Mexico's Drug War

"Forensics of Recovered Weapons from Piedras Negras Tactical Engagement Between Los Zetas and GATE."

Here are excerpts from a BorderlandBeat.com blog post and analysis from Small Wars Journal:

"Chaos and panic erupted last night in Piedras Negras, Coahuila, the Mexican city that shares the border with Eagle Pass Texas. Around 8PM twitterers and libre network users began reporting that shootouts were occurring in various sectors of the city in what media sources are calling a 'narco rebellion.' In the aftermath Sergio Sisbeles, a spokesman for security affairs of Coahuila, stated there were 10 known casualties of the attacks with no apparent losses by the narco group, but possibly there may be civilian casualties... Terror gripped the city causing widespread turmoil. The first confrontation broke out on Highway 57 at around 5 PM and the Micare plant and offices. The violence triggered American federal authorities to close the two international bridges in Eagle Pass, Texas... Buses were stopped by the gunmen, passengers robbed and the buses set afire. The armed gunmen are believed to be the Los Zetas cartel known to have control of Piedras Negras and are most likely responsible for the attacks." Link to Full Post

Analysis: While this particular confrontation is notable due to the proximity to Eagle Pass, as well as the disregard for the loss of innocent lives, there's something else I want to discuss. Take a look at the LONG list of items seized after all was said and done:

1. AK-47, 7.62 X 39mm, fixed stock.

2. Grenade launcher, 40mm, rifle mount (mount configuration unknown).

3. Assorted Ammunition, Rifle, .30 caliber or greater, type unknown.

4. Grenade launcher, 40mm, M-79, standard format.

5. Grenade launcher, 40mm, Multiple, 6-round capacity, mfg. unknown.

6. Grenade launcher, 40mm, HK 69A1 “Granatpistole,” retractable butt-stock (Heckler & Koch).

7. 40mm Spin-stabilized Grenades, HE // HEDP:  (2) types present:

      (4) Bearing strong resemblance to the U.S. M433 HEDP (Fragmentation / Shaped-charge).

      (3) Bearing strong resemblance to the S. Korean K200 HE (Fragmentation / High Explosive).

8. Ammunition, Rifle, .30 caliber or greater, type unknown.

9. AK-47, 7.62 x 39mm, unknown origin, folding stock.

10. AK-47, 7.62 x 39mm, military issue, fixed stock.

11. Model 1919A4.30 cal. Browning Machine Gun, belt-fed, (U.S. produced or exact foreign copy).

12. PG-7 Booster charge – for RPG-7 munitions.

13. RPG round – PG-7VM (Romanian) HEAT with a modified fuze or an improvised fuze safety cover; heavily carried.

14. RPG round – PG-7V Anti-tank; consistent with RFAS or Bulgarian mfg.

15. RPG round – PG-7V Anti-tank; consistent with RFAS or Bulgarian mfg.

16. RPG round – PG-7VM (Romanian) HEAT.

17. RPG-7 Launcher, 40mm Russian (RFAS) or Eastern Bloc, heavily carried and recently fired.

18. RPG-7 Launcher, 40mm Russian (RFAS) or Eastern Bloc, heavily carried.

19. M-60 machine gun, 7.62 x 51mm, U.S. issue, produced sometime between 1996 and 1999.

20. Ammunition, Military Ball, linked, 7.62 x 51mm (for the M-60).

21. AK-47, Weapon origin uncertain, however, the folding stock that it is equipped indicates that it is Romanian, Polish, or post 1985 East German.

22. Weapon not identifiable from view angle, but may be a semi-auto shotgun, box magazine fed.

23. AK-47, 7.62 x 39mm, fixed stock.

24. This firearm appears to be a pump-action rifle, .30 cal. or above, model / origin unknown.

25. Limited item view prevents positive identification.

26. Magazines, 7.62 x 39mm, 30-round capacity, loaded.  Magazine count:  108 // Total rounds:  3,240 rnds.

27. (2) Hand-held Transceivers (appear to be VHF).

28. Magazine, Drum, 7.62 x 39mm, AKM, 75-round capacity.

29. Hand Grenades, delay fragmentation, M-26A1 design, country of origin not identifiable; possibly:  South African, South Korean, or U.S.

30. Hand Grenade, appears to be an RFAS RDG-5 with UZRGM Fuze.

31. Unknown container, possibly Deta-sheet (flexible explosive) rolled, or similar foreign compound.

32. Packing container containing at least one PG-7 booster charge – for the PG-7 rounds.

33. Canister, PG-7 booster charge.

34. Canister, PG-7 booster charge.

35. Tactical Vest, hand grenade configuration.

36. Body armor, military.

37. Tactical gear pouches.

38. Tactical duty belt.

39. Tactical Rifle sling, padded.

40. Body Armor, tactical, threat level (Bullet resistance) unknown.

41. This appears to be a ceramic plate/s for body armor shown (Item No. 40).

The good folks at Small Wars Journal made some very important observations about the weapons found in this cache, but we'll get to that in a second. One of the biggest controversies regarding the drug war is southbound weapons trafficking, or just the overall subject of how weapons get into the hands of TCOs. It's a very polarized argument because one side believes almost all weapons come from US sources, and the other side believes almost all weapons come from Central American, internal Mexican, or other sources. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between, but I also don't think anyone can possibly know the proportion of each because of the very nature of the underground, black market business that is weapons trafficking.

This seizure is very interesting because of the mix of firearms. The grenade launcher (#6) obviously didn't come from a US gun shop. Small Wars Journal notes, "[It's] a very high quality 40mm launcher that is produced in Germany and is in service with a number of military and police forces, all of which are overseas.  There is a high likelihood that this weapon was hijacked or interdicted during a shipment of legitimate arms, possibly destined for delivery to the Mexican government." This sounds very plausible, and the folks at SWJ know their stuff. However, it raises the question, Where are these hijackings and interdictions taking place? The Mexican navy and US Coast Guard have a great working relationship, and are surely up to the task of trying to detect this kind of activity. But I haven't seen any reports of authorities breaking up an interdiction of arms shipments by TCOs or their proxies. If some other organization(s) is doing this for them, that would be a great piece of information to have.

The next SWJ note is about the RPGs, which TCOs have been using sparingly, but with a but more frequency lately. Again, we know these are not coming from US gun shops. SWJ says, "The presence of two RPG-7s (Item Nos. 17 & 18) in this cache may have significance based upon their origin.  Components of the Mexican army appear to have fielded small numbers of RPG-7s within the past several years from sources currently unknown.  The RPG-7 has seen very limited use on the southern continent, with the exception of the El Salvador conflict that occurred in Central America in the mid 1980s.  While the dates of manufacture of these weapons are not readily apparent, they appear far too new to be from the El Salvador conflict.  They do however, appear, to be of European (RFAS or former Eastern Bloc) or Middle Eastern origin." Again, it raises the question of how these high-powered weapons got from point A to point B.

This may be an "AHA!!!" moment for the pro-gun lobby, but it's still a source of frustration for people trying to figure out the exact methods by which TCOs acquire their firearms. US agencies have been trying for years to determine who calls the shots, and the exact route by which rifles and pistols wind their way from Arizona and Texas gun stores into Mexican TCO stash houses and assassin hands. Likewise, Mexican and US military agencies have been trying to ascertain relationships between TCOs and international arms dealers, and how military-grade weapons are being shipped from foreign sources.

The whole thing makes me scratch my head because we read stories every now and then about houses and cars being busted in the US containing Mexico-bound weapons, as well as large seizures being made in Mexico like the one above. But where are the stories of the interdicted shipping containers housing hundreds of grenades and rocket launchers headed for TCO hands? Or reports about international arms rings being investigated or busted for arming TCOs? We know that not all weapons in Mexico are coming from the US, but what are Mexican authorities doing to stop the heavy-duty stuff from coming in? Of course, many of these items come from corrupt internal sources like the Mexican military and police, but many others don't. The Mexican government can point the finger all it wants at the US and blame our lax gun laws for arming Mexican TCOs, but it has no such recourse for many of the weapons pictured above.

Bottom line, it should be little source of relief or joy for US gun advocates, or any agency trying to fight the TCOs, to take note of the types of weapons entering Mexico from non-US sources. I agree with BorderlandBeat that the most likely purveyor of these weapons was Los Zetas, and we know they are more willing to confront US law enforcement than probably any other TCO. The fact that they're getting their hands on this stuff worries me big time, because there's no telling if and when they'll use it against our agents, possibly on US soil. This potential threat should far overshadow any argument over where the weapons ultimately come from.

"How Would Private Gun Ownership In Mexico Impact Border Security?"

Here's an excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"“Legalization” is a loaded word in any conversation dealing with Mexico’s drug war. But it always seems to center around illegal drugs -- primarily marijuana. Not too many people, especially on the US side of the border, ever really debate legalizing something else: private gun ownership in Mexico... Some people might be surprised to learn that private ownership of a firearm in Mexico is not easily accomplished. The Mexican constitution has its own version of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. But while Mexican citizens are guaranteed the right to own firearms, the country’s gun control laws are arguably some of the strictest in the world. The obvious concern is that by allowing thousands of additional guns to enter the fold in Mexico, the bloodshed could get worse. Millions of newly armed and perhaps untrained citizens may be inclined to start implementing the American mantra of “shoot first and ask questions later.” Or, on the flip side, violent cartel members may think twice about conducting an attack on homes or businesses where the owners are able to defend themselves."

To read the full article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

"Guns in Mexico: A challenge to Obama and the NRA"

Here is an excerpt from my op-ed in today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Here is a public challenge to both the National Rifle Association and the Obama administration. I challenge you to prove that either of you has any idea what you’re talking about when it comes to southbound weapons trafficking to Mexico. The issue at hand is not whether guns sold in the United States are making their way into Mexican cartel hands; that’s indisputable. It’s trying to figure out exactly how many of those guns come from the U.S. and how many come from elsewhere... Here’s the problem: No one – not the NRA, not the Obama administration, not the Mexican government – knows what proportion of cartel guns comes from the north and from the south. But each will tell you otherwise."

To read the rest of my op-ed, please CLICK HERE!

Understanding the Recent Congressional Report on Firearms Trafficking to Mexico

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.

"Mexican Cartels Get Heavy Weapons from Central America, U.S. Cables Say."

Here is an excerpt from this article in the Latin American Herald Tribune:

"The most fearsome weapons wielded by Mexico’s drug cartels enter the country from Central America, not the United States, according to U.S. diplomatic cables disseminated by WikiLeaks and published on Tuesday by La Jornada newspaper. Items such as grenades and rocket-launchers are stolen from Central American armies and smuggled into Mexico via neighboring Guatemala, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reported to Washington... The cables’ authors note that Mexican officials and politicians never hesitate to remind U.S. diplomats that Mexico’s drug war – which has claimed 35,000 lives in the last four years – is fueled by Americans’ demand for illegal drugs and by guns bought in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Yet one of the cables maintains that 90 percent of the heavy armament Mexican security forces seize from cartel gunmen comes from Central America. The cable, which does not offer any particulars or supporting documentation, does acknowledge that the vast majority of the handguns and many of the assault rifles used by the cartels enter Mexico from the United States." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I won't argue with the claim that the majority of military-grade heavy weaponry used by Mexican DTOs comes from sources other than the US; I actually never have. Unlike pistols and rifles, it's pretty hard for anyone - US citizens included - to get their hands on that stuff, so it would logically follow that DTOs would look to corrupt Mexican police/soldiers or suppliers in Central America and Asia for stuff like grenades and rocket launchers.

I feel like whenever these kinds of articles are published, the writers are trying to say, "See? The US and our gun laws aren't the big problem; the stuff's coming from Central America!" There are a lot of people who make the argument that most of the firearms in general being used by DTOs come from foreign sources, and not just the heavy weaponry. That I would argue with, but it's not my point in this post.

What my point is, is that we have no idea what the proportion is of heavy weaponry versus pistols/rifles being used by DTOs on a regular basis, and therefore can't determine exactly what the significance is of where the heavy weapons come from. Let me restate. Based on my experience, I'm under the impression that the majority of attacks conducted by DTOs against each other and against the Mexican army and police involve the use of firearms that can be - and usually are - obtained in the US. We are seeing an increase in the use of grenades in attacks against police stations and media outlets, but it's usually one grenade here, one grenade there. If you look at the major seizures being made by Mexican authorities, there are usually more pistols, rifles, and ammo in the caches than there are grenades, rocket launchers, or other heavy-duty military-grade weapons.

But this is just an educated guess on my part. Ultimately, I don't think anyone's taken a statistical look at reports to determine how often DTOs are using heavy-duty weapons versus light weapons. If my hunch is right, then it may not matter very much that DTOs are getting the harder-hitting weapons from El Salvador or South Korea if most of the killing is being done with US-origin pistols and rifles. Think about the practical aspect of using those kinds of arms. Tactically speaking, pistols and rifles are more useful for the kinds of engagements DTOs are involved in on a daily basis with either rivals, soldiers, or police. Assassinations and urban conflicts that break out almost always involve hand-held assault weapons. It's rare that you'll hear about narcos using an RPG against the military or police, or the tossing of multiple grenades during a firefight.

Again, it's just a guess, but anyone who tries to argue that it's ALL coming from foreign sources is going to have a hard time proving that point with hard evidence.

"ATF Let Hundreds of U.S. Weapons Fall into Hands of Suspected Mexican Gunrunners."

Here is an excerpt from John Solomon, David Heath, and Gordon Witkin's piece for The Center for Public Integrity:

"Hoping to score a major prosecution of Mexican drug lords, federal prosecutors and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives permitted hundreds of guns to be purchased and retained by suspected straw buyers with the expectation they might cross the border and even be used in crimes while the case was being built, according to documents and interviews. The decision — part of a Phoenix-based operation code named “Fast and Furious” — was met by strong objections from some front-line agents who feared they were allowing weapons like AK-47s to “walk” into the hands of drug lords and gun runners, internal agency memos show. Indeed, scores of the weapons came back quickly traced to criminal activity... One of those front-line agents who objected, John Dodson, told the Center he and several of his colleagues wanted to intercept some of the weapons but their objections were repeatedly overruled by ATF supervisors. The supervisors instructed them to simply record the straw purchases in a database, flag them as 'suspect,' and monitor the suspected gun runners until evidence piled up about their connections to Mexican drug lords... Mark Chait, ATF’s assistant director in charge of field operations, told the Center he personally decided to change the strategy in September 2010 after years of futile efforts to interdict guns from small-time straw buyers with little hope of dismantling major drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. The agency’s earlier focus on straw buyers was criticized last fall in a review by the Justice Department’s inspector general of ATF’s border effort, known as Project Gunrunner... In addition, ATF officials have so far been frustrated in efforts to persuade the White House to implement even a simple change in firearm sales reporting requirements to help detect possible gun-running at the border." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There is a lot of information coming out about this scandal these days, and some are saying "Project Gunwalker" may end up being as big - if not bigger - than the Iran/Contra Affair. The article above is really long, and there are other stories I want to include snippets of before I offer my take. First, ATF Agent Dodson, who's mentioned in the story above, was interviewed by CBS News, and made some incendiary comments:

"Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico... Senior agents including Dodson told CBS News they confronted their supervisors over and over... According to Dodson, 'They said, "Did you hear about the border patrol agent?" And I said, "Yeah." And they said "Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns." There's not really much you can say after that.' Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry's murder." Link to CBS News story

As a result of this mess, the acting head of the ATF has ordered a review of the agency's efforts to combat southbound weapons trafficking:

"The statement, issued by ATF’s acting director, Kenneth E. Melson, said the agency 'will ask a multi-disciplinary panel of law enforcement professionals to review the bureau’s current firearms trafficking strategies employed by field division managers and special agents.' The statement said the review 'will enable ATF to maximize its effectiveness when undertaking complex firearms trafficking investigations and prosecutions. It will support the goals of ATF to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico and combat firearms trafficking in the United States.'" Link to CPI blog post

First, let's start with the operation itself. This was (it appears) a standard sting operation. For those of you not entirely familiar with what that is, it's a law enforcement technique where the seller of some type of (usually illegal) item is either an officer or a civilian working in conjunction with the police. For example, a gas station clerk may be working with the police and selling cigarettes to minors who he knows are using fake IDs. Or an officer might work undercover as a drug dealer and sell illegal drugs to individuals repeatedly in order to help build up a case. In this instance, gun sellers were selling firearms to suspected straw buyers with ATF's knowledge under the guise that the ATF could track them and build a case against one or several Mexican DTOs. As you can now see, that didn't work out so well.

I asked a question on Twitter to my followers not long ago, "What's the difference between letting guns 'walk' in a sting operation and letting 'drugs' walk? Both kill." The best response I got was that the buyers and ultimate users of the drugs make a choice to use them, so they're responsible for any negative consequences that arise from that transaction. Likewise, a 16 year-old who uses a fake ID to buy cigarettes is ultimately responsible for any legal action brought against him, as well as any health problems that arise from smoking. The people who fall victim to the business end of firearms that are allowed to 'walk,' however, don't have that choice. Just ask USBP Agent Terry's family.

While in retrospect, most of us can agree that the ATF's decision to work a sting operation this was was a bad idea, I can understand why they chose to go that route. The ATF has been getting hammered by both the NRA and the Government Accountability Office for wasting too much time going after the "little guy" and individual straw buyers, and not putting forth enough effort to go after the whale. I imagine this was the ATF's attempt to trace those guns back to the ultimate purchaser - one of the major DTOs.

The problem is that the routes these guns follow once they cross into Mexico are quick, varied, and complex. They get stashed in warehouses, where they're later divided up and distributed to different people who may either be working directly for a DTO, or be subcontracted out as ad-hoc hitmen. This is all managed by mid-level people or lower, so the kingpins never see or handle the day-to-day operations of weapons movements in Mexico. Trying to nail a major DTO with a series of sting operations may have been laced with the best of intentions, but it was a pipe dream at best.

So what's next for the ATF? I don't know if anyone has a good answer for that. The agency bears the brunt of the mission to deter southbound weapons trafficking, and its main strategy in the last couple of years has been a scandalous bust. I have a feeling that no matter what revamped strategy they come up with, it will be overshadowed for some time with reports of guns turning up at crime scenes that are traced back to "Operation Gunwalker."

We argue over guns going south, but why not drugs going north?

About a year and a half ago, FOX News' William LaJeunesse put out a report about the "Myth of 90 Percent." Essentially, it said that only a small percentage of firearms being used by Mexican DTOs came from US sources, as opposed to the "90 percent" figure that American officials like to cite instead. You can read my blog post about that story HERE.

Today, Stratfor put out a similar report - albeit not as condemning - in its "Security Weekly" report. Here's an excerpt:

"Interestingly, the part of this argument pertaining to guns has been adopted by many politicians and government officials in the United States in recent years. It has now become quite common to hear U.S. officials confidently assert that 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. However, a close examination of the dynamics of the cartel wars in Mexico — and of how the oft-echoed 90 percent number was reached — clearly demonstrates that the number is more political rhetoric than empirical fact. As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link). According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

"This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons... Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin."

Link to Full Article 

Analysis: The first point I want to make - and one that Scott Stewart seems to have missed - is that NO ONE knows exactly what proportion of firearms used by Mexican DTOs comes from US sources. It could be 95 percent, or it could be 27 percent. It's a highly charged and polarizing issue, which means that pro-gun groups and gun-control advocates are going to use existing statistics and publicly available trace data in whatever ways support their convictions and further their agendas. That doesn't change the fact that we will NEVER know the exact proportion - to within 20 percentage points, in my opinion - of American guns being used to kill people in Mexico.

The second point I want to make is one I can't take credit for. I was interviewing ATF Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell back in December for my book, and he said something that I found really interesting. He surmised that people spend a lot of time arguing about the exact percentage of American guns going south to Mexico, but no one argues about the percentage of drugs going north.

Currently accepted statistics from our border agencies tell us that they think they're seizing about 10 percent of all drugs coming from Mexico into the US. We're also told that 90 percent of our cocaine and 60 percent of our marijuana comes from Mexican DTOs. Based on the lack of media reporting, no one argues with these numbers. There also doesn't seem to be a huge firestorm between lobby groups, the media, drug users, and the Mexican government over these numbers. But are they even accurate? We're seizing a smaller percentage of drugs on the border than the percentage of guns being seized by Mexican officials and traced by the ATF. But no one on either side of the border is screaming that it's actually only 43 percent of our cocaine and 37 percent of our marijuana coming from Mexico.

Why? Because everyone in both countries can easily acknowledge that we have a shared drug trafficking and drug use problem that seriously needs to be addressed and resolved. Why can't we acknowledge the same about our shared weapons trafficking problem without getting wrapped around the axle over the exact percentage figure??? Hypothetically speaking, let's say only 40 percent of the guns being used by DTOs in Mexico came from US sources, and by some insane miracle, we knew this to be a hard fact. Does that all of a sudden make it OK? Do we no longer have a southbound weapons trafficking problem, and can the ATF hang up their hats and go home early? What would be an acceptable figure for the American gun lobby to say, "See? We told you so!", and for the US government to say to Mexico, "It's really not our problem, so you have to fix it on your own."

You've read my rants on the use of statistics, and I don't like them simply because they can be so easily manipulated. To deny that US-origin guns play a significant role in the drug war simply because we can't arrive at one specific statistic is foolish and dangerous. No matter what the exact number or proportion is, we have a legitimate southbound weapons trafficking problem that needs to be addressed and mitigated by all the tools at our disposal - laws, policy, and enforcement.

"Obama Administration's New Proposed Gun Regulation for Border States Met With Bipartisan Dissent."

Here is an excerpt from Stephen Clark's article on FOX News.com:

"The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party. At least three Democrats in the Senate and several more in the House are voicing opposition to a proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would require about 8,500 gun dealers in four states – California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas – to report gun sales of two or more high-powered rifles sold within five consecutive business days... The new regulation would cover semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, has asked the ATF to withdraw its request to the White House for emergency authority to enact the regulation. While I understand the importance of cracking down on violence and gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border, this wide-reaching regulation would punish law-abiding American gun owners and impede their Second Amendment rights," Begich wrote in a letter last week to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. "Instead, we must secure our border and target Mexican drug cartels, as well as participating offenders in the United States." The ATF has rejected the notion that its regulation will violate Second Amendment rights or impose burdensome paperwork on gun dealers... Scott Thomasson, the chief spokesman for ATF, told FoxNews.com that the agency is pushing for this new regulation now because since 2004, there's been a 100 percent increase by Mexican drug cartels using rifles, which are not covered by any reporting requirements." Link to Full Article

Analysis: My best friend always tells me I shouldn't write blog posts - or anything else for that matter - when I'm mad. I totally understand the reasoning; I'm an analyst after all, and work pretty hard to maintain a level head and examine all sides of an issue. But when I read articles like this, it's really hard for me to keep my blood from boiling, and I'll explain why.

My regular readers know I'm not anti-gun; quite the opposite. I was a military law enforcement agent for over eight years, and got pretty attached to both my Beretta 9mm, and later my SigSauer P228 after my agency switched over. I currently have a SigSauer P250 that converts from a 9mm to a .40-caliber, as well as a Mossberg 10-gauge shotgun with a breacher tip on the barrel that I'm completely in love with. When I bought these guns, I almost wished the salesman at the store had asked for more information from me. I know I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I know that I plan to use these firearms for home defense. But what about the guy next to me? Or the guy next to him? Is asking for a driver's license and a filled-out ATF form enough? This is my VERY pro-law enforcement side coming out.

Some people would say even that's too intrusive, and the ATF is imposing too many measures that "impede their Second Amendment rights." This is where we take a look at the new proposed regulation that requires the reporting of two or more rifles being sold to the same person within five days. This requirement is already in place for handguns, folks. And yes, I imagine that die-hard NRA members HATE this requirement, and I'm hearing the "It's a slippery slope to having the government come seize all our guns" argument in my head. So, knowing that Mexican DTOs love their high-powered rifles that they so easily buy in the US through straw purchases, why is there so much drama surrounding the extension of an existing requirement to cover rifles?

I know why there's so much drama, and I can't wait (I say this sarcastically) for the deluge of gun fanatics who will comment on this post, saying it's too much government, Obama wants to take our guns away, etc. etc. I'd like to posit this question, in response to Senator Begich's statement. How does this proposed requirement "punish" law-abiding citizens? And furthermore, how does it impede Second Amendment rights? If you want to buy ten rifles over the course of three days, guess what? You can still do it! You won't get fined, sent to jail, get spoken to harshly, or tarred and feathered - just some examples of what I consider punishment. And you still get to buy your guns, which - from what I recall, anyway - is right in line with the Second Amendment. Many people tend to forget that the role guns play in the lives of Americans have less to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with federal and state laws, as well as case law determined by hundreds of court decisions over the last 234 years. I challenge Senator Begich to show me, from a legal perspective, how the proposed regulation impedes upon anyone's right to ultimately purchase or own as many firearms as they want.

Here's my bottom line. We need to figure out SOMETHING to more effectively investigate criminals who are trafficking guns from the US into Mexico. I think the proposed ATF requirement is a step in the right direction. I also think the NRA doesn't give a rat's behind about southbound weapons trafficking. The group gives the impression that it doesn't care what goes on south of the border as long as all Americans can buy guns whenever and wherever they want. That may not be the case, but perception is reality, and I think it's totally irresponsible to think we can just wash our hands of any association whatsoever with US-origin guns being used in the drug war. I wonder what the NRA will say when one of those guns is used to kill an American law enforcement officer.

I'm just tired of lobby groups and other people throwing around our Second Amendment rights like it spells out exactly what were entitled to when it comes to gun ownership. I think it gives us more mellow gun owners a bad name; kind of like people who burn flags or make a painting of the Virgin Mary with dog crap smeared on it, then invoke the First Amendment. The courts have been debating this forever, so who is Senator Begich to make the determination that the proposed regulation punishes Americans and steps all over the Second Amendment? Our law enforcement agencies have a HUGE job to do, and I'm just sick of politics and petty arguments getting in the way of that.

So, as they say, bring on the pain...I know it's coming.

"Firearms watchdog on short leash."

Here is an excerpt from Sari Horwitz and James Grimaldi's article in The Washington Post:

"The National Tracing Center is the only place in the nation authorized to trace gun sales. Here, researchers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives make phone calls and pore over handwritten records from across the country to track down gun owners. In contrast with such state-of-the-art, 21st-century crime-fighting techniques as DNA matching and digital fingerprint analysis, gun tracing is an antiquated, laborious process done mostly by hand. The government is prohibited from putting gun ownership records into an easily accessible format, such as a searchable computer database. For decades, the National Rifle Association has lobbied successfully to block all attempts at such computerization, arguing against any national registry of firearm ownership. Concerns about government regulation of gun ownership have limited the resources available to the ATF, led to strict regulatory restrictions and left the agency without leadership... For the FBI, there are 19 lines of congressional direction. For the DEA, there are 10. For the ATF, there are 87 lines, including the requirement to keep the gun-tracing database hidden from the public... In 1972, when the ATF separated from the Internal Revenue Service and became its own bureau within the Treasury Department, it had about 2,500 agents. At the time, the FBI had 8,700, the DEA 1,500 and the U.S. Marshals 1,900. Thirty-eight years later, the FBI is up to 13,000, the DEA has more than tripled to 5,000, and there are 3,300 federal marshals. The ATF, now a part of the Justice Department, remains at 2,500... The ATF does not have enough personnel to fully inspect the firearms and explosives dealers under its charge. The bureau has about 600 inspectors to cover more than 115,000 firearms dealers - about 55,000 collectors and about 60,000 retail sellers... By law, the ATF can inspect dealers for compliance only once a year. But despite improvements, officials acknowledge that, on average, dealers are inspected only about once a decade... When inspectors document persistent or severe violations, they can issue warning letters or hold warning conferences with licensees. When problems are critical, they can move to take away the license. Dealers, however, can drag out the process for years and sell guns the entire time... One of the ATF's chief concerns is missing guns... Nationwide, dealers lose track of an enormous number of guns. Since 2005, 3,847 inspections have documented 113,642 guns that cannot be found... The process is complicated because dealers by law do not have to take inventory. In a 2003 provision authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Congress prohibited the ATF from requiring dealers to do inventories. As a result, ATF inspectors sometimes have to spend days or weeks poring through a dealer's paperwork and physically matching it to the guns on hand... New legislation, pending before Congress, would further limit the agency's ability to regulate dealers... The agency, for the first time, would have to show that a dealer knew the law and intentionally disregarded it; in other words, the ATF would have to establish the dealer's state of mind at the time of the violation. The NRA said the law is necessary because dealers often are harshly punished for trivial paperwork errors." Link to Full Article

Analysis: That was a really long excerpt, I know, but necessarily so. The article itself is five pages long, and I didn't even cover the difficulty the ATF has in poring through thousands of handwritten forms and documents it receives every year from gun sellers who go out of business. I strongly recommend that you read the entire article to get a better grasp of the immense challenges the ATF is dealing with when it comes to stopping the southbound flow of weapons into Mexico, on top of domestic illegal firearms transactions.

I've always said that the best solution (which won't fix the problem, but should make it better) to southbound weapons trafficking is to allocate a significant amount of additional resources to the ATF and not change laws (i.e. reinstate the assault weapons ban). You've read how insanely understaffed they are, and how archaic their tracing process is by necessity. The demands being placed on them to conduct inspections of gun sellers, review records, and run investigations of suspected traffickers are astronomical compared to what they can realistically accomplish with the resources they currently have. 

However, I was very wrong. We really need to change several laws, and I'm not talking about having a change of heart on the assault weapons ban. It's a strange position for me because I'm very pro-gun, being a former law enforcement agent and current gun owner. I also usually support most of the NRA's position on gun policy. But precisely because I'm a former agent, I can't fathom the idiocy of the current laws and regulations that tie the hands of the very agency dedicated to stopping weapons trafficking.

Think about it from a practical/rational perspective. We all have to register our vehicles with county government agencies, which means we have personal information in a government database. Our (very private and personal) medical records are now being kept in computerized databases. If we're homeowners, all details related to transactions with our homes are maintained in a government database. The government also has access to tons of personal information on our military members, many of whom are gun owners. Basically, if we drive a car, pay taxes, have a job, receive any sort of government benefit, or own a bank account or investments, our most personal information is stored in a computerized database which the government can access in some way.

The NRA and its staunchest supporters have major heartburn over the computerized registration of firearms. Seriously? OK, I can understand that we have SO many other things registered that gun owners don't want to deal with one more thing. I also understand that some gun owners are fiercely protective of their Second Amendment rights, and are fearful that gun registration will somehow eventually lead to the government either taxing their guns or taking them away, although I think those fears are a bit unwarranted.

But what happens when laws regarding gun registration impede on a US agency's ability to catch bad guys? On one hand, you have people screaming to stop the southbound flow of firearms from our gun shops into DTO hands, and demanding that the ATF do moremoremore. On the other hand, you have people lobbying Congress to create even more laws to prevent the ATF from doing almost anything, and I suspect that many of those people don't care where the weapons go or how they're used, as long as their rights to own one aren't impeded. The article briefly mentions the Tiahrt Amendment, but doesn't tell you about another one of its restrictions. The Amendment specifically prohibits most information sharing regarding trace data between the ATF and agencies with any sort of intelligence function. God forbid anyone might want to conduct some sort of interstate analysis on weapons trafficking to ascertain some sort of pattern to try and stop the bad guys. This happened to me when I was an analyst in California; I tried to write the first state fusion center-initiated joint analysis of southbound weapons trafficking with my colleagues at the fusion centers in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Unfortunately, the keystone of the project was ATF firearms trace data. The ATF supervisory agents I spoke with were so willing to help, and really wanted to see our product succeed. Unfortunately, their hands were legally tied, and they couldn't give us the information we desperately needed to cement our (in my opinion) groundbreaking joint product. It never saw the light of day.

So what say I? Let the ATF do their freakin' job! The restrictions that Congress is imposing on the ATF right now is like telling the FBI that all fingerprints need to be kept on paper, and you can only match up those of a suspect with those on file by using a magnifying glass. Or having a license plate number of a hit-and-run suspect and having to find the vehicle records by poring through thousands of Excel spreadsheets. I'm firmly of the mindset that if you're not doing anything wrong/illegal, then you have nothing to worry about by having your firearm transaction details in a computerized database. It's like having to undergo additional screening at the airport. Yeah, it sucks and it's inconvenient, but if you're not smuggling explosives or box cutters, you'll be on your way soon enough.

It's all about striking the right balance. I never thought an ultra-conservative group like the NRA could have anything in common with an ultra-liberal group like the ACLU, but they do. Both are groups with strong public voices who often impede the ability of law enforcement agencies to do their jobs. It is entirely possible for gun owners and legal buyers in the US to keep owning and legally buying guns, while at the same time, the ATF works with significantly more agents and analysts to prevent straw buyers from buying guns for transport to Mexico. But until Congress unties the hands - or at least loosens them up quite a bit - of the ATF, we're not going to see much slowing down of gun traffic flowing south.

What if Mexicans could arm themselves?

I know it's rare that I post pure commentary without a news story attached. But one of my readers posted a comment several days ago in response to another story, and what he said has been percolating in my brain for a little bit. I'd like to explore both sides of this idea, and then open it up to my readers for (hopefully) civil and thoughtful comments.

Some of you may already know that the majority of Mexican citizens cannot purchase firearms. Technically they're allowed to own them, because Mexico's constitution has wording very similar to our Second Amendment. However, there are only a handful of gun shops in the entire country, and the sheer volume of paperwork, checks, and personal recommendations required is huge. Even if you could obtain permission to buy a gun, the highest caliber pistol you could get is pretty low, with the higher calibers reserved strictly for law enforcement and the military.

These restrictions obviously haven't had much of an impact on gun violence in Mexico. DTOs obtain all the firepower they need from guns purchased in the US and smuggled south, and weapons and grenades "imported" from former eastern bloc countries, Central America, and Asia. DTOs also know they're operating in an environment of a population powerless to do anything, because even the police who are armed and sworn to protect them are in cahoots with the DTOs.

But what if the Mexican people were no longer powerless, and could legally arm themselves? Would this make a difference in the drug war?

Analysis: Let's take a look at the "pro" side first. I think there's a possibility that DTOs might change their strategy a bit if they knew the Mexican people - who have had it "up to here" with drug violence - all of a sudden had a means with which to defend themselves. Vigilante groups are starting to pop up in places as a result. More and more people refuse to go out at night or eat at certain restaurants because of the fear of becoming collateral damage in a gun fight between rival cartel members. Maybe the ability to carry a gun for self-defense would instill some confidence in some Mexicans to venture out again, and would give some narcos pause before kidnapping someone for ransom or entering an establishment and spraying it down with bullets.

Legal gun sales in Mexico would also likely have a positive impact on the southbound weapons trafficking problem. Of course, that just makes thing better for us, and doesn't completely solve the problem of certain weapons that Mexico probably wouldn't legally sell to its citizens. But probably much fewer handguns and standard rifles would be making their way across the border.

Looking for an example of Mexico's gun situation in the US is difficult, but can be found right in our nation's capital. Until very recently, it was illegal for residents in Washington, DC to own handguns. Ironically enough, some parts of DC are among the most violent in the country. The ban obviously didn't have much of an impact on criminal activity, and I'm curious to see how criminals there will start behaving now that they know the owner of the house they're thinking of burglarizing might be able to legally protect his home with a gun.

Finally, Mexico's economy is hurting even more than ours. Providing Mexicans with the opportunity to open hundreds of gun shops across the country, combined with the likely high number of people who'd be interested in buying guns for self-defense, might provide the Mexican economy with a much-needed injection of cash.

Now let's look at the "cons." The first and easiest argument to make is that gun violence in Mexico is bad enough as it is. Does anyone want to add to that by throwing armed citizens into the mix? Also, the majority of gun battles occur between narcos and cops, narcos and the military, or narcos and other narcos. All of them are armed already, so legalizing gun sales may not impact that.

Given the high level of corruption in Mexico at all levels, regulating gun sales and investigating violations would be challenging at best. The government would also need to implement a more robust registration system, and rewrite laws and regulations regarding requirements for gun ownership. This isn't complicate per se, but things move at a snail's pace already in Mexico's judicial and legislative system.

As I said earlier, vigilantism is already on the rise. Providing regular citizens with an easy path to gun ownership might push people who are currently on the fence towards joining or starting such a group willing to take the law into their own hands. This further subverts Mexican legal institutions, and could throw the country into even further chaos.

So what are your thoughts? Would removing most restrictions from private gun ownership in Mexico make a difference in the drug war?

"Largest weapons cache in years seized in Laredo."

Here is an excerpt from Christopher Sherman's article in the Houston Chronicle:

"Laredo police say they made one of their largest weapons seizures in years after pulling over a truck laden with brand new assault rifles, bayonets and ammunition that they believe was headed to Mexico... Acting on a tip from the Webb County Sheriff's Office, Laredo police   stopped a vehicle containing 175 brand-new, boxed assault rifles, 200 high-capacity magazines, 53 bayonets and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. One of the two men in the vehicle tried to flee, but was apprehended, said Laredo Police Investigator Joe Baeza. Baeza said when authorities laid out the cache in a conference room of the federal building in Laredo Monday, it covered half the floor. He said it was the largest weapons seizure in a decade in the area around Laredo, which is 145 miles south of San Antonio along the U.S. border with Mexico. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are investigating the seizure, but Baeza said the presumption is the vehicle was heading to Mexico." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This story is a stark reminder of the southbound weapons trafficking problem we're dealing with. The AK-47s that were seized are high on the list of Mexican DTOs' weapons of choice. While the story doesn't say exactly where they were purchased, it's likely a straw buyer bought them through legal means over a period of time at either gun shops or gun shows in Texas. This is discouraging to gun rights' groups who assert that the claim about so many guns going to Mexico from the US is a conspiracy by left-wingers to reinstate the assault weapons ban. And it's also true that such a reinstatement would directly affect the sale of AK-47 and similar rifles within the US.

However, there is a different, "good news" aspect to this story. First of all, the weapons never made it out of the US and into Mexico. I have always asserted that the key to slowing down the southbound flow of weapons is not to implement new laws, but to enforce the ones we already have. Second, the reason law enforcement was able to catch these guns before they made it to the border is because of a simple Crime Stoppers program. Someone (likely anonymous) contacted the Webb County Sheriff's Office with information about the van and its shipment, and together with the Laredo Police Department, they were able to identify and stop the van. That's simple, good police work with the help of human sources. True, I have no idea if the person who provided the information was a rival of the intended weapons recipient, or a concerned individual who didn't want those guns getting into the wrong hands. 

Regardless, I want to hear/read more stories about this sort of thing happening - law enforcement agencies working closely with gun shop owners and confidential informations to successfully stop weapons shipments like this one from ever making it to the southwest border. 

"[Arizona] DPS arrests 3 after undercover buys of grenades."

Here is an excerpt from Lauren Misak's article in The Arizona Republic:

"Investigators seized 23 inert grenades and arrested three men in Maryvale [Arizona] Tuesday night on suspicion of selling the grenades knowing they would be converted to live explosive  devices... Investigators on Monday received a tip from an informant that the men were selling dormant grenades that do not contain a fuse or explosive powder. Investigators purchased seven new, round military grenades for $400 each Monday. On Tuesday night, investigators purchased an additional 16 pineapple-shaped grenades. The suspects were arrested following the second buy, DPS spokesman Steve Harrison said... Investigators believe the grenades were headed to Mexico. They do not know where the grenades came from... Detectives suspect the sellers' intent was to sell the grenades to be converted into an explosive device, which could be easily done by adding a fuse or gunpowder. While it is not illegal to sell inert grenades, it is illegal to sell them with the intent to use them as an explosive device." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Before I can fully weigh in on this, I have to remind readers that there are a lot of unanswered questions in this story. First, we don't know exactly what type of grenades they were, where they were manufactured, or how the sellers obtained them. Second, we don't know why they were selling the grenades in the US with the intent to get them live when they could have easily done the same thing with already-live grenades in Mexico.

This concerns me because the general line of thinking among Mexico observers/analysts is that military-grade hardware - like grenades, grenade and rocket launchers, and some .50-caliber rifles - are generally obtained by DTOs outside the US. Existing evidence indicates that stuff mostly comes from the Koreas, Central American countries, existing Mexican army stocks, and former Soviet bloc countries.

Remember, this incident doesn't mean that those grenades came from a US source, although the possibility does exist - and is perhaps likely. You can easily buy inert round and pineapple grenades through US military surplus dealers, as that's perfectly legal. They're cheap, too - $8.99 for an inert pineapple model. This could signal a new way of obtaining grenades for DTOs in Mexico - buy them legally in the US, convert them into live grenades, then send them south in a similar fashion to pistols and rifles.

This is a good story to keep an eye on to see what additional information develops.

"Bush aide urges weapons ban to slow Mexican drug war."

Here is an excerpt from Jerry Seper's article in the Washington Times:

"The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country. Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as 'critical' to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not... He said some studies have shown that many of the weapons obtained by Mexican drug traffickers come from the U.S., and much of their funding comes from U.S. drug sales. He called for U.S. authorities to begin more aggressive investigations of U.S. gun sellers and to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons... At least three other efforts to pass new legislation banning the weapons have not been successful. In February, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. said the ban should be reinstated, but Mr. Obama has since said he would not push its reinstatement even though it 'made sense.'" Link to Full Article

Analysis: I usually don't like to re-hash old blog posts and analyses, but in this case, I don't think the issue of the potential reinstatement of an assault weapons ban can be explained too much. It seems to me that many people are under the impression that DTO enforcers only use assault weapons when they kill people, and that is NOT the case. Yes, they do like some types of assault weapons that they legally buy in the US through straw purchasers, but I'm still convinced that reinstating the ban won't make that much of a dent in the southbound weapons flow problem, or in the levels of violence in Mexico. Here's my analysis from April 2009, in response to an article called "Obama gets gun shy.":

"I'm not a firearms expert, so take my analysis knowing that. However, I was able to do some common sense research, and I came to the conclusion that renewing the assault weapons ban would probably not accomplish much by way of stemming the flow of weapons from the US into Mexico.

"The verbiage in the 1994 legislation identifies 19 firearms that qualify as assault weapons under the ban. The legislation also details the features that certain weapons have that also qualify them as assault weapons, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick to the 19 named firearms. They include the Uzi; Steyr AUG; Galil; FN/FAL, FN/FAR, and FNC; North China Industries 56, 84, 86, 320, AKM, and AKS; Polytechnologies AK-47, AK-47/S, AKS; Mitchell Arms AK; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Colt AR-15; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; Beretta AR-70; and the Street Sweeper/Striker 12 (including USAS 12). The majority of these firearms are 5.56 caliber, although assault rifle calibers can range from 5.45mm to 7.62mm. 

"So what kinds of firearms are going to Mexico? The ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by Mexican DTOs: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles. Specifically, certain DTOs are fond of the Fabrique Nationale (FN) FiveSeven pistol and the FN-P90, as well as the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. 

"As most anyone can tell, most of the weapons on the original 1994 ban list are not the ones going to Mexico. Yes, the AK-47 (pictured) and the AR-15 are very popular with the DTOs. However, as I've previously posted, you don't need a whole AK-47 from the manufacturer to get an AK-47, as parts kits for assault weapons are legally available in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. 

"So, bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns."

Another thing that is VERY important to remember is that DTOs are relying more heavily on military-grade weapons, like grenade launchers, hand grenades, and sniper rifles. These types of weapons not only wouldn't fall within an assault weapons ban, but they're not even purchased by DTO reps in the US. Long story short, a weapons ban would likely be yet another ineffective attempt by the Obama Administration to look like it's doing something - anything - to help the Mexico situation.

"How much is the U.S. to Blame for Mexico's Drug War?"

Here is an excerpt from my latest article on MexiData.info:

"There are two main issues for which the United States has recently taken at least partial responsibility in Mexico’s drug war—southbound weapons trafficking (the supply side), and drug trafficking (the demand side).

"In March 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States and that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States.” This acknowledgement was the beginning of a new level of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico in fighting cartels.

But was it right for the U.S. to accept blame for these issues, and if so, will it lead to more U.S. involvement in solving other problems in Latin America for which it may be “responsible”?"

To read the rest of my article on MexiData.info, please CLICK HERE.

"Feds: Gun, cash seizures up at Mexican border."

Here is an excerpt from Elliot Spagat's Associated Press article:

"U.S. authorities on Tuesday reported a spike in seizures of guns and cash along the Mexican border since they began assigning more agents to stem the flow of southbound  contraband. Nearly 600 illegal weapons were seized along the border by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials from March through September, an increase of more than 50 percent from the same period of 2008. The agencies seized more than $40 million in cash along the border from mid-March through September, nearly double the amount in the year-ago period. The seizures represent a tiny fraction of business done by Mexican and Colombian drug lords. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, those drug lords generate $18 billion to $39 billion in wholesale drug proceeds in the United States each year. Cash proceeds are smuggled across the border to Mexico. But U.S. officials said the figures demonstrate that heightened enforcement is paying off." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm always a fan of reading good news, and this seems to fit the bill. A 50 percent increase in weapons seizures is a sizable increase, and so is the amount of cash seized. The increased enforcement activities are long overdue, and I'm happy to see that US agencies working along the border are getting some concrete results.

I'm also happy to see a dose of reality with the statement that the seizures represent only a drop in the bucket. I'll try to put the 600 guns seized over a six-month period in perspective. Last year, over 20,000 guns were seized from criminals in Mexico. That's just the number seized, not the number actually out there and being used by DTOs. God knows how many more were "seized" by dirty cops and rerouted without being reported. One Mexican official said two years ago that over 2,000 guns come into Mexico from the US every day. I don't know how accurate that number is (it's likely exaggerated..after all who's counting?), but even if you make the relatively conservative and speculative guess that 100 guns are coming in every day, US authorities only seized six days' worth of guns in a six-month period.

Look, in the southbound inspection business, you have to start somewhere. And it's not like US authorities are just starting, either. It's just that they now have a new mandate and (hopefully) more resources to do the southbound inspection job. Hopefully next year we'll see a similar or larger increase in seizures as the process gets further refined.

"Mexican Southbound Screening Snarling San Ysidro Traffic."

Here is an excerpt from Amy Isackson's article on KPBS.org:

"Mexico's screening of cars headed south across the U.S. Mexico border into Tijuana is snarling traffic on San Ysidro streets and on freeways in the South Bay. It can take an hour and a half to  cross into Tijuana during peak hours. Long waits are nearly synonymous with crossing the border north from Tijuana to San Diego. Waiting twenty minutes or more to cross south into Tijuana is also becoming customary... Ben Hueso, who represents San Ysidro on the San Diego City Council, said Mexico has the right to screen cars for national security, but its causing economic and environmental problems. 'Our freeways weren't designed to have vehicles backed up two miles from the border,' he said. 'Traffic gridlock on the neighborhood streets of San Ysidro have been bad for the economy and it has effected our ability to respond to fires in high traffic situations.' Mexico has delayed fully launching southbound screening at the San Ysidro crossing. Customs agents stop all cars for a few seconds but inspect a small percentage." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Welcome to a full-blown case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for syndrome. For months, both the Mexican and US governments have been spouting about how they're finally going to do something to curb the southbound flow of weapons and cash from the US into Mexico. Mexican authorities were due to start inspecting around 10 percent of southbound vehicles, and CBP was going to start random inspections of southbound vehicles.

It all looks great on paper, but welcome to the reality.

Don't get me wrong; we all knew this was going to happen, as it's the price to be paid for laying similar attention on the southbound as we do the northbound. Also realize that someone is ALWAYS going to complain, and there will always be a problem when new security measures are implemented.

But the question is, should we be doing it?

There are two schools of thought on this. The first is no, we shouldn't because it should be Mexico's responsibility to screen vehicles and people entering their country from the US. We know they don't really do that, but then the complaints abound about US-origin guns coming into the country illegally. Sec Clinton and Sec Napolitano have already assumed some responsibility for this issue, so leaving entirely up to the Mexican government isn't really an option.

That leads into the second school of thought, which is we should shoulder some of the responsibility (or blame, depending on whom you ask) for inspections since the guns and cash in question originate in the US. That's all well and good in diplomatic circles, but then you have US citizens complaining that their own government is causing long backups at border crossings and negatively impacting US businesses.

Here's what I think is the main takeaway from this story. First, someone is always going to be unhappy with efforts to clamp down on cross-border trafficking and border violence. In this instance, it's cross-border commuters, and probably more than a few inspectors on both sides of the border. Second, someone has to do SOMETHING about the southbound flow of guns and cash, and since it looks like a lot of that is going to fall on our government, we need to learn to live with it and cut those CBP guys and gals at the checkpoints some slack. 

"DEA Announces Largest Single U.S. Strike Against Mexican Drug Cartels."

Here is the bulk of today's DEA press release, which can be read HERE in its entirety:

DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart joined Attorney General Eric Holder and other federal officials today to announce the results of "Project Coronado", a 44-month multi-agency  law enforcement investigation which targeted the La Familia Michoacana drug cartel. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and ATF Acting Director Kenneth E. Melson also participated in the announcement.

Yesterday and today, 303 individuals in 19 states were arrested in a series of takedowns through coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement. More than 3,000 agents and officers operated across the United States to make the arrests during the two-day takedown. 62 kilograms of cocaine, 729 pounds of methamphetamine, 967 pounds of marijuana, 144 weapons, 109 vehicles, 2 clandestine drug labs were also seized in the past two days.

“Project Coronado, our massive assault on the La Familia Cartel, is part of our continued fight against all of the powerful Mexico-based drug cartels,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “This organization, the newest of Mexican cartels, is directly responsible for a vast majority of the methamphetamine pouring into our country across our Southwest Border, and has had a hand in fueling the cycle of violence that is wracking Mexico today.  DEA, along with our U.S. and Mexican partners, are committed to strategically attacking the international and domestic drug trade with every tool at our disposal, and defeating those that thrive on the suffering of others.”

The La Familia cartel is a violent drug trafficking cartel based in the state of Michoacan, in southwestern Mexico. According to court documents, La Familia controls drug manufacturing and distribution in and around Michoacan, including the importation of vast quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine from Mexico into the United States. La Familia is philosophically opposed to the sale of methamphetamine to Mexicans, and instead supports its export to the United States for consumption by Americans. La Familia is a heavily armed cartel that has utilized violence to support its narcotics trafficking business including murders, kidnappings and assaults. According to one indictment unsealed in New York, associates of La Familia based in the United States have allegedly acquired military-grade weapons, including assault weapons and ammunition, and have arranged for them to be smuggled back into Mexico for use by La Familia. Individuals indicted in the cases are charged with a variety of crimes, including: conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana; distribution of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana; conspiracy to import narcotics into the United States; money laundering; and other violations of federal law. Numerous defendants face forfeiture allegations as well.

"This unprecedented, coordinated U.S. law enforcement action - the largest ever undertaken against a Mexican drug cartel - has dealt a significant blow to La Familia’s supply chain of illegal drugs, weapons, and cash flowing between Mexico and the United States,” said Attorney General Holder. “We will not allow these cartels to operate unfettered in our country, and with the increases in cooperation between U.S. and Mexican authorities in recent years, we are taking the fight to our adversaries. We will continue to stand strong with our partners in Mexico as we work to disrupt and dismantle cartel operations on both sides of the border.”

Arrests were made or charges were unsealed related to Project Coronado in the following districts: Central District of California, Southern District of California, District of Colorado, Northern District of Georgia, District of Massachusetts, District of Minnesota, Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern District of Oklahoma, Southern District of New York, Northern District of New York, Middle District of North Carolina, District of South Carolina, Middle District of Tennessee, Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of Texas, and the Western District of Washington. There were also arrests by state authorities in California, Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia.

Analysis: Two words - AWE. SOME. By all accounts and measures, this two-day raid was a really big deal. And not so much because of the "stuff" they rounded up. If you take a hard look at the amounts of drugs and weapons they seized, we're talking small potatoes for the number of agents, locations, and raids involved. 

It's the number of PEOPLE associated with La Familia that were arrested. THAT's the real treasure, in my opinion. Out of 303 people, there are probably quite a few who can be convinced to provide actionable intelligence to law enforcement authorities regarding some level of DTO operations on both sides of the border. That information could lead to dozens more arrests and seizures in the next several months, so hopefully, this is just the beginning.

Kudos and a big thank you to all agencies involved!

"US-Mexico groups urges new US assault weapons ban."

Here is an excerpt from Catherine E. Shoichet's Associated Press article:

"The United States should reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons to prevent such guns from reaching Mexican drug cartels, former officials from both countries said in a report released Tuesday. The group, which includes two former U.S. ambassadors to Mexico, also said the U.S. should do more to stop the smuggling of firearms and ammunition into Mexico by stepping up investigations of gun dealers and more strictly regulating gun shows. The Binational Task Force on the United States-Mexico Border listed the assault weapons ban as a step the U.S. should take immediately to improve security in both countries. The last ban expired in 1994." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I posted on this topic back in April in response to a Newsweek article that touched on the possible reinstatement of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. My opinion and research on this topic hasn't changed, so I'll repost it here.

The verbiage in the 1994 legislation identifies 19 firearms that qualify as assault weapons under the ban. The legislation also details the features that certain weapons have that also qualify them as assault weapons, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick to the 19 named firearms. They include the Uzi; Steyr AUG; Galil; FN/FAL, FN/FAR, and FNC; North China Industries 56, 84, 86, 320, AKM, and AKS; Polytechnologies AK-47, AK-47/S, AKS; Mitchell Arms AK; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Colt AR-15; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; Beretta AR-70; and the Street Sweeper/Striker 12 (including USAS 12). The majority of these firearms are 5.56 caliber, although assault rifle calibers can range from 5.45mm to 7.62mm. 

So what kinds of firearms are going to Mexico? The ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by Mexican DTOs: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles. Specifically, certain DTOs are fond of the Fabrique Nationale (FN) FiveSeven pistol and the FN-P90, as well as the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. 

As most anyone can tell, most of the weapons on the original 1994 ban list are not the ones going to Mexico. Yes, the AK-47 (pictured) and the AR-15 are very popular with the DTOs. However, as I've previously posted, you don't need a whole AK-47 from the manufacturer to get an AK-47, as parts kits for assault weapons are legally available in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. 

So, bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns.

IN FOCUS: Making Sense of the Southbound Weapons Flow to Mexico

Here is an excerpt from my latest article on MexiData.info:

"There is no question that guns are flowing south from the United States into Mexico. Many, many guns. But the question so many people want answered is, exactly how many guns, and exactly where are they coming from?

The simple answer is, no one really knows, and no one will ever know with absolute certainty.

This fact is frustrating for many, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Mexican and U.S. governments, the National Rifle Association and anti-gun activists, and countless law enforcement officials trying to stem the southbound flow of guns. Seizure and trace statistics are funny things, in that they can be—and have routinely been—manipulated to fit almost any group’s agenda. The U.S. government has been using the statistic of 90 percent for the last year, and this number has been the source of much debate and controversy. So, what does that number mean?" To read the rest of this article on MexiData.info, CLICK HERE.

"PGR Seizes Anti-Aircraft Arsenal from Narcos."

Here is an excerpt from the Spanish-language article on Milenio.com:

"Mexico's Attorney General acknowledged that organized crime groups are one step ahead of the federal government in both weaponry and technological advances to engage in illicit  activities, which includes an anti-aircraft arsenal. According to the PGR's Special Investigative Division for Organized Crime [SIEDO], in recent drug trafficking and organized crime raids, foreign-made weapons - not available in Mexico - have been seized that are capable of shooting down aircraft. The head of SIEDO briefed a report regarding weapons confiscated from various cartels, and detailed the seizure of eighteen rocket launchers, five .50-caliber rifles considered to have anti-aircraft capacity, twenty-nine .50-caliber rifles, two mortars, two grenade launchers, forty-nine PS90 submachine guns capable of penetrating any type of armor, 142 FiveSeven pistols (called cop-killers because of their ability to penetrate light body armor), and body armor with head gear... The head of SIEDO said, 'although advanced technology is available to the government, organized crime groups acquire it first.' She also said that organized crime groups use more sophisticated communication methods, which permits the transmission of large volumes of information, while Mexican authorities use more traditional methods of communicating." Link to Full Spanish-language Article

Analysis: While this article doesn't necessarily tell us anything new about the weapons trafficking problem, it is interested to see the PGR come out publicly and say, "hey, the DTOs have us beat in both guns AND comm." We all know this, but it's difficult for a country's government - who's been getting pummeled by DTOs for years - to admit it to the public. 

A couple of things I need to clear up. The Mexican federal authorities have announced news of anti-aircraft weapon seizures before, but in the episodes I've seen, they've been greatly exaggerated. The last one I saw was the seizure of a .50-caliber Browning, which wasn't even an actual Browning; it was a replica obtained somewhere in Oregon. And although technically a real .50-caliber Browning could be used to fire at a low- and slow-flying aircraft, that's not the best or most efficient weapon for that purpose. I also don't like it when the authorities - Mexican, American, or otherwise - say that a pistol is armor-piercing; not the case. It's the ammunition that can be armor piercing, not the gun - no matter how many times you try banging it against a vest.

As for the high-tech communications, it's no surprise that the DTOs - especially Los Zetas - have the government beat on this one. Los Zetas (a few of them, anyway) are former Mexican special forces soldiers, trained right here in the USA at Fort Benning. They were highly trained (and are now passing on that training to new recruits) in the use of high-tech equipment and communications techniques, as well as in surveillance, countersurveillance, and other methods of preventing detection.

So what's a one-step-behind government to do? Not much, unfortunately, because it all comes down to money. The DTOs have plenty of it, and the Mexican government does not. The Mexican government has also historically shied away from mil-to-mil cooperation with the United States, which might have helped in the technology department. Perhaps some Merida Initiative money can go towards weapons and technology upgrades - assuming that money goes where it's intended.

"Gun flow south is a crisis for two nations."

Here is an excerpt from Josh Meyer's article in The Los Angeles Times:

"The United States lacks a coordinated strategy to stem the flow of weapons smuggled across its southern border, a failure that has fueled the rise of powerful criminal cartels and violence in Mexico, a government watchdog agency report has found. The report by the congressional Government Accountability Office, the first federal assessment of the issue, offered blistering conclusions that will probably influence the debate over the role of U.S.-made weaponry as violence threatens to spill across the Mexico border. According to a draft copy of the report, which will be released today, the growing number of weapons being smuggled into Mexico comprise more than 90% of the seized firearms that can be traced by authorities there. The document also cited recent U.S. intelligence indicating that most weapons were being smuggled in specifically for the syndicates -- and being used not only against the Mexican government but also to expand their drug trafficking operation in the United States." Link to Full Article

Analysis: As of 9:15 am Pacific time, the GAO report hadn't been posted on the agency's website, so I have to go off of what the LA Times article says about it. I'm not surprised at all the the GAO report really laid into the Obama administration and DHS component agencies. Mind you, this is a problem that goes back several years, so there is plenty of blame to go around for several administrations and agencies on both sides of the border.

There are a few issues the article mentions that I want to point out, and I look forward to reading more about them in the draft GAO report when it's published. First, the GAO report continues to use the figure of 90% when it comes to weapons traced in Mexico; it actually says more than 90%. Again, we'll never know the actual number of weapons purchased here, and we can only rely on the weapons that ARE submitted by the Mexican government for tracing. Regardless of the actual percentage, we have a serious southbound weapons trafficking problem, and quibbling over the percentage just detracts from it. Second, the report mentions the lack of a national strategy, and lack of interagency cooperation and communication. I see and deal with this almost on a daily basis, and it's extremely frustrating for everyone involved. Keep in mind, it's not like this just became a problem; interagency battles and roadblocks have been going on since agencies were created. DHS and its component agencies have been a mess for years, so I'm curious to see what the Obama administration and Napolitano have in mind to accomplish what so many people before them failed to do - get federal agencies to play nice.

Third, the report talks about obstacles caused by legal issues. I'm particularly happy that this issue was brought up because most people don't know what those legal obstacles are. I posted about the Tiahrt Amendment and the problems it poses for information sharing, but that is only one of several laws that prevent effective cooperation. It's completely true that good analysis and reporting isn't happening because some agencies don't have the resources to do that, and other agencies can't legally do that. 

On top of our own issues, the Mexican government has more than enough to go around. Not only are we dealing with our own governmental and agency flaws; the Mexican government has to deal with an insane amount of corruption, sovereignty issues that have made it very resistant in the past to cooperation with the US, and an economy that's hurting way more than ours, which significantly limits their resources. We've seen some positive changes in all regards, and at least Calderon realizes that these problems will require an unprecedented level of cross-border communication and cooperation if they're ever going to approach being solved. 

Bottom line, this GAO report was needed by everyone - our government, federal and state agencies, the general public, and the Mexican government. There's nothing to put things in motion like a good, swift, public kick in the you-know-what, and that's what this GAO report is attempting to provide. Now, we wait and see what the response will be.

"Gun dealers rarely charged in trafficking plots," and "Obama's other surge."

Here is an excerpt from the first article by Dane Schiller in The Houston Chronicle:

"One guy was an unemployed machinist who lived with his parents, but spent $24,800 in a year at Houston gun stores, snapping up military-style weapons for a Mexican drug cartel. His accused gun-running associate dropped $42,700 in a year, as did another who spent $27,700 in two months. Each often shopped at the same stores, according to court records. Ten alleged buyers were indicted and arrested last week, part of an investigation of as many as 23 people who spent $366,400 during a 15-month period that ended in 2007. Two of them, including the machinist, have pleaded guilty. But the dealers who sold the guns, are not accused of wrongdoing. The law says they did nothing wrong, even if they wondered, for example, why a customer in one pop would pay cash for five civilian variants of the M-16 assault rifle used by the military. 'Technically, they don’t have to do anything unless they suspect something is wrong,' Franceska Perot, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Houston division said. 'Unless they knew where the guns were going, it is not a crime on the part of the dealer.' Less than 1 percent of dealers nationwide are ever charged with a crime, according to the ATF. Most gun dealers are law abiding, authorities said. Proving they knowingly engaged in a criminal plot is especially tough." Link to Full Article

Here is an excerpt from the second article by Todd Bensman on GlobalPost.com:

"As open warfare between rival drug cartels filled the streets of Nuevo Laredo with bodies, Armando and Diana Villarreal, owners of Mando’s, prospered from a sharp sudden spike in demand for AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifles... Federal agents, though, eventually traced more than 50 AK-47s recovered after battles in Nuevo Laredo to Mando’s. In October 2006, Villarreal died of cancer just before federal prosecutors could make an example of him as perhaps the first federally licensed firearms dealer to be indicted for crossing the legal line into weapons trafficking, U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives officials confirm. There have been no publicly known successful gun-smuggling prosecutions of licenced retail gun dealers since... America's gun retailers will continue to enjoy some measure of insulation because of scant legal requirements on sales, as well as a high burden of proof that a retailer actually knows ahead of time where the guns are headed." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Both of these articles accomplish more or less the same thing, and that's to point out three major issues when it comes to southbound weapons trafficking: the straw-purchase system the Mexican DTOs have going is a pretty darn good system - for them, anyway; proving complicity by a US gun dealer in weapons trafficking is very difficult; the large majority of US gun dealers are honest, cooperative, and concerned about the potential for their guns to be used in crimes south of the border.

So how much responsibility (or blame) should be placed on US gun dealers to prevent the sale of guns to straw buyers? How many AK-47s sold to the same individual(s) should be considered suspicious? Where should the line be drawn between making a profit and losing business over possibly baseless suspicions? Gun sellers are not cops or investigators. However, taking the initiative these days to be more alert to suspicious buying behavior is probably in the best interest of gun sellers; not because it's become any easier to implicate them in criminal activity, but because it's always possible they may have less guns they can legally sell if the southbound weapons flow doesn't slow down soon.

I firmly believe the focus of law enforcement efforts with regards to this issue needs to be on the straw buyers, and to maintain that cooperation with gun dealers. Both the articles state and my ATF contacts confirm that the number of gun dealers knowingly and actively involved in illegal sales to Mexican DTO associates is extremely small. In the law enforcement world, when you have limited resources and personnel, you go with the numbers - tackle your larger problems first, and deal with the smaller ones later. The larger problem in this case is dirty buyers, not dirty sellers. 

"Arrests 'Major' Blow To Trans-National Gangs."

Here is an excerpt from this article on KETV.com:

"Authorities said they arrested 36 gang members and seized 69 weapons in Omaha and Lincoln Tuesday in a sweeping investigation that officials said dismantled the metro area's role in a  trans-national gang. The weapons included 14 assault rifles and a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle that were sold to a government informant who told the gang members he planned to ship them to Mexico where they'd be used to arm Mexican drug cartels. Law enforcement officials said it was the biggest gun bust in Omaha history and a major blow to the Serenos street gang." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm going to keep this post short and sweet because there's only one thing I want to point out. The .50-caliber sniper rifle mentioned in the story was seized in NEBRASKA and sold by a GANG MEMBER to an informant. It was not purchased in Central America or China or Romania or some former Soviet-bloc country. I grow increasingly frustrated with journalists and so-called analysts that believe military-grade hardware and most other firearms used by DTOs don't actually come from the US, as the US government claims. While I acknowledge that we'll never know the true percentage, this is a great example of how the weapons trafficking problem is NOT exclusive to the southwest border states, and involves even midwest gang members. Huge kudos to Omaha law enforcement for this bust, and I hope we see many more across the country.

"Border Inspections Impeding Traffic."

Here is an excerpt from Mike Allen's article in The San Diego Business Journal:

"Backups at the San Ysidro border crossing are a given, but a recent increase in spot inspections of southbound cars crossing into Mexico could have a devastating impact on business, two San Diego business organizations fear. In a letter sent to newly appointed border czar Alan Bersin, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and the South County Economic Development Council said that while security must be the highest priority of customs officials, “the need to ensure that commerce continues to flow is also extremely important. Outbound checks could have devastating impacts if these operations are done without regard for consequences to the business community and towns adjacent to the border,” the letter said... The increased checks result from enhanced efforts by the United States and Mexico to stop the flow of illegal drugs, guns, cash, stolen cars and fugitives into Mexico... There are times when traffic does back up for extended periods, but customs officers mitigate (the delays) as best as [they] can. Complicating the issue is a proposed vehicle checking program by Mexico announced last month. The program involves using a scale to determine whether a vehicle warrants further inspection. The process, which also involves photographing and checking license plate numbers, would increase the crossing times from 2 seconds to 7 seconds, according to a chamber official." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm sure you've heard the expression (or something similar) that when everything is a priority, nothing is. This letter states that security should be the highest priority, but the flow of commerce is also extremely important. So, which should take priority? It depends on whom you ask. I have a mixed opinion about this letter to Bersin; some of it I find whiny and exaggerated, yet many of the suggestions the Chamber makes sound reasonable. In particular, I'm curious about the complaint that the new inspection system would increase the "scan" time from two seconds to seven seconds. Of course, any small delay can initiate the domino effect and start backing up traffic, but every day, all day, on a continuous basis? I'm sure there will be traffic backups at certain times of day, but I don't know if the new inspection plan would cause the backups that the letter says are likely. 

As for the Chamber's suggestions, here they are: divert checked vehicles to secondary lanes; monitor delays and suspend operations when pre-determined impacts become clear; be more proactive in transmitting information about expected border wait times; and use new state Department of Transportation electronic signs to let drivers know about the wait times. These all sound reasonable, and this sort of traffic management system exists in plenty of metropolitan areas that have highway signs posting wait times. As for diverting checked vehicles, I don't know how easy or difficult that would be, especially if a suspicious vehicle is in the center lane of an eight-lane checkpoint. I also wonder how many of these measures are already ongoing, and if the Chamber and Council inquired about the traffic mitigation measures already in place or being planned before they wrote their letter. I'm trying not to be skeptical, but sometimes people write letters of complaint before doing their homework.

I'm also not completely ignorant of or insensitive to the needs of businesses and people who cross the border daily for business reasons. I'm just trying to put things into perspective regarding any new limitations that might be imposed by southbound inspections. I imagine that any Americans who drive into Mexico every day for work are already used to the sometimes hours-long wait to get back into the US at the end of the day, and just don't want to add an extra half hour or hour to their round-trip commute. Have there been similar letters of complaint to CBP in the past about the long wait to get INTO the US from Mexico regarding the negative impact on businesses? I'm sure there have been, but business has been pretty brisk, the recent economic downturn notwithstanding. I'm just not seeing how a possible delay in southbound traffic would make things so much worse for US businesses along the border when the (probably much longer) northbound delay has been around for so long.

Bottom line, you can't have it both ways. If you want to stop money and guns from going south, you have to check vehicles. I'm not here to argue whether the decision to do that is right or wrong or whose responsibility those checks should be. The delays worry some people, no matter who's doing the checking. But the flow of guns and money, while it probably can't be stopped, needs to be slowed. This is part of the answer right now, and I'm sure we're all curious to see if and how well it works. If the Mexican government had decided to start inbound checks at the border instead of CBP starting outbound checks, I'm curious to whom the Chamber and Council's letter would have been addressed.

"Gun show legislation is a diversion from addressing the real problem of illicit drugs."

Here is an excerpt from J. R. Labbe's column in The Star-Telegram:

"There's a practical reason the proposed law requiring private gun owners to conduct background checks on potential buyers at a gun show is unworkable. Only federally licensed firearm dealers have access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. An individual gun owner, who's paid a rental fee to set up a table at a gun show to sell from a personal collection, can't place that call, which is probably why Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein and Jack Reed think that it's a peachy idea to make it part of federal law. Lautenberg, of New Jersey, recently filed a bill that would "close the gun show loophole" by making a nonlicensed person who wants to sell a gun "use an FFL (Federal Firearms License) at the gun show to complete the transaction." Question: Who's going to force the FFL holder, who's invested a lot of time and money to meet the requirements for getting that license, to take time away from his or her business to run a check for the guy at the next booth? Even if one agrees to do it, there will no doubt be a hefty fee for the service. Say goodbye to private collectors at gun shows." Link to Full Column

Analysis: Well, yes and no. This is a very passionately written opinion column that makes some good points, but there are some items that are not completely correct and need to be clarified.

First, let's talk about the Federal Firearms License, or FFL. You have to apply for one by filling out an ATF Form 7 and following the ATF guidelines for applicants. You CANNOT apply for an FFL for the sole purpose of selling guns at a gun show. The FFL is issued for one location only - the location where you would ostensibly run your firearms business. The FFL will allow you to sell guns at gun shows in the same state for which your FFL was issued, but the key is that you have to have that permanent business location. Also, the license isn't as expensive or time-consuming to acquire as the author might have you believe. The license costs $200, is good for three years, and costs $90 to renew. Yes, you can still sell your weapons to people (in some states) at your home, in a parking lot, or wherever without an FFL. Yes, if a law like this passes, most private sellers will be inconvenienced by not being able to sell their guns at gun shows when they can still legally sell them elsewhere, and there is an element of silliness to that.

Now, legislative and political issues aside, let's talk about something the author doesn't mention, although it probably would have fit right in with her argument. The majority of guns that are purchased in the US by straw buyers are bought LEGALLY, from both licensed and non-licensed gun sellers. The straw buyers have clean backgrounds, fill out all the requisite forms, claim (falsely) that the guns are for personal use, then leave and pass the guns on to whoever is going to transport them south into Mexico. Passing legislation to close the "gun show loophole" and remove non-licensed sellers from gun shows isn't, in my humble opinion, going to make a dent in the weapons trafficking problem because DTO-bound guns can still be bought through existing venues. 

As I've mentioned many times before in this blog, geographical proximity is constantly working against authorities trying to deal with this problem on both sides of the border. The straw buyer methodology is a great one for the DTOs, and unless you outlaw the sale of guns in the US altogether (which will never and should never happen), it's going to keep working. Passing new laws isn't going to help when you're having trouble enforcing existing laws. The focus needs to be on better enforcement, detection, and prevention of straw purchases with the cooperation of the licensed and non-licensed gun-selling community.

"Mexican authorities seize Soviet-era missile in Playa Bagdad."

Here is an excerpt from this article on ValleyCentral.com:

"Mexican authorities are investigating the discovery of a Soviet-era anti-aircraft missile south of where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf Of Mexico. The El Universal newspaper reported that a hotel employee from the beach resort community of Playa Bagdad made the discovery on Thursday night. The newspaper reported that the discovery prompted the mobilization of the Mexican navy, soldiers and police. Authorities seized the missile and searched the area for other explosives but did not find any. El Universal reported that the type of missile seized is fired from a shoulder launcher and has a range of a little over two miles. The newspaper reported that the seized weapon  is a first-generation Soviet military heat-seeking missile." Link to Full Article

Analysis: It's still too early for me to be able to do more than speculate on the origins of this missile, but I'll do just that. The Spanish El Universal article has a few more specifics on the missile capabilities, and I wish the Mexican authorities would have just come out and said the make and model. From what very little I can gather (and again, the better info is in El Universal, if you read Spanish), there's a chance the missile might be an old Soviet SA-7:

"In 1972 the Soviet Union introduced what is known as the SA-7.  It is what is now known as a'1st generation' MANPAD (man portable air defense).  It is a shoulder launched passive IR  seeking missile.  It is passive meaning that it emits nothing that can be detected (such as a laser or radar signal).  It’s basic operation is based on the seeker head.  The head is an uncooled seeker that can detect heat signatures in the medium Infra-Red bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.  This basically corresponds with the energy emitted from the exhaust of an engine." (source: http://en.allexperts.com)

As for what an SA-7 was doing on a Mexican beach (if, in fact, that's what it was), that's anyone's guess. Maybe it fell off a gun-running boat and washed ashore. Maybe an arms shipment was brought to shore there for a DTO and that one got left behind. Maybe it made the trip from Cuba to Mexico because it was unhappy with the Castro brothers and communist rule. Bottom line, there are currently no images available of the missile, and only two news stories that I can find on the incident...not exactly independent confirmation from multiple credible sources. If more information becomes available, I'll post an update.

"Interview with a hitman."

Here is an excerpt from Todd Bensman's article on GlobalPost.com:

"Through Department of Homeland Security contacts, Texas journalist Todd Bensman arranged in November 2008 to interview a former Mexican special forces soldier who went AWOL and joined the Gulf Cartel's notoriously brutal The Zetas enforcement gang. The Zetas are responsible for thousands of murders and for operating houses of torture all along the Mexican side of the Texas border. The cartel foot soldier had left the organization several years prior to the interview, and had become a cooperating witness for the U.S. government in the upcoming trial of extradited Gulf Cartel leader Osiel Cardenas Guillen in Houston. The former gunman was produced for Bensman to interview on strict condition that his name and other revealing details not be publicly disclosed, for his protection. Bensman questioned the Zeta about how his gang procured American weapons." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I'm always up for reading an interview with a former member of Los Zetas or Los Pelones, or any other sicario that used to work for a DTO in Mexico. They don't give interviews to the press very often, and when they do, you have to be careful about what you believe. It's difficult to get good informants to really penetrate the DTO hierarchies, especially into their higher levels, so when information like this is made available to the general public, we want to gobble it up. There are two things to keep an eye on, both with this interview and other rare interviews with former DTO hitmen: the veracity of the information they provide, and the biases or intentions of the interviewer.

First, let's examine the information provided by the subject. He left Los Zetas many years prior to the interview, so there's a pretty good chance that his information regarding cartel operations has changed significantly. In the past year, Los Zetas have left the service of the Gulf Cartel, worked shortly for the BLO, then pretty much struck out on their own. That means there's a chance they're procuring different weapons or from different places. However, there's also a good chance that they had a good thing going with certain guns and certain US suppliers, and not much has changed - we just don't know. The subject identified his organization's weapons of choice as M-16s, AR-15s, and H&K models; that matches up to information the ATF has publicized. However, there seems to be some public dissent (based on blog commentary) regarding how easy (or difficult) it is to convert certain weapons from semi-auto to full auto. Personally, I think an argument can be made for either side, as I've seen convincing information telling me it's easy to convert some weapons and next to impossible to convert others without serious time, equipment, and expertise.

The information the subject provides regarding the movement of guns from the US into Mexico also matches up with what we know from US border agencies. However, I'm a little skeptical about the statements he makes regarding the acquisition of Barret sniper rifles, grenades, and rocket launchers. Those are NOT easily purchased by just anyone in the US, as they are military grade weapons, and are usually obtained elsewhere in Mexico or from other Latin American countries. I am, however, more likely to believe his claims that there wasn't much need to cover up or erase serial numbers or other markings on weapons because either the Mexican police were inept investigators or being paid/threatened to protect the DTOs.

As for the journalist/interviewer, he definitely had an angle, and that was to focus on the southbound weapons trafficking issue. I can't blame him, as that's the hot topic du jour in the media these days. It seemed to me he was trying to make the point that yes, the majority of weapons used by DTOs come from the US. That's fine with me, as that has always been my stance on the issue, and it's fascinating to see that information come "first hand" from a former DTO enforcer. I put that in quotations because there will always be critics of what the subject is saying, or the parts of the interview the journalist or editor selected for publication. I know there is limited time and space for inclusion of parts of that interview, and I would love to know if there was more to it than that. Personally, I would have rounded out the questions a little more, asking more about tactics, training, organization, involvement in human smuggling, kidnapping, etc. Even taken with a large grain of salt, the interview is thought-provoking; hopefully a journalist can soon snag an interview with someone less removed from the action.

"Record number of guns in Mexico traced to the US."

Here is an excerpt from Todd Bensman's article on GlobalPost.com:

"In 2008, a year during which more than 7,000 Mexicans were killed in drug violence, a record number of weapons confiscated in Mexico were traced to U.S. retailers, according to the latest available government data obtained by GlobalPost. The number of traced firearms that originated in the U.S. — 12,073 — is by far the most ever recorded in one year since the U.S. Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives began tracing Mexico's seized guns in 2005. The tracing numbers, which the ATF plans to officially release in a report next month, are significant in that they provide the only statistical indication of the extent to which American guns might be arming Mexico's cartels. In recent weeks, ATF tracing statistics have become increasingly politicized within the U.S. as gun control advocates cite them as grounds for new legislation... Fueling the domestic debate is the fact that no one can really say how many guns in total Mexico has seized, making it impossible to place the number of U.S.-traced weapons in the larger context of Mexican weapons seizures. Mexican authorities have provided widely varying numbers of total guns confiscated." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is a really great article that needs to be read in its entirety, simply because it explains so well the challenge of trying to determine the exact number - or even close - of weapons in Mexico that came from US sources. It's not sensational, it's not politicized, and it does a great job of showing the herculean task the ATF has undertaken in trying to wrap their heads around the southbound weapons trafficking problem.

To sum up, Bensman explains the possibilities of why so many firearms are never submitted to the ATF for tracing: lack of ATF access to Mexican government gun vaults, theft by Mexican military officials who put them on the black market, and lack of training on identifying firearm markings, just to name a few. The ATF clearly states that the Mexican DTOs don't need to go to other countries or sources for most of the guns they want because the US is still the easiest and cheapest source. And no, the majority of firearms being used by DTOs are NOT military grade. Yes, they have .50-caliber Barrett rifles, LAW rockets, RPGs and grenades. No, you can't buy these at a gun shop or gun show. But those are NOT their preferred weapons, not the ones most commonly used, and not the ones most commonly seized.

As I've mentioned in many previous posts on this topic, we will never know the exact number of firearms flowing from the US into Mexico, but rest assured they're flowing, and flowing quite freely at the moment. Don't believe some sensationalist articles saying it's only a small percentage of Mexican DTO guns that come from the US and the 90% figure is just some ploy by the anti-gun people to reinstate the assault weapons ban. That's garbage. While it may not be exactly 90%, it's a heck of a lot more than 17%; thanks to this article, I'm hoping more people will understand why.

"Counting Mexico's Guns."

Here is an excerpt from D'Angelo Gore's analysis on FactCheck.org:

"There's no dispute that thousands of handguns, military style rifles and other firearms are purchased in the U.S. and end up in the hands of Mexican criminals each year. It's relatively easy to buy such guns legally in Texas and other border states and to smuggle them across. But is it true as President Obama said, that "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States?" No, it's not... The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually "recovered in Mexico," but U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing.  Therefore, the percentage of guns "recovered" and traced to U.S. sources necessarily is less than 90 percent. Furthermore, the 90 percent figure is based on a badly biased sample of all Mexican crime guns. Law enforcement officials say Mexico asks the U.S. to trace only those guns with serial numbers or other markings that indicate they are likely to have come though the U.S. Fox News has put the percentage at only 17 percent, but we find that to be based on a mistaken assumption that throws its figure way off. We can't offer a precise calculation because we know of no hard information on the total number of guns Mexican officials have recovered. But if a rough figure given by Mexico's attorney general is accurate, then the actual percentage of all Mexican crime guns traced to U.S. sources is probably less than half what the president claims, and more than double what Fox news has reported." Link to Full Article

Analysis: Thank God that someone on the web with a shred of credibility is making some sense of the US-guns-going-to-Mexico issue. I highly encourage you to read the full article, as it makes a LOT of sense regarding the fact that we'll never really know how many guns are flowing from the US into Mexico, and more importantly, WHY we'll never know. Because of my access to law enforcement data that I can't share here, I'm still more inclined to believe the number is closer to 90% than 34%, but because of the nature of the problem, I wouldn't be all that surprised if the weapons trafficking fairy told me tomorrow that she knew for absolute fact that the number was 72%.

The one serious point I need to make is one that flies in the face of William La Jeunesse's infuriating article regarding the submission of guns recovered in Mexico for tracing. You can NOT tell where a gun was sold by looking at the gun or looking at the serial number. You can tell the company that manufactured the gun, what country the gun was made in, what year the gun was made, and possibly if it was exported to the US. The now infamous Fox News article claims that the Mexican government didn't submit thousands of guns for tracing to the ATF because it could tell by looking at them and their serial numbers that the guns likely didn't come from the US. I'd love to know what fortune teller, psychic, or general wizard they have working for them because they sure could help out DHS. 

Anyway, here's how the tracing thing works. Someone (including the Mexican government) seizes a gun at a crime scene. It either had a serial number or it doesn't (e.g. the number was filed off). If there's no serial number, it can't be traced. Move to the guns that CAN be traced because they have a serial number. IF the gun was previously used in a crime in the US (meaning it was entered into an ATF or other law enforcement agency's database), then the tracing process is easier. If the gun was NOT used in a crime in the US, the ATF has limited courses of action. First, it can find out where the gun was manufactured and go to that company. The company can then tell them the dealer they sold that gun to - but usually only with a warrant. The ATF can then go to that dealer - again, probably with a warrant - and ask them who they sold the gun to. Luck is on the ATF's side if that person is the end of the trail and the ATF can find them. However, in places where individual-to-individual firearm sales are easy (e.g. Texas and Arizona), that gun may have been sold seven times over at a gun show, pawn shop, or in someone's driveway with no records kept. Mind you, a responsible gun owner would always keep records of gun sales just clear his or her own name in such a situation. Still, proving complicity would be difficult at best without a clear trail from that person to the gun's recovery in Mexico.

Bottom line, these are just some of the reasons why tracing guns is a difficult task in many situations, and why we'll never know the real story of the "iron river of guns," as some media outlets have named it. As is often the case, the media has some parts of the story right, but not all. While I certainly don't have all the answers (if I did, I'd be writing books and not blog entries), I hope I encourage you to take these types of stories with a grain, and sometimes a boulder, of salt.

"Houston man sentenced for smuggling guns to Mexico."

Here is an excerpt from Juan A. Lozano's article in The Dallas Morning News:

"A Houston man was sentenced Friday to just over eight years in prison for helping buy more than 100 military-style firearms, some of which ended up in the hands of Mexico's violent drug cartels. Prosecutors say John Phillip Hernandez was one of the main members of an organization of 23 people who purchased 339 weapons in a 15-month period. At least 40 of these weapons have been recovered in Mexico and three have been found in Guatemala, according to court documents. Buying weapons is legal in Texas, but the purchaser must fill out a government form that indicates whether the purchaser plans to keep the gun for himself or give it to a third party. Hernandez claimed the guns were for himself... Prosecutor Mark White said Hernandez knew the guns he bought or had others buy for him at Houston-area gun dealers in 2006 and 2007 were going to Mexican drug cartel members. Informants indicated Hernandez told them the guns would be going to Mexico and that they overheard him talking about the Zetas, the Gulf cartel's infamous hit men, White said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There is a good news side and a bad news side to this story. I'll start with the bad news because I always like to end on a positive note. Had an informant not been involved in this case, prosecutors may never have been able to prove Hernandez was lying and buying guns for other people. That's the big problem for law enforcement - straw purchases are legal purchases (at least from the licensed seller's point of view), and proving the buyer is lying when he says the guns are for his personal use is extremely difficult. As I've said so many times before, it doesn't matter if you outlaw 50 different assault-style weapons. Unless you outlaw ALL weapons (which will never and should never happen), DTOs will send straw buyers to buy something they CAN get legally. There are dozens of "copycat" assault weapons out there, and this is a good example of the desire for them. From the article, it looks like several (if not most) of the rifles bought were Bushmaster .223s, which I think are also called XM-15s. These are what the State of California calls "copycats" of the AR-15. Technically these rifles were never on the list in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, so if the ban existed yesterday, these rifles still would have been legal to sell. Another gun mentioned in the case is the FN 5.7, or FiveSeven. These are perfectly legal to sell, and the article points out they can fire armor-piercing ammunition. That's true, but the FiveSeven can also fire non-armor-piercing ammunition. There are also plenty of other semi-automatic handguns that are not configured into assault-style that can fire armor-piercing ammunition. It's all in the intent, folks; you can outlaw all the guns you want, but criminals and other assorted bad people will find a way to work around it.

So, what's the good news? Just the fact that they were able to catch this guy AND send him to jail. How did they do it? Good investigative work through the use of informants. The cooperation of the Mexican government and law enforcement was also crucial to the case, as the guns seized at crime scenes were obviously turned over to ATF for tracing. Mind you, for all the guys like this that they catch, there are probably at least ten that are getting away with it - the straw purchase system is used for a reason, and it's that it works. That is why (as you've read my words previously in this blog) enforcement of existing laws is the answer to catching these guys, and why law enforcement agencies that investigate these crimes need as much help as they can get.

UPDATE: Seized anti-aircraft gun was a .50-caliber Browning

A Spanish-language article at ElImparcial.com has a considerable amount of detail regarding the weapons seized, including the "anti-aircraft gun" the Agence France-Presse article mentions. I was definitely off-base thinking the gun was an Oerlikon GAI-BO1, but I guess I wasn't thinking  of a .50-caliber gun like the Browning that was seized as a true AA gun, although it can be used for that purpose. 

According to inetres.com: "The M2 .50 caliber machine gun is an automatic, belt-fed, recoil-operated, air-cooled, crew-operated machine gun. This gun may be mounted on ground mounts and most vehicles as an anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapon. The gun is capable of single-shot (ground version M2), as well as automatic fire and was used to a very limited degree as a sniper weapon during the Vietnam war. The weapon provides automatic weapon suppressive fire for offensive and defensive purposes. This weapon can be used effectively against personnel, light armored vehicles; low, slow flying aircraft; and small boats."

The last sentence pretty much answers the questions I posed in my last post regarding what a DTO might use this type of weapon for, although I still think a .50 caliber is overkill, and I still haven't seen any reports of a Barrett or Browning being used against the Mexican army or law enforcement. If any readers have links to news stories of these guns being used against Mexican authorities, please send them my way. I'd also love to hear your theories of why DTOs are going to the trouble of acquiring these cumbersome and powerful weapons if they're just going to collect dust.

"Mexico police seize anti-aircraft weapon near US border."

Here is an excerpt from the Agence France-Presse article on ABS-CBNNews.com:

"Police seized an anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on a van and other heavy weapons at a house in northern Mexico near the US border, an official said Tuesday... The machine gun seized in Sonora state, bordering Arizona in the United States, could fire 800 shots per minute up to 1,500 meters away, said Rodolfo Cruz, from the federal public security ministry, at a news conference. Police also found a grenade launcher, five shotguns, a hand grenade, and scores of magazines and cartridges." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is the kind of seizure I would define as interesting for many reasons. First, it hasn't been widely publicized yet; it was difficult to find a link to the story aside from Agence France-Presse. Second, if the story is true, I think it's strange and oddly amusing that a  Mexican DTO (reportedly the stash belongs to the Beltran Leyva Organization) would possess an anti-aircraft gun. Not only are they enormous and unwieldy, but practical uses for them in an urban setting are limited at best. Regardless, we first need to determine what kind of gun it was. While this may never come out in the media, I did a little bit of research, and my best guess is that it was an Oerlikon GAI-BO1 model. It's a Swiss-made air defense weapon, consisting of an Oerlikon KAB 20mm cannon on a hand-traversed and elevated mounting. It makes sense that, if true, this is the kind of anti-aircraft gun that was seized for a few reasons. First, it's the only anti-aircraft gun used by the Mexican army- or at least it was in 2006. Second, the range for the GAI-BO1 lines up with the information in the article, although the rate of fire is off. Third, it's one of the smallest and lightest anti-aircraft guns in existence, weighing only 547 kilograms(1,203 pounds) - meaning it could ostensibly be mounted on a larger truck or van. That being said, it would be extremely obvious and unwieldy.

Speaking of obvious, the next question would be, what would a Mexican DTO be doing with an anti-aircraft gun? Anti-aircraft weapons have historically been used against low-flying aircraft, and were developed to counter the introduction of aircraft to battle in World War I. As planes have gotten faster and more maneuverable, anti-aircraft artillery, or AAA, has been mostly replaced with surface-to-air missiles. However, plenty of anti-aircraft systems are still in the arsenals of several countries. Given the range and power of these weapons, they're not practical for the typical needs of DTOs and their enforcers, who usually engage in some type of urban warfare. Also for this reason, you hear about seizures of the and DTO interest in .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifles, yet you don't hear much about their actual use. Would a DTO be interested in shooting down a small, slow-flying plane carrying Mexican government officials? Would they be interested in firing on Mexican army personnel in tanks or armored carriers? Would they be interested in assaulting a rival DTO leader's home with extremely heavy firepower so as not to leave anything undamaged? Yes, of course. However, reason for a DTO's possession of such a weapon may be as simple as the possession of a gold-plated handgun - just to say they have one.

"Obama Gets Gun-Shy."

Here is an excerpt from Michael Isikoff and Suzanne Smalley's article in Newsweek:

"In the past, national political leaders might have raised troubling questions about how...an unstable character could obtain easy access to high-powered weapons... Or given that Mexico's insanely violent drug cartels are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons purchased at U.S. gun stores and later smuggled south of the border. Yet many past champions of stricter gun-control measures are silent. These include top Obama White House officials who have squelched any talk within the administration about pushing further gun-control measures. Running for president in last year's Democratic primaries, Barack Obama promised to restore a federal ban on certain semiautomatic assault guns—a position that's still on the White House Web site. The ban was originally passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 and lapsed five years ago. In recent years the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has also lifted virtually all restrictions on imports of foreign-made assault weapons, permitting a flood of cheap Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European AK-47s to enter the country, according to gun-control groups... But Obama and top White House aides have all but abandoned the issue. Emanuel helped orchestrate passage of the original assault-weapons ban when he worked in the Clinton White House. Now he and other White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter." Link to Full Article

Analysis: I've been looking for an excuse to approach the assault weapons ban issue for a week or so, and this is the perfect opportunity. Not because yet another debate over gun control needs to be started, but the true motivation for renewing (or apparently not renewing) the ban should be examined. I'm not a firearms expert, so take my analysis knowing that. However, I was able to do some common sense research, and I came to the conclusion that renewing the assault weapons ban would probably not accomplish much by way of stemming the flow of weapons from the US into Mexico.

The verbiage in the 1994 legislation identifies 19 firearms that qualify as assault weapons under the ban. The legislation also details the features that certain weapons have that also qualify them as assault weapons, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick to the 19 named firearms. They include the Uzi; Steyr AUG; Galil; FN/FAL, FN/FAR, and FNC; North China Industries 56, 84, 86, 320, AKM, and AKS; Polytechnologies AK-47, AK-47/S, AKS; Mitchell Arms AK; SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; Colt AR-15; Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22; Beretta AR-70; and the Street Sweeper/Striker 12 (including USAS 12). The majority of these firearms are 5.56 caliber, although assault rifle calibers can range from 5.45mm to 7.62mm. 

So what kinds of firearms are going to Mexico? The ATF has analyzed firearms recovered in Mexico from 2005-2008 and has identified the following weapons most commonly used by Mexican DTOs: 9mm pistols; .38-caliber revolvers; 5.7mm pistols; .223-caliber rifles; 7.62mm rifles; and .50 caliber rifles. Specifically, certain DTOs are fond of the Fabrique Nationale (FN) FiveSeven pistol and the FN-P90, as well as the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle. 

As most anyone can tell, most of the weapons on the original 1994 ban list are not the ones going to Mexico. Yes, the AK-47 (pictured) and the AR-15 are very popular with the DTOs. However, as I've previously posted, you don't need a whole AK-47 from the manufacturer to get an AK-47, as parts kits for assault weapons are legally available in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. 

So, bottom line, between non-assault weapons, legal parts kits, and the straw purchase method, renewing the assault weapons ban - or enacting other types of gun control laws - would serve more as window dressing than an actual deterrent to the southbound flow of guns.

"The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S."

Here is an excerpt from William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott's article on FOXNews.com:

"You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States... There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one: it's just not true. In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, 'is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.' But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S. 'Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,' Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News" Link to Full Article

Analysis: Because I still work in this business and (a) want to keep my job, (b) want to continue to get good, reliable information, and (c) don't want to get any of my colleagues and contacts in trouble, I can't tell you the names of my sources or the agencies they work for. I can tell you I have it on good authority from a trusted source that not all the information in this article is true, and even the grains of truth that have been pieced together to form this article provide a misleading and inaccurate picture of the weapons trafficking problem that ultimately does a great disservice to the agencies that actively work southbound weapons trafficking issues.

Towards the end of the article, the authors quote the Mexican Ambassador to the US as saying 2,000 weapons from the US are seized per day in Mexico. That's just flat wrong - 2,000 guns per day reportedly FLOW INTO Mexico from the US, which is quite different than saying that many guns are seized daily, and I'm not even sure that number is accurate anyway. And the authors' basic math is really bad. According to the article, 68% of guns recovered by the Mexican government from 2007-2008 were never submitted for tracing. 29,000 guns were recovered, and 11,000 WERE submitted. That means 18,000 were NOT submitted. That's 62% folks, not 68%; if you're going to write an article with information that goes completely against the grain of what's out there on a hot-button topic like weapons trafficking, you have to at least get the basic numbers right. Then the authors combine the guns the ATF could not successfully trace - no reason was provided as to why - and the guns that were never submitted for tracing in the first place into one pile of guns and say that none of those guns could be traced to the US. That DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT COME FROM THE US...that just means no one can prove it through checking a database. Any statistics amateur can tell you that the 6,000 guns submitted for tracing represents a sample of all the guns seized - and a good size sample, at that. If 90% of those guns were successfully traced back to the US, then STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, there's a pretty good chance that somewhere close to 90% of the untraceable guns and guns NOT submitted for tracing came from the US as well. I'm not sure how anyone can tell just by looking at a gun that it definitely was not originally sold in the US; if the authors know such an important fact, why didn't they explain in more detail how this non-US identification is made?

The authors present a lot of statistics in their article, but what is lacking is a considerable amount of context. It's true that many high-powered assault weapons, RPGs, grenades, etc. are not and cannot be [legally] purchased in the US by private  individuals, so those things would not fall within the 90% statistic. What the authors DON'T tell you is that many of those weapons are part of legal government-to-government sales (not just from the US to the Mexican government), and they end up in the hands of the DTOs by various means. Just because those weapons came from El Salvador or South Korea or Israel doesn't mean they were manufactured there - there's still a really good chance they originally came from the US and arrived in Mexico through a more circuitous route. The authors say the standard issue weapon for Mexican army soldiers is the "Belgian-made M-16," which is also untrue. While the Mexican army does use the M-16, the current standard-issue rifle is the FX-05 or the H&K G3. Also, the M-16 is NOT technically Belgian-made, although some aspects are Belgian-designed. The M-16 and its many variants are mostly made by Colt Manufacturing - a US company - and Fabrique Nationale's US subsidiary in South Carolina.

Another disturbing issue the authors don't mention is the legal availabilty of parts kits for assault weapons in the US. According to the Impact Guns Online Superstore website, "[parts] kits are what's left from real AK-47, or AK-47 rifles that were cut in half to destroy them as weapons. Those parts are legal to import since they are not a gun. They are a great inexpensive source of spare parts for your AK, since many AK-47 parts are interchangeable between models. These kits are also made back into legal rifles in the US with American made receivers and semi automatic trigger parts. This is a fun project for those who can do it, but it takes lots of tools and knowledge of metalworking to do a good job. Many of the AK-47 rifles you'll see at a [US] Gun Shop or Gun Show will have been made from these parts kits." The kits and parts for other assault weapons, such as the AR-15, can be legally purchased on numerous websites that are US-based. A DTO-obtained assault weapon put together in the US using AK-47 parts and a US-made receiver would probably fall under the "untraceable" category - but it still originated in the US. I'm also not a fan of the implication the authors make that just because a gun doesn't have a serial number (more and more weapons seized in Mexico have the serial numbers filed off), it probably didn't come from the US. Based on the TYPE of weapon seized (such as a semi-automatic handun or revolver or rifle), you CAN REASONABLY ASSUME it was sold - probably legally - in the US and moved south into Mexico.

I'm not saying that all the information in this article is bad, although it appears I ripped it apart. It's an important point to make that some firearms and other weapons like grenades, RPGs, LAW rockets, etc. come from other countries. It's also true that, technically speaking, of the 29,000 firearms seized in Mexico between 2007-2008, only 17% were successfully traced back to the US. However, the authors conveniently leave out the critical context of firearms that were never submitted or not successfully traced. They also got a LOT of basic facts wrong, and you can't do that when you're a professional journalist working for a major media outlet. This attempt to make headlines through an "exclusive" viewpoint about southbound weapons trafficking just detracts readers from the real problem with confusing statistics and just plain bad information.

IN FOCUS: The Tiahrt Amendment

One of the most common topics currently being discussed in the media is the flow of weapons from the US into Mexico - specifically, the purchase of handguns and rifles in mostly southwest border states for use by Mexican DTOs. Many (especially in Mexico) believe this is a gun control problem; more to the point, a problem that might be mitigated with stricter US gun laws. There have been some articles recently published regarding the "gun show loophole," which allows unlicensed gun sellers (i.e. private gun-owning citizens) to sell guns at gun shows without having to follow the same rules as licensed dealers. I firmly believe that changing gun laws won't make much difference in the overall southbound weapons flow because most of these guns are purchased by "strawmen" who have clean backgrounds. I also believe that increasing law enforcement efforts and getting a better understanding of the overall trafficking problem would go a long way towards mitigating the southbound flow of guns. Unfortunately, the US is shooting itself in the foot (no pun intended) with a little-known piece of legislation called the Tiahrt Amendment that makes the analysis and overall understanding of this problem almost impossible.

The Tiahrt Amendment is named for its original sponsor, US Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)(pictured right).  The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision that members of Congress have tucked into federal spending bills that restricts cities and police from accessing and using ATF trace data from guns recovered in crimes. Trace data can be used solely in connection with a criminal investigation, and only in the jurisdication of the agency requesting the data. Trace data can NOT be used in a civil action, and is inadmissible in court for a civil action. Because trace data can only be shared with law enforcement agencies conducting a criminal investigation, that means it can NOT be shared with analysts (such as myself) who seek to discover trafficking patterns within the US and across the US-Mexico border. For example, if an analyst at DHS headquarters or a southwest border state fusion center requested trace data for guns seized in Mexico because he or she wanted to write an intelligence assessment, the ATF would not be authorized to share that data under the Tiahrt Amendment. Law enforcement agencies are prohibited from sharing the data with each other as well, since the data is restricted by jurisdiction. Even members of Congress wouldn't be able to see trace data unless they were actively involved in the prosecution of a case involving that data.

One would wonder why such an obstacle to information sharing - especially on such an important issue - would be erected and buried in a spending bill. Apparently, the National Rifle Association and other vehemently pro-gun associations very strongly support the Tiahrt Amendment because they feel it will prvent agencies like the ATF from looking up information on private gun owners who are not involved in criminal activity. Being a former law enforcement officer and pro-gun in my own fashion, I think this concern over the invasion of gun owners' privacy is ridiculous - especially at the price of preventing law enforcment officials and analysts from painting an accurate picture of the weapons trafficking problem.

So what does this all mean? While the Tiahrt Amendment is not solely to blame for the US Government's inability to stem the southbound flow of weapons, it is largely to blame for its inability to completely and accurately understand the extent of the problem because the information desperately needed by southwest border analysts is legally restricted to ATF databases. This is NOT knocking on the ATF at all; just the opposite, actually. The ATF has their hands tied by legislation it did not write or approve, and they're just following the law.Yes, the ATF has their own analysts, and they have a better grip on the details and extent of southbound weapons trafficking than any other US agency. But thanks to the Tiahrt Amendment, they can't freely share that information with anyone who asks for it. I imagine there are also considerable political and diplomatic issues surrounding trace data. The US Government has publicly acknowledged it is partly responsible for weapons ending up in the hands of Mexican DTOs. However, the widespread availability of trace data would cause a LOT of finger pointing at certain states and open up the gun law and Second Amendment can of worms.

Fortunately, there is a tiny light on the horizon. From the press reports I've seen, the Obama Administration wants to repeal the amendment. I don't know when this would happen, and exactly what changes would occur in trace data sharing. However, any increase in information sharing between the ATF and federal, state, local, and tribal agencies involved in analyzing weapons trafficking patterns would go a LONG way towards helping our governments REALLY understand just how big this problem is, and what resources to allocate to fight it.

"Arizona judge dismisses charges in gunrunning case."

Here is an excerpt from Tim Gaynor's article on Reuters.com:

"An Arizona judge threw out criminal charges on Wednesday against a gun dealer accused of knowingly selling weapons to smugglers shopping for Mexican drug cartels, after he ruled the prosecutor's evidence was flawed. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield issued a directed verdict of not guilty in the trial of George Iknadosian [pictured left], 47, the owner of X-Caliber guns in Phoenix. Prosecutors alleged Iknadosian sold hundreds of AK-47 assault rifles and other guns to third-party buyers for the cartels in Mexico, where 6,000 people were killed in drug violence last year. The case was the most significant to date brought by U.S. prosecutors seeking to curb the illegal flow of arms south of the border. Gottsfield dismissed the case on the grounds that the prosecutors had not proven the third-party buyers, or "straw purchasers," had misrepresented their identities when buying the guns." Link to Full Article

Analysis: As infuriating as he verdict must have been for investigators and prosecutors, the sad fact is that the system DTOs and strawmen use for purchasing guns and smuggling them into Mexico is a good one - for them, of course. One real problem that is probably going to emerge from this (actually, it's been a point of contention for a while when discussing the southbound flow of weapons) is the debate over gun laws. Some feel that gun bans and tighter gun laws would ameliorate the weapons trafficking issue. Others would rather see Mexico burn to the ground before they'd give up their guns or the right to purchase and own them. 

The problem is NOT gun laws. The problem is the shortage of manpower in law enforcement agencies dedicated to investigating crimes involving guns. The strawmen that buy guns destined for Mexico, in many cases, purchase the guns legally. This means they (or the identity they portray) have a clean background, no criminal history, and are a resident of the state where they purchase the gun. This profile is identical to those of thousands of honest citizens who purchase guns every day for hunting or home protection or other legal uses. The difference is that strawmen KNOW the guns are being sent to Mexico and they lie about it. This is a criminal offense, and so is selling a gun to an individual when the seller KNOWS the guns are intended for that purpose. Proving in a court of law that a gun dealer KNEW for a fact that he or she was selling guns to a straw purchaser, as evidenced by this case, is difficult at best.

So, if the gun purchases themselves are often legal, how do you mitigate the problem? Short of banning the sale of ALL guns - which will never happen - investigation and prosecution after the purchase occurs appears to be the only feasible answer. However, that answer has its own challenges. Law enforcement on the US side or the border needs more funding and more manpower to start making a dent in the investigative process. Mexican law enforcement is dealing with serious corruption issues that prevent an accurate portrayal of the problem, mostly because the corruption affects what weapons are seized and traced in Mexico. Current proposals for US legislation aimed at stemming the southbound flow of weapons indicates the US Government understands how serious the problem is and the assistance that law enforcement agencies along the border require. Hopefully assistance in the form of funding and manpower will manifest itself sooner rather than later.

IN FOCUS: Border violence "spillover"

This is a topic that causes frustration because the term "spillover" is used by so many people and agencies with little consistency or agreement. On almost any given day, you can see several government or law enforcement officials on television saying spillover hasn't happened yet, spillover is happening now, or spillover has been happening for years. So which is it?

Well, the problem lies in the fact that there is no single, standardized definition for border violence spillover. Some agencies are looking for spikes in crime levels on the US side that parallel spikes in crime on the Mexican side. Other agencies are basing their assessments of spillover on case information or anecdotal evidence of Mexican DTO-related crimes occurring in US cities, such as targeted killings or kidnappings. Some officials won't call it spillover unless innocent US citizens (i.e. unrelated to the drug trade) on US territory become DTO targets.

First, let's examine the crime statistics angle. One can assume that crime statistics originating from US law enforcement agencies are reliable because agencies on the US side of the border don't suffer from the same corruption issues as Mexican agencies. However, US crime statistics generally don't differentiate between drug-related and non-drug related crimes. It is entirely possible that murders for a US border city could drop from one year to the next, yet the proportion of drug-related murders can rise in the same year. Also, statistics alone don't account for sociological factors occurring in border cities that may skew the meaning of those statistics, such as changes in immigration patterns or economic declines. Finally, crime statistics for cities on the Mexican side of the border are notoriously inaccurate for various reasons, including corruption, lack of reporting, and investigative ineptitude. Mexican crime statistics also do not differentiate between drug-related and non-drug-related crimes.

Next, let's consider case information or anecdotal evidence. We know from publicly available information that the FBI is investigating an increasing number of cross-border kidnapping cases. We also know that hundreds of people in the southwest border states - mostly affiliated with the DTOs in come way - have been kidnapped for ransom or retribution. According to the US Department of Justice, several US-based gangs are affiliated with Mexican DTOs, either distributing drugs for them or contracting themselves out for hits inside the United States. Depending on which source you believe, anywhere from 90-97% of weapons illegally entering Mexico originate in the United States, with most of them coming from the four southwest border states. So does all this criminal activity that seems obviously related to the Mexican drug trade add up to spillover?

Finally, let's take a look at the US-citizens-as-targets issue. There is almost universal agreement among agencies that in almost all cases of border violence, US citizens NOT associated with the Mexican drug trade in any way, shape, or form are NOT being targeted for violence by DTOs or US-based gangs affilated with DTOs. Occasionally, innocent US citizens do get caught in the cross-fire, but usually it's a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Does this mean that spillover is NOT happening?

Ultimately the issue of border violence spillover is a subjective one, and I believe it can't be proven one way or another. I think a strong argument can be made for either position. However the next time you see or hear someone authoritatively trying to say spillover is happening or isn't happening, ask them what their sources are or what proof they have...I'd sure love to see it.