The Tiarht Amendment

Don't know if you've seen anything about this.

The Tiarht Amendment has been a perfect example of how media outlets can put forth blatant lies about firearm issues and get away with it. Many, many newspapers wrote scathing editorials and articles about this piece of legislation. Despite all of that, the Amendment passed because legislators understood it to be common sense protection that was demanded by the people.


Background

The Tiarht Amendment was proposed to stop self-appointed nannies like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and liberal anti-gun think tanks posing as university researchers from their latest attempt to rid our country of firearm ownership. Since gun bans and ammo regulations haven't been working for them the past few years, they've had to think outside the box for how to get around the Second Amendment. Their answer? Frivolous Civil Lawsuits!

These anti-gun zealots, who are NOT law enforcement officials, took it upon themselves to try and find out where guns used in crimes were originally sold. It's important to note that these original sales were completely legal... otherwise, laws already on the books would have been broken. But like I said, they had to create a convoluted work-around.

Bloomberg and his deceptive cronies were suing gun shops and original owners in civil court over crimes that involved handguns that were either legally sold five or six times after they left the shop or just plain stolen in home robberies and used illegally years later. Is this really about justice? Of course not. The original shops and owners did nothing wrong. This is only about litigating gun shops out of business by forcing them to pay costly legal fees. Mom and Pop shops can't compete with limitless funds from NYC tax coffers.

Imagine that you legally sold a car in 1997. That car has legally been bought and sold ten times since then and was unfortunately used in a bank robbery last week. Then you get sued. Sound about right?

Anyway, you'll read below a very typical rant about the Tiarht Amendment and my response that was published in the same paper. It's important to note that the Editorial staff of the Hamilton News Journal either was completely ignorant about this legislation, or they were purposely lying to their readers.

The Amendment in no way hinders criminal investigations like they claim. It merely ensures that private information can stay out of the hands of those that have no use for it except for abuse. It's also important to note in my rebuttal who is in support of the Tiarht Amendment. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). You know that this has to be good legislation because there is certainly no love lost between firearm owners and the BATFE.


Hamilton News Journal Misleading Drivel:

Keeping Gun Data Secret is Criminal

There is nothing the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm won't say or do to protect manufacturers and dealers of guns recovered at crime scenes. In fact, it hasn't had to say much as red-meat Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats flock to aid its cynical cause.

Nothing illustrates this more than what has come to be known as the Tiahrt Amendment — and the shameless debate about it in the U.S. House of Representatives last week...

The amendment greatly restricts federal law enforcement agencies' ability to share information about guns recovered in criminal investigations. Before its passage, federal gun data had been used by researchers at top universities studying violent crime. It also shined an unflattering light on the gun industry...

When cities filed lawsuits against manufacturers and dealers, alleging they knew or should have known their guns were being used in criminal enterprises, the NRA swooped in...

The reality is that police chiefs across the nation (including in Cincinnati, Cleveland and Toledo) have been lobbying for reversal of the Tiahrt amendment. They dispute every point made by the NRA, and argue that gun data can be released in ways that protect lawful gun owners' privacy, prevent disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information and still render the data useful in reining in rogue gun dealers.

Local law enforcement agencies may use gun-trace data when related to specific cases under investigation. But they can't share the data with other agencies except in limited circumstances. And they can't look at the bigger picture so they can understand who's selling large quantities of weapons used to commit crimes.

The House debate last week was a charade. Politicians from both parties eagerly mouthed the NRA's talking points. Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., talked tough about advocates from both sides, suggesting that they act "like adults rather than thugs." Then he voted against opening up the data...

It was pathetic. The majority of members used a phoney case to curry favor and
avoid attack by the NRA. They put their political convenience ahead of public safety.

My Response:

Amendment Does Not Help Criminals

I am writing to correct many erroneous statements in the July 24 editorial opinion entitled "Keeping Gun Data Secret is Criminal" that discusses the Tiahrt Amendment for preservation of the privacy rights of law-abiding firearm owners that have not committed a crime.

Your editorial's opinion is that the U.S. House of Representatives "eagerly mouthed the NRA's talking points." That's difficult to substantiate, since many constituents, like myself, urged their representatives to support the Tiarht Amendment. This was a case of representatives listening to the people.

I also find it rather ironic that the editorial mentioned the phrase "talking points" at all since your piece did a fair job of merely repeating false anti-gun rhetoric in alleging that the amendment "greatly restricts federal law enforcement agencies' ability to share information about guns recovered in criminal investigations." This is not the case and is easily proven if one actually takes a few minutes to read the amendment.

The FY 2007 version of the Tiahrt Amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. That is a direct quote from the legislation.

Also, your editorial listed as many as three individual police chiefs in opposition to the Tiahrt Amendment. That is certainly interesting, but not as interesting as the fact that the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, join the BATFE in support of it.

I respect the preferences of those two collective groups more than a few rogue individuals. A strongly worded letter of support can be found on the FOP Web site.

The truth is that the Tiarht Amendment merely protects against witch hunts meant to seek out and harass law-abiding gun owners that have done nothing wrong. It does nothing to impede criminal investigations.

The FOP letter of support I referenced can be read HERE.

An editorial from the Toledo Blade with the same blatant lies can be read HERE.

Same story from the Columbus Dispatch can be read HERE.

Both of those newspapers chose not to print my response. Wouldn't want those pesky facts to get in the way of a misleading, biased rant.