23 replies to this topic

[Ike]

Veritas:

No offense intended, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of eTrace.

You said: "E trace exists so that local police can find out the last known lawful possessor of the gun."

That's not how eTrace works. eTrace only identifies the first lawful owner of the gun. It does not and cannot identify the last lawful possessor.

So, in your example, with the gun found at the side of the road.... A trace is run and the first purchaser is identified - who had sold it five years ago at a flea market. He replies to the police, "Oh, yeah. I lost it a couple of years ago, I'm glad you found it!" The police return it to him. Everybody's happy now, right?

What you actually described is a firearms "Registration System", not eTrace. A "Registration System" would show who the last legal owner (not possessor) was. In a perfect world, a registration system would indeed, be helpful in identifying the last owner. However, Firearms Registration Systems are specifically prohibited by Congress - because this isn't a perfect world, and registration systems would be misused for political reasons. Some political fool would decide that all .32 pistols are now prohibited (just like Canada) - and a registration system would allow ATF to go confiscate all of them.

So, are you saying that the NCIC code is used to separate out all the non-criminal traces so dealers aren't dinged with those 'crime gun' traces? It doesn't look that way to me.

And, yes, Mexican police do have access to eTrace reports. All we have to do is read the ATF press releases and back-up documents.....

Don't foget that ATF has perverted the definition of "bona fide" LE investigation to include "might have been used in a crime". Well, hell, my Swiss Army Knife 'might' have been used in a crime..... or my ball point pen 'might' might have written a bad check before I found it.... The citation is included in a previous post of mine.

[Veritas]

Old Guy: Sounds like your friend did not exercise his right to take the matter into federal district court. I would have advised him of his right to do that and thereby be able to subpoena ATF personnel and records for defense of his license. Making a false written statement is a federal crime. Did he contact DOJ OIG? The US Attorney's office in his judicial district? Can you explain why he did not exercise his right to take the matter into federal district court?

[Veritas]

IKE: You ask some valid questions. Example: A firearm is recovered by local police on the side of I-95. They run it in NCIC with negative result and have no other info on the firearm. E trace exists so that local police can find out the last known lawful possessor of the gun. Again it does not mean that the last lawful possessor did anything criminal, just a lead to follow. Maybe it was stolen but for some reason the owner did not record the serial number? Its hard to find a gun without a unique identifier like a serial #. Maybe by tracing it it could be returned to the rightful owner. Probably a good reason to trace the gun. Do you agree? There is also a NCIC code that is attached to each trace indicating in what type of situation that LE came into possession of the firearm. According to the Tiahart amendment trace data is restricted to LE for legit investigative purposes. I agree with you that I would not trust Mexican LE and would restrict their access to etrace. I dont even know if they have access to e-trace. However that decision is way above my paygrade. I dont think that LE personnel need to be told by a disclaimer that trace info is just information. They teach the definition of probable cause in every police academy in the US and your name on a trace report is not PC.

[Old Guy]

To Veritas, My friend related to me that he understands that administrative process. It sounds really good in theory, just like the ATF personnel issues described on this forum.... However, it doesn't always work quite that way, does it? My same friend went through a license revocation hearing some years ago. Through FOIA, he obtained a copy of the inspector's report from ATF and discovered that the inspector lied about the major violation on the report, and then actually contradicted the lie (in a subtle way) later in the report, which conclusively proved it was a lie. This was pointed out to the Hearing Officer. It made no difference. My friend reported the lie to Internal Affairs, and they flew an IA agent (at considerable expense, I'm sure) to take my friend's account. IA was shown the evidence and received copies. Nothing further was heard, and ATF proceeded with the revocation. What was the outcome, you ask? It wasn't long afterward, the inspector was prominently featured in the news, in a high-profile firearms raid - as the lead agent..... He had been promoted to agent. Which left my friend scratching his head. This is not to denigrate those good, honest ATF agents - and I've known some. But it's clear there are some others.

[Ike]

As an addendum to my previous response to Veritas....

If, what you say is true, then the Firearms Trace Summary should have a huge disclaimer stating that "The companies and individuals listed are not suspects and should only be considered to identify trends." I'm sure the Mexican police will understand that the next time the first purchaser takes a trip to Mexico.....

If eTrace is intended to help identify trends, why does ATF urge Law Enforcement to trace every gun they come in contact with? What kind of statistical (or criminal) 'trend' would that identify? Perhaps it might best be described as, "These are the guns we traced", and nothing else. As another author specifically put it, "There is no need to carefully evaluate the data or the analyses; they are worthless." Remember the "Garbage In, Garbage Out" data processing principle? ATF would like to convince us that it's "Garbage In, Gospel Out". Such is not the case. You simply cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Non-related data will always skew statistics.

ATF continues to refer to traced guns with false and misleading “catch-phrases”. They falsely call every traced gun a “crime gun”. They create meaningless and misleading statistics on “Time to Crime” (more accurately “time to law enforcement possession” or “Time to Trace”), mythical "Most Popular Crime Guns" (nothing more than most often traced) and "Source States for Recovered Firearms" which implies illegal gun trafficking but can be entirely legal interstate used gun transfers or people simply moving to a different state. ATF deliberately uses misleading phrases and is being openly and fundamentally dishonest with Law Enforcement, Congress, the American People, and their own employees.

I came to no conclusion that Mexican police are corrupt. The Mexican government did that for me, "MEXICO CITY — Mexico's federal government and army are intervening in local police forces to purge their ranks of corrupt officers....." And the State Department...., "WikiLeaks: U.S. State Department estimates 50% of mexican police works for drug cartels".

I have no personal doubt corruption is why Operation "Fast and Furious" didn't notify Mexican authorities. That was fine so long as the operation remained within U.S. borders. However, when the first gun walked to Mexico, the entire dynamic changed and that policy should have immediately reversed.

Obviously, I have a lot of passion for this subject, and for that, I apologize. I realize it affects the objectivity of my writing.....

[Zorro]

Interesting that you come to the conclusion that Mexican authorities are corrupt. Perhaps that was a factor in why operation fast and furious was conducted without the Mexican authorities being involved.

No way to know. Other than denying the operation existed (coughing), there has been no explanation. If anything that would seem to be one more reason why guns should not have been cut loose across the border. Scattering firearms like chaff in the wind might look a bit risky to reasonable people.

[Ike]

Veritas:

You said, "Firearm tracing is simply an investigative tool to identify trends." You should take another look at a Firearms Tracing Summary. It has nothing to do with trends, and has everything to do with identifying the first purchaser by name, address, SSN with other personal info, and how many other guns he purchased. And, it has everything to do with identifying the selling dealer by name, address and phone number. Don't think you could classify this information as a 'trend', and I doubt if the Mexican police understand it that way.

As far back as 1992, and as recently as 2009, the Congressional Research Service has warned about the use of statistics from ATF's tracing system. "The ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics." It doesn't look like the Congressional Research Service agrees with you, either....

But I could be wrong.....

[Veritas]

As a standard follow up to an inspection noting severe internal control problems/violations a warning conference is held. You should advise your friend to bring a lawyer and the documents from ATF that you are referring too in your posting. At this time a response/explanation to the noted violations is discussed and considered. Any violation deemed unsupported by findings can be eliminated. Any formal complaint alleging retaliation against the FFL can be also be discussed with the ATF division counsel or OPRSO. If you don't want to report to ATF directly contact the DOJ inspector general's office and file a complaint. Any inappropriate/unprofessional conduct must be identified and corrected, however if the violations are valid then it kind of is what it is. In my experience there are two sides to every story. ATF is used to operating in a environment where it has to justify any corrective action it takes against an FFL. Therefore ATF puts its findings in writing uses documentation to support its violation report. Hope this helps.

[Veritas]

IKE: think you are misrepresenting how ATF uses trace data at the investigative level. Firearm tracing is simply an investigative tool to identify trends. Trends are not evidence of a crime. It takes an agent/analyst to investigate to see if there is any criminal conduct going on. No one is identified as a suspect in a criminal investigation based only on his/her FFL or purchase being involved/associated in a trace. Interesting that you come to the conclusion that Mexican authorities are corrupt. Perhaps that was a factor in why operation fast and furious was conducted without the Mexican authorities being involved.

[Ike]

Zorro: I think you nailed it....

Winston:

Firearms Trace Summary Report as produced for each firearm trace and provided to the LEA who requested the trace.

Actual examples:
Page 1 http://upload.wikime...f1/ETrace-1.jpg
Page 2 http://upload.wikime...17/ETrace-2.jpg

This ATF report contains no disclaimer that the report identifies only the first purchaser, who may have no connection to the person found in possession of the firearm, nor any disclaimer of presumed innocence of the first purchaser nor of the selling dealer. This report is provided to foreign police, including Mexican police (with well-known corruption issues) from the bilingual eTrace program provided to Mexico and elsewhere.

* Firearm Information: Manufacturer, Model, Caliber, Serial Number, Type (Pistol, Rifle, etc.), Country of manufacture & Importer.

* Recovery Information: Recovery date, "Time to Crime" (age of firearm), Recovery address.

* Purchaser Information: (First purchaser only). Purchase Date, Full Name and Full Address, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Race, Sex, Social Security Number (may be redacted for foreign traces), Drivers License Number, Height, Weight. [Note: The essential information for identity theft - provided to foreign police - some with known corruption issues]

* Dealer Information: FFL Number, Name and Full Address, Phone Number, Ship Date (Date of Receipt).

* Summary of Results: Narrative by ATF of the trace results.

* Additional Dealer Information: Full transfer path from Importer or Manufacturer, to Distributor, to Dealer. Includes Full Name and Full Address of each, Point of Contact Name, Dealer Notes, Associated Traces (All other traces connected to dealer), Phone Number, Fax Number, FFL Number, Invoice Number (if any), Date of Last ATF Inspection

* Additional Individual Information: All information from 'Purchaser' above, plus: Criminal History, AKA (Alias) Name, AKA Date of Birth, Associated Traces (All other traces or multiple gun purchases for that last name and Date of Birth)

* Recovery Location: All the information in 'Recovery' above, plus Type of Recovery (On Person, etc), detail Vehicle Information (including license number), all other traces for that Street Name, City and State.

Note: The individual purchaser is only the first purchaser of the firearm - who may well be completely innocent. The firearm may have been resold many times prior to the trace, and there is no disclaimer.

The Individual Information provides "Associated Traces" which lists the number of known guns purchased by all individuals with the same last name and date of birth. None of these 'associated traces' may have any connection with the person listed. How many persons named Smith or Jones, or Garcia, or Martinez were born on the same date? I suspect it might be many. Therefore, this number has little meaning and is absolutely misleading - especially applied to the first purchaser of the firearm who may no longer have any connection with it.

As a direct result of this one trace, the selling dealer will become a 'suspect' because of all the 'crime gun' traces, and the first purchaser will become a 'suspect' even though both may be completely innocent.

Remember that the average age of traced Mexican seized guns, is over 14 years (called "Time to Crime"). How many times has the gun been resold since the first purchase? How likely is it that the first purchaser had anything to do with trafficking?

Since Mexican police (and all other foreign police) have absolutely no jurisdiction in the United States, why the hell are we providing the names, addresses and personal information of innocent American gun owners? Is this not an open invitation for corrupt police to send their buddies to find out what other guns this gun owner may have bought? (In the middle of the night, of course) Oh, wait. Those U.S. origin guns will pad the statistics even more! Oh, well.....

For those guns with a short "Time to Crime".... Every time a recent AK-47 or AR15 is traced from Mexico, the Mexicans will get a copy of the Tracing Summary. What a wonderful way for ATF to advertise to corrupt Mexican cops which dealers may be a good source of guns for future trafficking. ATF thoughtfully provides the dealers names, addresses and phone numbers, and kindly notes how many other 'crime guns' the dealer has sold. Wow! Cartel members no longer need to look in the Yellow Pages - thanks to ATF's wonderful bilingual eTrace system! Let your fingers do the walking! (Gunwalking, that is)

Now, if you throw 'Operation Gunwalker' into the mix...... Each of those "cooperating FFLs" will have their names, addresses and phone numbers repeatedly reported to (corrupt?) Mexican cops. (They might want to think twice about that vacation in Mexico....) ...and, for every gun recovered in Mexico, ATF will ding their FFL with multiple 'crime gun' "Associated traces". Wow! Free advertising!

This concludes eTrace 101. But stay tuned. More will follow as time allows.

[The Shadow]

Here's a factual story from an FFL point of view. This directly relates to Professionalism in ATF.

A friend of mine is an FFL who was dealing with an ATF employee in Martinsburg. The ATF employee (not an agent!) was giving the FFL a hard time and giving him a bunch of bull regarding a technical issue. The FFL tried to respectfully disagree with the employee, but was rudely rebuffed. There was no supervisor to talk to.

So, the FFL contacted his Congressman. Shortly afterward, the ATF employee (clearly angry) called the FFL. The employee mentioned the Congressional contact, and told my friend he was going to call for a special annual inspection on him - which was clearly a threat. Now, by law, an annual inspection is not supposed to be used as a pretext for an investigation of the FFL. Didn't make any difference. Within 30 days, multiple 'investigators' (as inspectors are now called) arrived at the FFL's shop, and commenced their 'inspection'.

The FFL had been through many previous inspections before, and knew what to expect. However, this inspection went way beyond any previous one. Rather than do a random inspection, he was told the inspection would be 100%, going back years. The most obvious clue was that the investigators photographed his entire 'bound book'. They came back later with all the images printed out, and went through it, line by line. Weeks later, they completed their 'annual inspection' and provided the FFL with a list of his 'violations'. Some 'violations' were practices that are specifically allowed by ATF publications. Other 'violations' were simply made up out of whole cloth. In other words, there were no regulations or laws that required the practice. Yet other 'violations' were bookkeeping practices for which my friend had a letter from ATF HQ, specifically allowing!

My friend said nothing further to the Investigators, and they left.

Is it not illegal for ATF to retaliate in this manner? Or, if it is legal, it's certainly unprofessional.

Old Guy,

I find something in your story very hard to believe. I cannot believe you are writing about an FFL and not about an Agent working for ATF. That is exactly the way a lot of ATF management treats the Agents. If you cause the slightest wave you will be hit the same way your friend was and with the same intentions, to suspend, fine, or drive you out. Between NForce violations, the Orders, and the ever changing way to do the endless forms in the office it is easy to make the life of an Agent quite miserable. An Agent told me a story about when ATF did an office inspection which includes the evidence vault. The vault custodian had a reputation of following all the rules and the vault was beyond reproach. After they had finished inspecting it and they were unable to find anything to "gig" the vault on, the vault custodian was told to find something that they could gig him for. He was told that they had to find a violation in the vault no matter what condition it was in. He questioned why he should continue to do such a great job without error if they had to find fault even when there was none. He said he was told that is just the way it is. So tell your friend he was treated the same as the Agents in ATF and welcome to the ATF Family my brother.

[Snake bite]

Old Guy,

Let your FFL friend that he is being treated exactly like the ATF management treats the non-management investigators and inspectors in ATF. I have watched it happen again and again by the spineless, wishy washy "managers" within ATF. If an employee refuses to kiss the ring of the management team the underling becomes a blip on the management radar screen. As the light gets brighter the spineless managers continue to try to frame the working agents and inspectors. When the SES gang realizes they can't find a legitiment violation committed by the worker, the SES gang fabricates a charge that is not a violation of anything and charges the worker bee. The SES fool who initiated the allegation convinces their fellow SES gang members to back up their made up violation and the agent or inspector is forced to take their lumps and go on.

The technique being used against your friend is typical of how many of the "leaders" within ATF operate. I do not condone it, I do not like it and it makes mad that ATF treats their employees like $h*&. I am embarrassed that the agency that I chose to join treats the public as poorly as they treat their employees.

I hope Congress gets ATF management under control and the working atmoshpere gets better within ATF. In turn, hopefully the experience the public has with ATF will improve.


-SNAKE BITE out

Here's a factual story from an FFL point of view. This directly relates to Professionalism in ATF.

A friend of mine is an FFL who was dealing with an ATF employee in Martinsburg. The ATF employee (not an agent!) was giving the FFL a hard time and giving him a bunch of bull regarding a technical issue. The FFL tried to respectfully disagree with the employee, but was rudely rebuffed. There was no supervisor to talk to.

So, the FFL contacted his Congressman. Shortly afterward, the ATF employee (clearly angry) called the FFL. The employee mentioned the Congressional contact, and told my friend he was going to call for a special annual inspection on him - which was clearly a threat. Now, by law, an annual inspection is not supposed to be used as a pretext for an investigation of the FFL. Didn't make any difference. Within 30 days, multiple 'investigators' (as inspectors are now called) arrived at the FFL's shop, and commenced their 'inspection'.

The FFL had been through many previous inspections before, and knew what to expect. However, this inspection went way beyond any previous one. Rather than do a random inspection, he was told the inspection would be 100%, going back years. The most obvious clue was that the investigators photographed his entire 'bound book'. They came back later with all the images printed out, and went through it, line by line. Weeks later, they completed their 'annual inspection' and provided the FFL with a list of his 'violations'. Some 'violations' were practices that are specifically allowed by ATF publications. Other 'violations' were simply made up out of whole cloth. In other words, there were no regulations or laws that required the practice. Yet other 'violations' were bookkeeping practices for which my friend had a letter from ATF HQ, specifically allowing!

My friend said nothing further to the Investigators, and they left.

Is it not illegal for ATF to retaliate in this manner? Or, if it is legal, it's certainly unprofessional.

[Winston Smith]

Data manipulation is our business and business is good. One of ATF's strategies to get more of your money is to say "look at all these traces" - we need more money, more people, more managers. The data is also used to implement agendas. Look at this evil firearm. This model was traced 437 times in 10 years. No explanation of how many gazillion traces were conducted in the same time frame, no context of how it comapares to other types traced, and no research of the traces to confirm or refute the actual use in a violent crime.

Well, the USMS do the same data manipulation regarding arrests made by other agencies yet "processed" by their cell block even though all they did was print and photograph the person. Ever see a rap sheet? Even though another agency made the arrest, the USMS has the same arrest date for "firearm offenses." They are the best at claiming "we need more $, more people, look @ all our arrests." Don't even get me started on the Fat Boys.

[Zorro]

Data manipulation is our business and business is good. One of ATF's strategies to get more of your money is to say "look at all these traces" - we need more money, more people, more managers. The data is also used to implement agendas. Look at this evil firearm. This model was traced 437 times in 10 years. No explanation of how many gazillion traces were conducted in the same time frame, no context of how it comapares to other types traced, and no research of the traces to confirm or refute the actual use in a violent crime.

[Ike]

Len: To the best of my knowledge, that would count as three "crime gun" traces to your FFL. If the gun had been originally sold to a customer, then the customer would also have three "crime gun" traces to him, personally. Don't know about multiple traces while in ATF custody. Maybe one of the ATF employees can help? Stay tuned, I have a lot more to say on the subject - but it will take time.

[Historic Arms LLC]

Ike, Your information is certainly intriguing. I have had relatively few experience with ATF firearms traces as an FFL, I had one firearm that was stolen from a dealer during a break in traced three times in 18 months. (one when recovered from the bad guy, one about a year later, and the final one minutes before ATF transferred the firearm back to the rightful owner) Is multiple traces for a firearm in ATF custody normal? Would it "count" as (3) associated traces based on my FFL number? Len Savage Historic Arms LLC

[Ike]

Winston: (Remember, you asked.....)

On the ATF Firearm Trace Summary Report, page two, there is a line on the dealer section which says:

"Associated Traces: Dealer may be associated with 143 other traces based on FFL number."

Here is a copy of an actual Firearm Trace Summary Report: http://upload.wikime...17/ETrace-2.jpg

Note there is no disclaimer of any kind. There is no way to know if the 143 dealer traces are totally innocent, or 143 actual criminal traces or any combination. There is no way to know if the associated traces are over the past 20 years - or the last two months. Further, every one of those 143 guns traced could have been resold 20 times since the dealer sold them - completely out of the dealer's control. Yet, the dealer is still 'blamed' for the trace. Consequently, this is a meaningless figure, which may reflect badly on a completely innocent dealer. This is a lousy, misleading way to report a dealer to some foreign law enforcement agency - or a domestic LEA.

Still more will follow.....

[Old Guy]

Here's a factual story from an FFL point of view. This directly relates to Professionalism in ATF. A friend of mine is an FFL who was dealing with an ATF employee in Martinsburg. The ATF employee (not an agent!) was giving the FFL a hard time and giving him a bunch of bull regarding a technical issue. The FFL tried to respectfully disagree with the employee, but was rudely rebuffed. There was no supervisor to talk to. So, the FFL contacted his Congressman. Shortly afterward, the ATF employee (clearly angry) called the FFL. The employee mentioned the Congressional contact, and told my friend he was going to call for a special annual inspection on him - which was clearly a threat. Now, by law, an annual inspection is not supposed to be used as a pretext for an investigation of the FFL. Didn't make any difference. Within 30 days, multiple 'investigators' (as inspectors are now called) arrived at the FFL's shop, and commenced their 'inspection'. The FFL had been through many previous inspections before, and knew what to expect. However, this inspection went way beyond any previous one. Rather than do a random inspection, he was told the inspection would be 100%, going back years. The most obvious clue was that the investigators photographed his entire 'bound book'. They came back later with all the images printed out, and went through it, line by line. Weeks later, they completed their 'annual inspection' and provided the FFL with a list of his 'violations'. Some 'violations' were practices that are specifically allowed by ATF publications. Other 'violations' were simply made up out of whole cloth. In other words, there were no regulations or laws that required the practice. Yet other 'violations' were bookkeeping practices for which my friend had a letter from ATF HQ, specifically allowing! My friend said nothing further to the Investigators, and they left. Is it not illegal for ATF to retaliate in this manner? Or, if it is legal, it's certainly unprofessional.

[Ike]

Jumper:

Good! Maybe more truth will out!

Winston: To continue....

You said: "Tracing a firearm back to the original retail purchaser can be a great place to start an investigation. Leads are generated and sometimes, agents even get to indict, make arrests, and wow, sounds like they do real law enforcement work with one of their tools. Hmmmmm. Wasn't that the intent of this tracing system?"

Yep! That was exactly the intent of the tracing system. That's also why I said that the purpose has been perverted.

According to the Congressional Research Service, trace information from firearms searches is limited and may be biased by several factors (Quote):

"• traced firearms are generally recovered by law enforcement, and they may not be representative of firearms possessed and used by criminals;
• there remains significant variation over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to "when, why, and how" a firearm is recovered and selected to be traced; and
• a substantial percentage of recovered firearms cannot be successfully traced for several reasons."

On June 9, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security criticized ATF's tracing system, observing that it has numerous problems with data collection and sample populations which render some of ATF's statistics as unreliable. [Wow!]

Nevertheless, ATF continued to generate and quote misleading eTrace statistics, particularly regarding seized Mexican guns.

- On February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of ATF testified before Congress that over 90% of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.

- In May, 2008, William Newell, Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Phoenix Office reported: "When 90 percent-plus of the firearms recovered from these violent drug cartels are from a U.S. source, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to stem the illegal flow of these firearms to these thugs." [Yeah, right]

Of course, President Obama, Hillary and several others foolishly repeated the same 90% figure in public - to the media. Hint: Never make the Boss look bad! It might affect your career. Maybe it should affect your career?

- On July 16, 2009, William McMahon, Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations, ATF, testified before Congress that about 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico that ATF has traced were initially sold in the United States. (Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, U.S. House of Representatives, concerning “Combating Border Violence: The Role of Interagency Coordination in Investigations”).

- in September 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a draft report critical of Project Gunrunner, followed by the final version in November, 2010. The OIG analysis of ATF data shows, of the guns submitted for tracing, a much lower percentage of guns traced to the United States, ranging from 44 percent in FY 2005, falling to 27 percent in FY 2007 and 31 percent in FY 2009. These percentages significantly differ from those in ATF testimony before Congress (see above).

- Between September and November 2010, ATF admitted that “the 90% figure cited to Congress could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced.” During this 2010 review by the OIG, ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that originated in or imported through the United States.

- In October 2010, ATF announced they would no longer release estimates of how many guns came from the United States because the numbers have become "too politicized". [By whom? ATF?] ATF stated, "It doesn't matter if 20 percent are coming from the U.S. or 80 percent..." [Really? If it doesn't matter, why has ATF been quoting false percentages all these years?]

- On February 10, 2011, Stratfor Global Intelligence published an analysis which concluded "almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States."

Perhaps someone can answer a question: Is there an automated connection between the ATF Stolen Gun database and the NCIC stolen gun data base? Or do agents have to do that manually? Do they?

In response to your question, "You seem angry and bitter, not exactly sure why." Actually, I'm not angry and bitter - any more than the other folks posting here. When a Federal Agency uses our tax dollars to lie and misrepresent to Congress and our own people, and facilitates firearm trafficking to Mexico while telling us they're trying to "stem" the flow of guns.... - well, it kinda got my attention! Isn't this a bit like what the old Soviet Union used to do? Isn't that the very definition of "propaganda"? (Look it up!) That's why I'm posting at "CleanUpATF.org". Hope and Change - that's it, Hope and Change!

More to follow..... Stay tuned.

[Ike]

ATF definition:

"CRIME GUN
A crime gun is any firearm that is illegally possessed,
used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a
crime. An abandoned firearm may also be categorized
as a crime gun if it is suspected it was used in a
crime or illegally possessed."


http://www.atf.gov/p...rts/detroit.pdf

"What is comprehensive crime gun tracing?

This means submitting the serial numbers and
related information from all firearms recovered
by law enforcement authorities in a given
jurisdiction to ATF’s National Tracing Center
(NTC). Until recently, most cities have submitted
gun serial numbers for tracing only when
the information is needed to solve a major
crime."


http://www.atf.gov/p...f-p-3312-11.pdf

"ATF's longstanding position is that investigating the origin of the firearm to develop leads to determine if [sic] has been used in a crime constitutes a bona fide law enforcement investigation."

Here's an extract from a Denver Post article:

Chris Eastburn, an inspector specializing in gun-trafficking cases.... entered the serial numbers of thousands of guns that had passed through ....... hands into ATF's national "suspect gun database," in case they turned up later in criminal arrests."
"In an interview, Petrilli said ATF routinely entered ......'s identifiable sales into its suspect gun database."

Yes, it's out of context, but clearly shows that ATF "routinely" enters dealer guns into ATF databases. Other ATF documents substantiate this practice. (I already know these were not necessarily 'traced' - or were they?)

Hmmmm. Clearly, the system was intended to trace actual crime guns, but has been perverted into: "Trace everything - Let God sort 'em out." Right? Now, I ask the question.... Why does ATF want to trace everything and clutter up the tracing system with completely innocent guns and gun purchasers? Does anyone have an answer?

LE occasionally traces even firearms carried by lawful concealed carry permit holders - when the permit holder allows examination of the gun. This can occur at a traffic stop, or any other occasion. Am I wrong?

Yet ATF continues to refer to every traced gun as a 'Crime Gun', am I wrong? Look in all the eTrace documentation and eTrace statistics and reports.

Just to clarify.... I don't "feel" anything about the tracing system. However, when ATF doesn't tell the truth about the system and the way it works, then I'm going to report what I see and understand..... Computer systems are not a mystery to me. I fully understand a couple of basic principles: 1. Garbage In, Garbage Out. 2. Figures don't lie, but Liars do Figure. (Mark Twain)

More to follow....

[Ike]

Winston:

You question many of the points I raised. It will take some time to address them, but this issue is important enough for me to take the time to substantiate my points. So, sit back, pour a cool one, and we'll work this through.

I'm sure you're aware that it's not only agents who use eTrace.... ATF Investigators, management and PIOs use (and misuse and sometimes leak) eTrace data for various purposes - which may have nothing to do with building cases. Further, according to ATF reports, over 2,000 agencies and over 10,000 individuals around the world have access to eTrace.

Of course, eTrace is only a tool. (Full-blown registration would also be 'only a tool' - and a useful tool. Too useful.... for certain political goals.... There's strong lessons to be learned from Canada's firearm registration system - such as suddenly and arbitrarily banning certain categories of guns)

"criminal friendly FFL" "My guess is this is not a complete quote or it was taken out of context. Perhaps I am wrong?" Yep, you guessed wrong. Please review the Power Point presentation and judge for yourself. It's toward the end. http://www.winad.org...ATF_ eTrace.ppt

Now, as a user of eTrace, you may have more knowledge about the system than I do. If I am wrong with any of the points I raise, let me know so we can discuss it. I try to keep an open mind about these things....

More to follow....

[Winston Smith]

Sorry Zorro, this was a response to Ike.

[Zorro]

Did you mistake I for Z? I don't have the attention span to type all that.