Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Fast and Furious Updates

(Read NRO’s previous coverage of the Fast and Furious scandal — in which federal agents, acting on official orders, allegedly allowed Mexican cartels to purchase and traffic American guns — here.)

This morning, I was able to interview someone who is familiar with firearms-trafficking investigations on background. While we weren’t able to cover the details of Fast and Furious, the source did shed some light on the gun-trafficking problem and the strategies that law-enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives use to combat it.

The source emphasizes how difficult it is to arrest someone for “straw purchasing” — that is, buying a gun on behalf of someone who is not legally allowed to. “You pretty much have to prove that they falsified a statement on the firearms-transaction record,” the source says. On the form, gun buyers have to verify that the gun is either for personal use or a gift.

“You have to show, through tangible action, that that statement is false,” the person adds. “What you’re trying to do is prove somebody’s state of mind — that when they bought that gun, it was intended for someone else.” It is legal for a person to buy a gun, decide they made a mistake, and then quickly re-sell it.

In addition, the source says that regional cultures and state laws can make a difference. “Along the southwestern border, there’s a gun culture that exists where it’s not uncommon for people to own multiple weapons, to go into gun stores and buy multiple weapons, or buy and sell guns on a regular basis,” the source says. “What would be highly unusual in the northeast is commonplace in the southwest, so it’s harder to identify those trafficking firearms.”

Further, gun-trafficking techniques have grown more sophisticated of late. “Up until about five years ago . . . there was usually a direct connection between the actual straw purchaser and the person supplying money and receiving the gun,” the source says. “Then, cartels started to want and utilize more firearms, so they started using their narcotics-distribution rings to transport guns.”

This put many degrees of separation between the gun purchasers and the gangsters who wanted the weapons. “Instead of a direct transfer, it might take two, three, four months for guns to make their way out of the state — all the while not breaking any U.S. laws,” the source says.

Of course, this doesn’t answer the biggest questions: Are ATF whistleblowers telling the truth when they say that they let guns go even when they could have stopped them? Statements from ATF acting director Kenneth Melson seem to indicate they are. And if so, how were these guns — which were completely out of ATF surveillance as they slowly made their way to their intended recipients, and were recovered and traced only when they were discovered at crime scenes — supposed to lead law enforcement to the cartels?

“It’s very difficult to identify a straw purchaser, because you’re dealing with people without a criminal history, and who come from all walks of life,” the source says. “Unless you identify the person funding and orchestrating those purchases, you’re really not going to be able to have a significant impact on stemming the flow of firearms.”

One last Fast and Furious update: The Tampa Tribune ran an excellent article yesterday about Operation Castaway. Some have alleged that Operation Castaway allowed American guns to be trafficked to Honduras, just as Operation Fast and Furious is accused of letting guns “walk” to Mexico. The Tribune’s reporting casts doubt on this:

As with Operation Fast and Furious, the guns sold by Crumpler [the gun dealer who was targeted by Operation Castaway] wound up with least one killer, according to federal documents, as well as a drug organization in Puerto Rico, the hit man for a Colombian drug organization, a murder-for-hire gang and an effort to smuggle guns into Colombian prisons.

But unlike Operation Fast and Furious, these guns apparently wound up in the hands of criminals before Operation Castaway was launched, federal court records allege.

[Crumpler's attorney] said he did not think it was possible that guns from Operation Castaway wound up in the hands of criminals in Latin America once the investigation began because agents “closely monitored Crumpler’s activities after they got involved with him.”

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   10

EXPAND  

Rob Crawford
   07/21/11 13:02

So why did they order the sales to go through?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
DirtyJobsGuy
   07/21/11 13:13

I often work for clients in Mexico and cross the border by auto (Mexicali, Matamoros, Los Indios, Juarez). Not once have the Mexican Authorities checked my passport or subjected my auto to more than a cursory inspection. ( The Mexican Army does search vehicles more thoroughly going to the US and on interior roads.)

Truckloads of arms could have entered Mexico without any attempt to interdict them at the border by Mexico. I have been questioned and searched leaving the US by US border patrol looking for export of contraband. This must have been clearly known by the ATF. The only reason I can see that the program was conducted was to provide a justification for gun control in the USA.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 13:18

Still virtually nothing about this in my local newspaper.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jim Holdenberg
   09/14/11 16:48

Please go to

External Link 

and

Michelle Malkin at

External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 13:30

My first thought when I heard about these weapons purchases and subsequent exportation of those weapons to Mexico is that this is Mexico's problem, not ours.

It's funny; We can't keep Mexicans from crossing the border illegally and they can't keep Mexicans from transporting weapons back into their own country for one singular reason: Lack of competent border enforcement, which parenthetically, is a lack of enforcement MEXICO clearly wants.

It seems to me that it's quite clear we're suffering from the same disease although it's presenting with slightly different symptoms in our two respective countries. We're getting their criminals and they're getting our weapons. Rather than trying to catch these elusive strawman purchasers, wouldn't it be much more prudent just to seal the border effectively? It solves our problem and it solves their problem.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
SealTheBorder
   07/21/11 13:38

I see many lines of faulty reasoning here.

We should make it harder to buy guns because it's too difficult to catch illegal walking of gun to criminals in Mexico, right? Why not just secure the border?

Why are all the liberal solutions to illegal activities some variant of us changing to accommodate illegal immigrants and illegal drug smugglers? Do they define us now?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jim_
   07/21/11 14:18

That law enforcement agents sometimes have to let some possible arrests go, and to even sometimes create dangerous situations in order to catch bigger fish is not news. Tragedies stemming from operations gone bad may be acceptable, if the operation was run competently and the risk/reward calculation at the outset of the operation justified the choices. After all, the U.S. has good reason to take some risks in the interest of stopping a much greater evil such as a cartel, whose violence crosses the border into our own cities. It is hard to bust a cartel, when one arrests all footsoldiers on sight; those small arrests generally don't add up to a big bust, so more subtle and risky investigative schemes are necessary and they sometimes go very badly. How much risk to tolerate is always the quandary faced by cops engaged in intelligence-oriented and investigative policing and this is why police must be made accountable to political leaders who are themselves accountable. If it goes bad, somebody who can plausibly be fired needs to have their neck on the line.

What is not excusable, however, is dishonesty about the nature of an investigation when it goes bad, and then launching callous attempts to politically exploit the resulting tragedy. Not only does this evade responsibility, but it turns the notion of accountability on its head because by definition, the worse the tragedy the greater the political opprtunity. I don't know if that's what happened here but it sure looks that way, and that's cringe-worthy.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 14:31

I like the admittedly conspiracy-theory-ist theory: the Obama admin never intended to trace them to the drug lords. They knew they would find their way there, and when a crime happened the guns could be identified as being sold in the U.S. Then the gun control types could wail about lax control and press for more and tighter gun control laws. Of course, it was supposed to remain a secret.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/21/11 21:30

Knowing how bad Justice under Reno and Holder operated, should anyone really be surprised that this has happened?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jim McBride
   09/14/11 16:37

Please Google "Melson out--Holder digs in:1700+ violations of the Arms Export Act?" at Foreign Policy blogs

External Link 
or
www.globalorganizedcrime.foreignpolicyblogs.com

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact