Mexican drug cartels love the second amendment
In July, I posted on a piece in the Christian Science Monitor that said about 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the U.S. A commenter questioned that number, and asked where it came from. Not an unreasonable question.
Today, the Washington Post ran an article on the same subject, and asserts that closer to 100% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the U.S., where they are purchased legally and smuggled across the border. According to the piece, that data is coming from Mexican police and a government study on the subject:
The high-powered guns used in both incidents on the evening of Sept. 24 undoubtedly came from the United States, say police here, who estimate that 100 percent of drug-related killings are committed with smuggled U.S. weapons.[...]
The U.S. weapons -- as many as 2,000 enter Mexico each day, according to a Mexican government study -- are crucial tools in an astoundingly barbaric war between rival cartels that has cost 4,000 lives in the past 18 months and sent law enforcement agencies in Washington and Mexico City into crisis mode.
Oh, boy...
Update: More choice excerpts from the Washington Post piece:
But law enforcement officers on both sides of the border have never seen anything like the flood of guns now surging into Mexico. The increase has been stoked by the cartel war and by the ease of buying high-powered weapons since the U.S. assault weapons ban was not renewed in 2004, William Newell, a special agent in charge of the ATF's Phoenix office, said in an interview.
Let's see... Failure of federal government to balance 2nd amendment rights with national security? Check! Another good quote:
These drug traffickers, with their steady supply of U.S. weaponry, are the target of President Bush's proposed $500 million U.S. aid package to help Mexico battle cartels.
$500 million of the American people's hard earned tax dollars? To help the Mexican government battle a scourge of weaponry from the U.S. that should be stopped in the U.S. in the first place? Priceless...
How will the NRA respond to this one? Deviously, I'm sure. Somehow, it will be the fault of the "far left liberals" in Washington. And George Soros.
Comments
Unfortunately the Washington Post got spun a bit.
They may have a point regarding handguns, but automatic AK-47's as described in the article aren't available in the United States outside
of police/military duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization
(BATFE Form 4, a 6-month process), the gun must be purchased from a
specially licensed NFA Title 2/Class III dealer, must be registered with
the BATFE, and only those registered with the Federal government prior
to 1986 can be sold to non-police/military. Expect to pay about $15,000
for a civilian-transferable AK-47 in the U.S., and the BATFE gets to
inspect your paperwork once a year.
If the guns used in this murder were actual automatic AK-47's and not
non-automatic civilian lookalikes, then they "undoubtedly" came from
CENTRAL AMERICA, not the USA. Actual AK-47's, like all automatic
weapons, are VERY tightly controlled here in the United States, but
Central America is awash with them due to decades of Cold War proxy
conflicts.
Another point the article got wrong was that the 1994 Feinstein law that expired in 2004 did not affect the legality
of U.S. civilian AK lookalikes; it merely required minor cosmetic
changes that a non-aficionado wouldn't even notice. My own AK (a
Romanian SAR-1) is a 2002 model that I purchased in 2003, and like all
U.S. NFA Title 1 civilian AK's, is non-automatic and fires no faster
than an ordinary pistol or civilian autoloading rifle.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1132600920/gallery_260_23_74799.jpg
Agree or disagree with U.S. gun laws, but if this murder involved automatic weapons, they didn't come from here.
Posted by: benEzra | October 30, 2007 8:24 AM
Unfortunately the Washington Post got spun a bit.
They may have a point regarding handguns, but automatic AK-47's as described in the article aren't available in the United States outside
of police/military duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization
(BATFE Form 4, a 6-month process), the gun must be purchased from a
specially licensed NFA Title 2/Class III dealer, must be registered with
the BATFE, and only those registered with the Federal government prior
to 1986 can be sold to non-police/military. Expect to pay about $15,000
for a civilian-transferable AK-47 in the U.S., and the BATFE gets to
inspect your paperwork once a year.
If the guns used in this murder were actual automatic AK-47's and not
non-automatic civilian lookalikes, then they "undoubtedly" came from
CENTRAL AMERICA, not the USA. Actual AK-47's, like all automatic
weapons, are VERY tightly controlled here in the United States, but
Central America is awash with them due to decades of Cold War proxy
conflicts.
Another point the article got wrong was that the 1994 Feinstein law that expired in 2004 did not affect the legality
of U.S. civilian AK lookalikes; it merely required minor cosmetic
changes that a non-aficionado wouldn't even notice. My own AK (a
Romanian SAR-1) is a 2002 model that I purchased in 2003, and like all
U.S. NFA Title 1 civilian AK's, is non-automatic and fires no faster
than an ordinary pistol or civilian autoloading rifle.
www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1132600920/gallery_260_23_74799.jpg
Agree or disagree with U.S. gun laws, but if this murder involved automatic weapons, they didn't come from here.
Posted by: benEzra | October 30, 2007 8:25 AM