Hello Neighbors,In a hurry last week, I provided a link to Jon Stewart’s the Daily Show and suggested readers to watch the first 15 min of his show re: the NRA and the ATF. A couple of conservative readers complained. I was told to provide the websites instead of Mr. Stewart’s sarcastic but concise information. Now I wonder if those who complained will actually read the following and/or visit the websites.^From – http://protectpolice.org/The Tiahrt Amendments, named for their original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns.^ The amendments restrict cities, states and even the police from fully accessing and using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun trace data, which can show where illegal guns are coming from, who buys them and how they get trafficked across state lines and into our communities. UPDATE: The Tiahrt restrictions are blocking Congressional oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives & Firearms (ATF) and its controversial “Operation Fast & Furious.” According to allegations, ATF allowed guns to be illegally trafficked to Mexico, possibly putting law enforcement officers in danger. ATF is prevented by Tiahrt from releasing trace data connected to Fast & Furious, forcing Congress to request the data from the Mexican Government.^The Tiahrt provisions require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy certain background check records within 24 hours, making it nearly impossible to use those records to help solve crimes or to identify gun buyers with criminal histories who were mistakenly approved. Learn More The Tiahrt Amendments also block ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft, which law enforcement says is a dangerous back channel source for criminals who are in the market for illegal guns. ^For years, the Tiahrt Amendments have been standing in the way of law enforcement efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals. But now, a coalition of 350 mayors and 200 police chiefs have called for repealing these damaging restrictions. ^From – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2013/01/the-nra-atf-insider-trading-and-politics-at-its-worst/A few years back, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) suggested we did not need additional gun laws. He noted that we already have about 2,200 gun laws, and that the real issue is that those laws are not being properly enforced. Tiahrt went further to suggest that enforcing these laws should not be the purview of state or local law enforcement, namely because we have a government agency – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) – whose job it is to pursue such enforcement around the clock.^The problem is that the ATF hasn’t had a permanent director since 2006. Instead, the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota (a full-time job in itself) “commutes” from his home state to serve as an interim director. Seems ridiculous, right? Why not just appoint a new director by executive order? This is how it should work, yes?^In theory. But back in 2006 (a year before Tiahrt’s CNN interview) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) inserted a clause into the Patriot Act requiring Congress to aprove any appointments to the head of the ATF, which is the sole government agency responsible for the federal control of firearms. Since then, they have failed to approve anyone brought forward by a president to fill that post. Keep in mind that, for two of those years, the President was George W. Bush.^Jim Sensenbrenner put a clause about the ATF into a seemingly unrelated bill. Interesting, also, that the same year this clause found its way into the Patriot Act, Sensenbrenner accepted the NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” award.^^^http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensing.html^http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-educational-seminars/^http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2012/07/23/gun-owner-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/^If you had the interest to visit these websites, then I compliment you. Whether or not your view has changed, you show a willingness to be part of a debate. If you have a site you feel objectively counters the above, I would be interested in seeing it.Respectfully,C.