Andrew Donohue
Previous Post
Next Post

“We’re requesting information about how the ATF tracks former law enforcement weapons, how it communicates with law enforcement agencies when a weapon does turn up in a crime, and how often these weapons come up in traces.” – Andrew Donohue in Why we’re suing the Department of Justice for gun records [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. When a gun is used in a crime, what possible difference can it make where it came from originally? Is this tracking done for baseball bats, matches, gasoline, or any other tool used to commit a crime? The bare hands tools are easily tracked, of course, because they are usually still attached to the criminal… but that is no more relevant to the question than tracking guns.

    It is the responsibility of property owners to secure their property. Officials “might” just lose fewer of those guns if they paid for them personally, and were actually held accountable when they use the property of others for some reason.

    • the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is a problem.

      cops regularly exempt themselves from ever being responsible for any problem, so a well documented pattern of government guns that go walkabout would go a long way to proving that the cops have a problem.

      your idea of personal responsibility is great, but will have trouble gaining traction if nobody thinks its necessary.

      • And they won’t think it is necessary as long as their entire “education” and all the public media works so hard to indoctrinate them to believe that they have no responsibility for themselves, that they can blame inanimate objects and others for their “feelz” and that they are entitled to control, live as parasites on the lives of others by any means that suit them.

        The few who learn critical thinking and rational observation skills know that the non-voluntary government has zero legitimate authority for anything it does. Those critical thinkers will likely remain a small number, at least for a while.

      • Great take, bro. Great except for that the original article isn’t talking about cop guns that go walkie, they’re talking about those lawfully sold to the public and how they relate to crime:

        “In March, we filed a request for gun records under the Freedom of Information Act. We’re trying to understand how often guns that police sell to the public end up being used in crimes.”

        In other words, the lawsuit is wasting the public’s time and money, as used police guns are not the only used guns in the market. It’s not as if there aren’t choices for a lawful buyer.

    • I am not holding my breath waiting for the name of a government agent who lost their gun that was used to murder Kate steinle in San Francisco. I agree with you unless they release the names of the officers who lost their guns and resulting crimes were committed with those guns, it doesn’t matter where the gun came from.

      Interesting how the lawsuit is not asking for the names of the police officers who lost the guns.

    • I agree with you on concept, but I’d be cautious on how you phrase that idea. If one has the “responsibility” to secure their property then they may have the responsibility to cover damages if their property wasn’t secure enough and used to harm someone after theft of said property.

      • Well, Omer, that’s just the twisting the usual statists love to use. The responsibility for securing one’s property is responsibility toward oneself, not liability for what others do. The penalty for not securing the property is the risk of theft, and the loss of it if it is stolen. The issue with (actual) children and others who can’t honestly be held accountable for their actions a whole lot is another story. But still, the responsibility is to ourselves, to avoid putting these incompetents at risk if we can help it.

        That should be incentive enough. 🙂

  2. Personally, I’d like to see these data, also – because I have a hunch that the data will demonstrate exactly how futile efforts to track/trace crime tools are in solving crime (much less, in actually preventing crime).

  3. We won’t track/trace/monitor illegal aliens (ALL of whom are criminals by being present in the US) so why are we “tracing’ guns. Laws don’t matter to the progs

    • Why would all immigrants be “illegal?” Why would anyone want the same “government” that attempts gun confiscation – to which they object – to pursue and persecute immigrants who don’t harm anyone? Obviously, the welfare and other irrational perks must be stopped. But not just for immigrants, of course.

      People – immigrants or not – who actually harm or lethally threaten others need to be stopped. Preferably by the intended victim. Otherwise, everyone needs to mind their own business and stop trying to control others.

      The desire/compulsion to control the lives of other people is the ROOT of all evil.

        • Well, Kyle… that doesn’t answer the question. What makes something “legal” or “illegal?” The same non-voluntary government that steals 90% of your productivity and destroys the economy and society you need to raise your children, etc.

          It is a totally false spectrum… one imposed on all of us from a completely hostile and destructive “government.” And those who support it, of course.

          But if your neighbor is not harming you, not interfering in the use of your property – just why should you consider them “illegal” or harmful in any way? That’s the question.

      • We have a difficult time with the people already here who don’t support the Bill of Rights. Why would you want to bring people here who don’t support the human rights that we in America have acknowledged???
        Such as the right to Armed self-defense.

        • Correlation does not equal causation. There are a great many people born here who do not honor the right of self defense. Their immigration status has little or nothing to do with it. Jumping through all the hoops and waiting ten years or so for “legal” entry has little to do with people’s attitude toward either guns or self defense.

          In a free society, we would cooperate with voluntary associates, and defend ourselves from predators and aggressors. Everyone else would be free to do the same, or suffer the serious consequences of practicing aggression.

Comments are closed.