Tiahrt Amendment Kept FBI, CIA from Learning Fort Hood Shooter was Buying Handguns

26 Comments

MadRocketScientist • Nov 10, 2009 @12:56 pm

Soooo, we should repeal a law that protects gun owners from overly invasive law enforcement because said law enforcement MIGHT have seen that a guy who was on a watch list (a list that considers 1600 names a day for addition) just bought two handguns that would not be considered unusual, especially since the guy in question was in the Army, and was an MD.

Yep, we should further the police state on the hope of a lot of if's and maybe's. Of course, we could also have allowed US service men & women to carry their weapons on them. I mean, they are trained in the safe and proper handling of such tools in intense and chaotic situations.

We don't ask police to disarm themselves while in the precinct building.
Jdog • Nov 10, 2009 @1:04 pm

Now, I’m not suggesting that the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment would have avoided the shooting…

Just as well; you wouldn't want to lose your reputation for sagacity.

And, yup, Obama had quite a history as a gun control zealot prior to his Senate run, attempted to downplay it during his Presidential one, and, in fact, signed the law allowing for carry in National Parks (in those states where it's otherwise lawful), actually expanding self-defense/2A rights ever so slightly.
Ken • Nov 10, 2009 @1:30 pm

I'm in favor of a more libertarian approach to all law enforcement, not just enforcement of gun laws. My main critique of things like the Tihart Amendment is that they are utterly irreconcilable with the approach the government has taken to nearly ever other type of civil liberties question since 9/11. Though I think the concern that MadRocketScientist expresses concerning law enforcement intrusion into the affairs of lawful gun owners is entirely legitimate and arguable, I can't comprehend why that concern is more legitimate, or pressing, than any of a hundred or a thousand other civil liberties concerns that have been swept aside because they don't involve a hot-button issue like guns.
MadRocketScientist • Nov 10, 2009 @1:52 pm

I agree Ken, but Ezra picked the topic.
Ezra • Nov 10, 2009 @2:30 pm

I would love to live in a world where invoking the term police state in an internet debate had the same effect as invoking Hitler.

The fact is that with the restrictions placed on law enforcement by Tiahrt, there is no chance of even connecting any dots having to do with a shooting. The idea that the FBI & CIA are now going to hide behind Tiahrt to say there was no way they could have seen this coming is just one more reason to get rid of these overly restrictive amendments. Why shouldn't we give law enforcement the means to properly investigate crimes?

By the way, you are aware that it is the US Military that forbids possession of weapons on bases, not this shadow government you are so concerned about. And frankly, having lived on a Navy base for a year I agree. The number of fights I saw on that base were shocking. Heck, we weren't even allowed to play tackle football (although that was also an injury issue they said..)

Jdog, Obama was actually pretty vocal about repealing Tiahrt even when he was running for president (check out the link above from his "Office of the President-Elect" plan) but has (in a common theme for him) pretty much dropped that as soon as he was elected.
Patrick • Nov 10, 2009 @2:44 pm

I'm sure the police would love to live in that world too Ezra.
Valhawk • Nov 10, 2009 @2:59 pm

[sarcasm]Ezra's right. We should stop preventing police from doing their jobs just because their methods are distasteful or illiberal. Clearly, after the repeal of Tihart we should repeal laws that prevent racial profiling as well. After all, any tool to lower crime is a good one.[/sarcasm]
Ken • Nov 10, 2009 @3:31 pm

Ezra knows that I disagree with him on gun issues. We're both at peace with that.

But can anyone explain to me why, if we are so scrupulous about letting the government rummage through gun purchase records, we are not cautious about letting the government rummage through, say, library book-borrowing records? is there some principled distinction I'm missing — or is it all about NRA money?
Patrick • Nov 10, 2009 @3:45 pm

Ken, it's partially because book publishers don't put their weight behind librarians the way gun manufacturers do behind gun owners. It's also partially because many librarians are public employees, and are afraid to mess with the government, or generally trust it. I know many librarians. They don't make noise. They like things quiet. The media also don't consider library stories sexy, so we hear less. The American Library Association is also a shitty professional advocacy group, Castro-loving stooges among whom jackboot-kissing lickspittles like Ezra would be right at home.

But I think it mainly comes down to culture and subculture. Honestly Mister Ex-Government Stooge, if I present you with limited information about two people, and ask which is going to cause more trouble and raise more ruckus, over anything you do which may violate rights?

A) Gun-owner; or

B) Librarian.
Ezra • Nov 10, 2009 @4:22 pm

Here's the thing, "distasteful and illiberal" are such subjective terms as to be meaningless. The fact is that (as Ken has pointed out) they keep law enforcement from gaining information on gun users that they can find on library users. That is insanity.

Funny story about the NRA supporting gun manufacturers.. ask them about Smith & Wesson.
MadRocketScientist • Nov 10, 2009 @4:50 pm

My wife is a Librarian, and she'd take quite a bit of exception to be labeled as afraid to mess with the government. As a matter of fact, they do just that quite often. They just happen to do it quietly (they are librarians, after all).

Yes, I know that base commanders have the final say regarding the carrying of weapons on base, I never said they didn't. I just find it unfortunate that soldiers are just fine carrying weapons in theater, but back home, it is verboten. I'd be interested in what exactly brought about that position among the brass.

And Ezra, I was in the Navy (early 90's), assigned to various Navy bases & a USMC base (Pendleton). Fights were extremely uncommon on base, at duty stations, in the barracks, or at the E-club. Not only were fights rare, we played full contact sports, and even had boxing matches, so don't generalize your experience to all.

Finally, we are going to have to disagree. I am firmly against law enforcement data mining US citizens without some kind of warrant or evidence of a crime, especially with their willingness to use a scatter shot approach to identifying persons of interest. Tiahart is fine by me, and I think any form of non-specific data-mining of US citizens to be unacceptable.

I certainly don't want my name to magically appear on a terror watch list and then get a visit from the FBI the next time I decide to pick up a firearm.
Ezra • Nov 10, 2009 @4:56 pm

Do you feel the same way about driver's licenses? Should that information be withheld from the shadow government? Or (as with a lot of gun background check information) destroyed after a week?
Jdog • Nov 10, 2009 @5:08 pm

Is there some reliable history of misuse of DL information by opportunistic politicians?
Jdog • Nov 10, 2009 @5:18 pm

Ezra knows that I disagree with him on gun issues. We’re both at peace with that.
Which is, all in all, as it should be. Even though he is wrong, wrong, and, oh, wrong.
Ezra • Nov 10, 2009 @5:36 pm

So much for my sagacity…
Ken • Nov 10, 2009 @5:37 pm

He feels that I am equally wrong, wrong, wrong on a number of issues. But I have an enormous amount of respect for Ezra, despite my many disagreements with him. Which is how it should be among decent people.
Ezra • Nov 10, 2009 @5:48 pm

And it is my affection for Ken and Patrick that keeps me battering against these damn Libertarian windmills…

By the way, I would be willing to bet that drivers license records have been misused far more than anything protected by Tiahrt. And, I would win that bet.
Patrick • Nov 10, 2009 @6:32 pm

As ridiculous as he is, Joe the Plumber comes to mind as an innocent whose DMV records were misused. They were sold to the New York Times.
MadRocketScientist • Nov 10, 2009 @7:35 pm

Good question Ezra. Exactly what information can a person glean from a DL or DMV record? I honestly don't know.
Jdog • Nov 11, 2009 @5:25 am

So much for my sagacity…
Nah. You've got faith in this whole "gun control" thing. Some folks believe in holy crackers, others that the Big Juju gets ticked off if you wear a cotton-poly blend. Each to his own.
Chris • Nov 11, 2009 @8:29 am

Librarians tended to respond to being told that the government would snoop through their records by making sure all of their records were anonymized and/or self-destructing. Which is kind of a pain for those of us who would like to be able to view our checkout history, actually.
MadRocketScientist • Nov 12, 2009 @8:01 am

More on the investigation
Charles • Nov 12, 2009 @8:48 am

I'd like to go on record as being in favor of sexy librarians.
CTD • Nov 12, 2009 @1:22 pm

Ezra,

You seem rather ill-informed about what Tiahrt does. It prevents the BATFE from sharing data about gun traces with anyone accept law enforcement involved in a bonafide criminal investigation or prosecution. Without going into too much detail, this more or less will tell just one thing: where and when the gun was originally legally purchased (or any other FFL that owned it). As there is no question as to where Hasan obtained his weapon, I fail to see of what relevance Tiahrt is to this particular case. As the BATFE had likely never run a trace on a new gun, there would be no data for them to share with anyone.
Sebastian • Nov 12, 2009 @2:53 pm

I'm afraid you're wrong about Tiahrt. It doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about here. I do my best to explain here
Ian Argent • Nov 12, 2009 @3:49 pm

As I suspected – MAIG is "managing" the truth quite well. – See http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/12/you-cant-blame-tiahrt/ with quotes from US Code to support.