70 percent, if you don't want to go searching for the calculator in the junk drawer. Now, 69 percent of those firearms were sold in either California, Arizona, or Texas.
There were other things that the three senators discovered that they weren't thrilled with. First, they noted that under federal law, background checks are not required for sales by unlicensed sellers at US gun shows. Second, they said military-style weapons are readily available for civilian purchase in the US: "Many of these are imported from former Eastern bloc countries and then can be bought by straw purchasers and transported to Mexico. In addition, some importers bring rifle parts into the United States and reassemble them into military-style firearms using a small number of domestically manufactured components." There were a few other things noted, but many of them were legislative in nature and not as controversy-stimulating as these three things.
Tackling the first one, most of my readers know (and avidly take one side or the other) that it's been a constant battle between the US government and the NRA and other pro-gun groups to determine where most of the guns in Mexico come from. The first major salvos were fired after the infamous "90 percent" figure came out. That refers to reports by the ATF and Government Accountability Office that roughly 90 percent (more like 87 percent) of firearms seized in Mexico and successfully traced to a point of sale came back to US origins.
The US government and a considerable number of mainstream media outlets used that figure as a springboard for making the US [even more] complicit in Mexico's drug war, and launching a rash of new initiatives for slowing down the southbound flow. Pro-gun groups like the NRA and conservative media outlets blasted the government statistics, claiming they were overblown to support an agenda for restricting firearms ownership and stepping all over the Second Amendment. Those groups also believe that Mexican TCOs use and obtain more military-grade weapons than US-origin rifles and handguns from places like Central America, Asia, and former Eastern bloc countries.
The crux of the problem is that no one knows, with any real degree of certainty, where most of the firearms in Mexico are coming from because 100 percent of them are not seized, and therefore 100 percent of them are not traced. In fact, it's impossible to know exactly how many rifles, handguns, grenades, and RPGs are in Mexico right now and being used by the TCOs, so the 29,284 that were seized in 2009 and 2010 could be most of them or just a drop in the bucket; I'm putting my money on the latter. Furthermore, it's impossible to know what proportion of TCO firepower consists of firearms readily available in the US, like rifles and handguns, and what proportion consists of military-grade arms, like grenades and RPGs, that are not.
That brings us to the recommendations that the three senators make. Most of them do involve increasing gun law restrictions: Reinstating the assault weapons ban, requiring ALL gun sellers at shows to run background checks, requiring the reporting of multiple long guns, and some others. This comes as no surprise, as all three senators are Democrats, and the Democratic Party generally favors gun restrictions. I'm sure if this investigation and subsequent report had been conceived by three pro-gun Republicans, it would have read very differently, so keep that in mind.
So, if fully implemented tomorrow (hypothetically speaking), would any of the recommendations made by the three senators have an impact on the drug war and associated violence? In my opinion, probably not. And I say that only because I don't believe anyone has a true grasp of the weapons trafficking situation across the US-Mexico border. Not because of bias or incompetence, but because of the very nature of the problem. Not many people are inspecting southbound vehicles into Mexico, where most US-origin guns are being transported. It's very difficult to detect firearms transactions between Central American dealers and TCO purchasers. Shipments of weapons come into Mexican ports, where they're rarely searched. Firearms either seized or used by Mexican soldiers and police often wind up in TCO hands, and that's not tracked.
Also, straw purchasers who work for TCOs are using our gun laws - and loopholes - against us. The assault weapons ban only covers a few of the firearms most used and coveted by TCOs. More rigorous background checks won't accomplish much because straw purchasers are selected for use by TCOs for their squeaky clean records. I do like the requirement to report sales of multiple long guns because (a) that's already being required for multiple pistol sales, and (b) I do believe that's a good indicator of a suspicious purchase. I know several people will have an angry response to this, but I just don't get why anyone without bad intentions would want to buy eight AR-15s for personal use and sporting purposes.
To wrap up, we know that a good number of firearms being used by TCOs in Mexico come from US sources. I'm not going to go into Operation "Gunwalker" in this post because that accounted for only 1,795 weapons, and we're talking about tens of thousands here. We also know that TCOs are getting a good amount of military hardware from other-than-U sources. However, no one - not the US government, not the Mexican government, and not the NRA - knows what proportion of each is being used by the TCOs, and what percentage of each comes from where.
I don't believe that additional gun legislation is going to solve any problems related to southbound weapons trafficking, although I'm sure it would make some politicians happy to feel like they're trying to do something about it. There is no easy answer to the problem, especially since the TCO need for guns is ultimately derived from US demand for drugs, and ending that is impossible. The best we can hope for is a much-improved understanding of the nature of weapons trafficking to Mexico, and better intelligence-driven investigations and operations.
Another excellent annalist, I will disagree with very little here. You may easily convince me that we need a "requirement to report sales of multiple long guns". I do not believe "the TCO need for guns is ultimately derived from US demand for drugs" I used to but reevaluated after reading stratfor and some other's http://trailerparkshow.com/?p=469
Corruption: Why Texas Is Not Mexico is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
Posted by: Slow POKEY | June 14, 2011 at 09:46 PM
I am just curious how firearms can be traced to almost anywhere but the US. We're the only country I'm aware of proximate to Mexico with a serial numbering system (excluding Mexico itself).
Posted by: JayR | June 15, 2011 at 12:47 AM
Perhaps you (and the other readers) would like to read this account of 'Operation Gunwalker': http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/ATF_Report.pdf
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform &
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
"Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents"
Posted by: Ike | June 15, 2011 at 01:33 AM
And you are obviously a republican.
Posted by: J.D. | June 15, 2011 at 07:35 AM
In October 2010, ATF said many guns used by Mexican cartels are bought in the United States, with Arizona and Texas being major sources, but said they will no longer release estimates of how many because the numbers have become too politicized.
Too politicized? Right. Then, less than a year later, ATF gladly released new figures to Democrat Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Whitehouse for political reasons!
Remember that the only guns which can be successfully traced have a U.S. origin, thus any ATF statistic showing the percentage of successful traces is absolute nonsense. Any statistic showing numbers of successful traces is further nonsense. Why? According to Colby Goodman in his latest report, ATF statistics include thousands of duplicate traces! Mexican authorities are submitting the same gun up to five times. Further, ATF includes all legitimate U.S. sales in their statistics, such as legitimate military, police and commercial sales. In addition, ATF includes low-powered .22 rabbit rifles and hunting shotguns in their traces. All these factors combine to make the numbers and statistics meaningless.
Are some firearms coming from commercial straw sales in the United States? Certainly. And, despite denials from ATF and DOJ, we now know with certainty, that thousands of straw sales (2500 at latest count) intended for Mexico, were specifically permitted, encouraged and facilitated by ATF under Operation Fast and Furious. Outrageous and tragic.....
I agree with your conclusion - that no one knows for certain the percentage of where all the guns came from. Of course, that doesn't stop dubious and inflated numbers and percentages from being used for political purposes - especially by Democrat Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Whitehouse.
Posted by: Ike | June 15, 2011 at 09:19 AM
"I just don't get why anyone without bad intentions would want to buy eight AR-15s for personal use and sporting purposes."
Alot of people like to invest in firearms because some of them beome valuable when they are restricted. Look at what happened to transferable machine guns after the 1986 legislation. The value of those weapons skyrocketed. That is the same situation so called "assault weapons" face. An example wuld be the early Chinese Norinco and Poly Tech AK-47's that you could buy for $300 in the 80's that now go for $1500+. These can no longer be imported.
I've seen alot of people at gun stores/shows in Arizona buy multiple Ak-47's and AR-15's. They almost always say it's because they can be banned at any moment, their value goes up, fear of 2012, potential for civil war or foreign invasion in America etc.
It just doesn't become an issue unless they're Hispanic, then if they like to shoot guns recreationally or exercise their 2nd amendment rights they must be up to something criminal.
Posted by: Martin | June 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM
There is some confusion created intentionally around so called assault weapons to promote the idea that they are not needed. In fact an assault weapon or military grade weapon functions diffrently. It fires full auto or multiple shots for one pull of the trigger.
The AR15 or AK47 style rifles available to the US through gun stores are by law different. They must be "sportsterized" by US law and contain US made parts. They are semi automatic and fire one shot for one pull of the trigger not unlike a revolver. These are NOT assault weapons and few assault teams would choose them. They are visual facsimiles with sporting purposes.
There are a very few automatic and military weapons owned by civiians, under special licensing by the BATF, but they have been banned since 1937 and the days of Bonnie and Clyde and G-Men chasing them. No assault weapon ban is neeeded as they have been banned for some 75 years.
To think that someone would suggest the US needs an assault weapon ban because of what is going on in another country is ludicrous. While they permit guns to be imported freely and do not enforce their laws. Are we responsible for that? And we have export laws already that prohibit gun transport to foreign countries. Gun bans target law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Posted by: Homeline Security | June 15, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Can you do a future post on the vigilante group (CCJ) out of Juarez. I know this group is a couple years old but wondering about your take on it.
Posted by: Pedro | June 16, 2011 at 01:51 PM
"I just don't get why anyone without bad intentions would want to buy eight AR-15s for personal use and sporting purposes."
Here is the 2nd amendment to help you figure it out:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't see anything there about personal use or sporting purposes. We have the RIGHT to own weapons because we have the DUTY to protect ourselves and our families, and the duty to ensure the government does not become a tyranny. Saying that I cannot own the same weapons that our military has is like saying one of the founders could not own a musket (which was hi tech military equipment of their time) but instead could only have a sword. The government has no right under natural law and is explicitly forbidden under the Constitution, to regulate what arms I own. The states might if you adhered to the intent of the Constitution and their State Constitutions allow it, but the 14th amendment has be perverted to allow the incorporation of the bill of rights into every state which was not the original intent of the bill of rights or the 14th amendment.
If you want to see what further gun restrictions will lead to take a visit to Mexico or any large US city where the liberals have infringed on this basic right. When folks talk about the large amount of gun violence in the US I have yet to see a study that removes those cities who have taken away this basic right and where the criminals are the only ones with the guns: it is those places that have large amounts of gun crime.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.''
- George Washington
Posted by: anonymous_hero | June 16, 2011 at 02:45 PM
"I just don't get why anyone without bad intentions would want to buy eight AR-15s for personal use and sporting purposes."
with the way things are going, if you want a good investment this would be a good buy. You should also look into buying some Saiga 12's since the ATF is considering banning their import due to their lack of "sporting purpose"
Were there any federal gun laws prior to the 1930's? Why is that? What happened in the 1930's to make this expansion of federal power acceptable?
Posted by: anonymous_hero | June 16, 2011 at 02:48 PM