Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Here we go. Finally a non evil right wing rag is reporting what the 'crazy paranoids" were theorizing all along
:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations
By Sharyl Attkisson Topics News , Law and Order 236 Comments
(Credit: CBS) Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."

This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."

The Gun Dealers' Quandary

Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.

In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."

ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."

Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.

"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."

"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."

The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.

The "Demand Letter 3" Debate

The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.

Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.

On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."

Reaction

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."

On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.

"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.

**AustonT**

Color me unsurprised.

**Melissia**

Perhaps I just missed it, but what's the substance of the complaints?

Just saying "they used a movie as an example" is irrelevant and stupid. Are they saying "they used a movie as an example and the movie is nothing like real life"? If that's the case, can we see studies or other proof indicative of such?

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:Perhaps I just missed it, but what's the substance of the complaints?

Just saying "they used a movie as an example" is irrelevant and stupid. Are they saying "they used a movie as an example and the movie is nothing like real life"? If that's the case, can we see studies or other proof indicative of such?

What?

**Frazzled**

The caomplaint? They illegally sold guns to Mexican cartels. In addition to killing people they then used that argument to requirement more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

**AustonT**

I read it twice and then searched this page. The first time "movie" is used in in your response Melissa.
WTF are you talking about, or did we enter TLDR so I'll just post something territory.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:The complaint? They illegally sold guns to Mexican cartels. In addition to killing people they then used that argument to requirement more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The ATF did not sell the guns to the Cartels directly. They encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected weapons traffickers. The argument they were to present is for tighter restrictions to try to stymie weapons trafficking by being able to point out "Look, here's how they do it. They buy multiple semi-automatics and sell them down south".

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street.

That's from your article.

It's not a terrible idea, in and of itself, but I'm not sure how well monitored the operation was. It seems very much like a case of a botched operation.

Should also add that it's likely this paragraph is what caused Mel to reference the "Fast and Furious" movie as it very well does make it sound like the article is discussing the movie and not the operation.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:The complaint? They illegally sold guns to Mexican cartels. In addition to killing people they then used that argument to requirement more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The ATF did not sell the guns to the Cartels directly. They encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected weapons traffickers. The argument they were to present is for tighter restrictions to try to stymie weapons trafficking by being able to point out "Look, here's how they do it. They buy multiple semi-automatics and sell them down south".

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street.

That's from your article.

It's not a terrible idea, in and of itself, but I'm not sure how well monitored the operation was. It seems very much like a case of a botched operation.

Should also add that it's likely this paragraph is what caused Mel to reference the "Fast and Furious" movie as it very well does make it sound like the article is discussing the movie and not the operation.

Thats not correct. By "encouraged" they required them to. Buig difference.
How on earth could this NOT be a terrible idea? How are you going to "monitor" guns once they get into other hands? Thats just crazy talk.

Oh look here's a nice comment from Holder on the impact.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/holder-suggests-fast-and-furious-guns-will-be-used-in-crimes-for-years-to-come/#ixzz1fxckX8d6

Holder Suggests Fast and Furious Guns Will Be Used in Crimes for 'Years to Come'

Dec. 8, 2011: Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Judiciary Committee.

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder suggested Thursday that weapons lost during the course of the failed "Fast and Furious" gunrunning operation will continue to show up at crime scenes in the U.S. and Mexico "for years to come."

Holder, in testimony on Capitol Hill that comes as the congressional investigation into the program expands, decried the "gun-walking" tactic used in the operation as "inexcusable" and "wholly unacceptable." But a day after an influential senator called for the resignation of one of Holder's top deputies over the scandal, Holder denied department leaders played any role in the crafting of Fast and Furious.

He continued to assert that top Justice officials were not told about the "inappropriate tactics" until they were made public.

Still, the top law enforcement official in the country conceded that, as a result of Fast and Furious, guns lost by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives remain in the hands of criminals.

"Although the department has taken steps to ensure that such tactics are never used again, it is an unfortunate reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this flawed operation for years to come," he said. "Guns lost during this operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border."

Congress has been investigating Fast and Furious for nearly a year. Scrutiny of the program intensified after guns from the program were found at the scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry's murder.

Republican lawmakers in recent weeks have complained about inconsistencies in the Justice Department's public accounting of the program over the past year. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday pointed to those alleged inconsistencies in calling for the resignation of Lanny Breuer, chief of the department's criminal division. Grassley accused Breuer of withholding information about gunwalking tactics used in a Bush administration-era program known as Wide Receiver, and of not being forthcoming about whether he saw a Justice letter to Congress in February that inaccurately claimed ATF was not letting illegal guns walk across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Though Breuer denies seeing the memo, Grassley pointed to emails that show he was sent a draft of the letter.

The Justice Department is standing by Breuer, and Holder testified Thursday that department heads were not aware of the program early on.

"The documents produced to date also belie the remarkable notion that this operation was conceived by department leaders, as some have claimed," Holder said. "It is my understanding that department leaders were not informed about the inappropriate tactics employed in this operation until those tactics were made public and, as is customary, turned to those with supervisory responsibility over the operation in an effort to learn the facts."

Holder said such a program "must never happen again," but effectively urged lawmakers to move on -- and tackle the broader issue of the flow of firearms into Mexico.

"We cannot afford to allow the tragic mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious to become a political sideshow or a series of media opportunities," he said. "Instead, we must move forward and recommit ourselves to our shared public safety obligations."

He used the occasion to prod Congress to support efforts to give the department broader legal tools to track firearms purchases.

But Republican lawmakers continued to put pressure on Holder about how he's responding to the operation.

"This project was failed and flawed from the beginning," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., questioning why Holder has not terminated the "many people involved" with the program.

"Mr. attorney general, the blame must go to your desk," Issa said.

Holder later said that he's "ultimately responsible" for actions in the department, but stressed the actions he's taken to get to the bottom of the operation once he learned about it.

Despite the controversy over the inaccurate February letter from Justice, Holder also stated: "Nobody in the Justice Department has lied.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/holder-suggests-fast-and-furious-guns-will-be-used-in-crimes-for-years-to-come/#ixzz1fxuRth00

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats not correct. By "encouraged" they required them to. Buig difference.

How did they enforce this requirement?

Frazzled wrote:
How on earth could this NOT be a terrible idea? How are you going to "monitor" guns once they get into other hands? Thats just crazy talk.

They managed to find two of them next to a murdered border patrol agent, so clearly its possible.

**Jihadin**

Sounds like ATF trying to salvage something that would give them a less shiney black eye when this goes to pot. If it goes to bill which I doubt due to the fact that ATF encourage sells they knew were transferee's it pretty much be shot down. Did you know if you bu a assualt rifle your already on ATF list for owning a assualt rifle?

**AustonT**

Did you know if you bu a assualt rifle your already on ATF list for owning a assualt rifle?

Yep. If I wasn't already on one for putting a stock on my Glock I'd be more pissed off, I say more because the ATF pisses me off in general, and I would love to see them put out to pasture right next to the DEA.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:Sounds like ATF trying to salvage something that would give them a less shiney black eye when this goes to pot. If it goes to bill which I doubt due to the fact that ATF encourage sells they knew were transferee's it pretty much be shot down. Did you know if you bu a assualt rifle your already on ATF list for owning a assualt rifle?

Not before. Now if you purchase certain generic types-more than two then 1) its tracked; 2) for a period of time ATF agents would come and try to investigate you.

**AustonT**

Which was what they wanted in the first place wasn't it?

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:The complaint? They illegally sold guns to Mexican cartels. In addition to killing people they then used that argument to requirement more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The ATF did not sell the guns to the Cartels directly. They encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected weapons traffickers. The argument they were to present is for tighter restrictions to try to stymie weapons trafficking by being able to point out "Look, here's how they do it. They buy multiple semi-automatics and sell them down south".

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street.

That's from your article.

It's not a terrible idea, in and of itself, but I'm not sure how well monitored the operation was. It seems very much like a case of a botched operation.

Should also add that it's likely this paragraph is what caused Mel to reference the "Fast and Furious" movie as it very well does make it sound like the article is discussing the movie and not the operation.

Thats' not correct. By "encouraged" they required them to. Buig difference.

Where does it say they "required them to"? The article that you posted says ENCOURAGED them. It does not say "They were required to do this or else".

How on earth could this NOT be a terrible idea? How are you going to "monitor" guns once they get into other hands? That's just crazy talk.

The goal wasn't to "monitor guns once they get into other hands", Frazzled. It was, at least as far as I can figure out, to try to clamp down on methods of trafficking commercially available arms from the U.S. to Mexico. They could have any number of methods of tracking them however. RFID strips, GPS trackers in a hollowed out piece of rifle stock, etc. Depending upon the ingenuity or the budget, it very likely could have been doable.

**Frazzled**

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/101213-gun-dealer-atf-approved-sales-to-mexican-gun-runners
Frankly Kannie this is something you should be livid about. Border cops died here.

Interestingly, I think this is the store I bought my pistols at.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:How did they enforce this requirement?

They threatened to withhold firearms licenses from the sellers if they didn't cooperate.

On a more general level : force.

dogma wrote:They managed to find two of them next to a murdered border patrol agent, so clearly its possible.

They also found a lot of them on murdered Mexican nationals, once they started looking.

It only became possible to couple the guns to crimes when the ATF got involved - on our side of the border. Until then, there was no tracking of the weapons (and it is possible to do so)

**Jihadin**

I see a new DoJ change of command happening within a year

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:I see a new DoJ change of command happening within a year

...By election?

I wish I had your faith in the system. Holder should be sacked as responsible for the DoJ whether he was aware of the details or not, which it seems he was anyway. Let the Captain go down with his ship.

**Jihadin**

Holder going to last a year. He's going to string this out. It'll be close though. The fact he doesn't read emails is a bit...disturbing

**CptJake**

Plenty of politicians have been calling for new gun laws and/or restrictions based on the operation for several months. From that perspective, even if Holder and crew did not intend that, it has been the effect.

**Jihadin**

I just want to see Holder go down. If this happen in the military a whole slew of people would have gone down already. Its like double standards here

**CptJake**

I agree. This is not the first thing he has done that I have thought he should be canned for.

Unfortunately, as long as his boss backs him, he is safe.

He almost makes AG Reno look good.

**Jihadin**

Holder probaly lose his backing from Obama as the election year draw closer. He's starting to become a liability

**CptJake**

Yeah, but to ditch him during the actual election cycle looks too much like weakness on Obama's part. There comes a point where he has to keep Holder so he does not look like he is weak.

I fear we are pretty close to that point.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:I see a new DoJ change of command happening within six months

Corrected your typo. The big theory is whether Brewer (sp) will go down or take Holder with him.

**Jihadin**

He's not going to take one for the team. He's taking people with him. He's not going to drop dimes. He's going for manhole covers

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:He's not going to take one for the team. He's taking people with him. He's not going to drop dimes. He's going for manhole covers

One can hope. A whole lot of people need to be fired, so far none have been. In contrast they have been promoted or transferred to cushier jobs (I think one local DA has quit, but not positive).

**Jihadin**

Think that DA resigned. So sayeth the Fox News