Tracing of Brown University Killer’s Gun Should Shatter Tracing Myths
The mainstream media has a real thing for gun tracing. They’re quick to quote anti-gunners, both activists and politicians, who say that so-called ghost guns are a problem because they can’t be traced. This supposedly deprives law enforcement of a serious tool they need.
Of course, no one has ever found a case that’s been broken by gun tracing, and even if there is one, the truth is that tracing only really works to find the original buyer.
This was just illustrated rather well in a report about how the tracing of the Brown University shooter’s gun has been completed.
The origin of the 9mm pistol that [the killer] fired in a Brown University lecture hall is not known to the public.
But investigators have completed their trace of the gun, which means they have identified the first person who purchased the weapon after it was manufactured and distributed, according to Andrew Wozniak, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
If that first purchaser was [the killer], then investigators already know where he procured the gun that he fired on Dec. 13, killing two people and injuring nine.
However, if [he] was not the first purchaser, what investigators know is not as clear, based on Wozniak’s limited comments.
“ATF has completed traces of the firearms in this case,” he said, adding that the agency “cannot publicize the details of those firearm traces at this time.”
In the lexicon of the ATF’s tracking center, a complete trace means that investigators tracked the gun along a path from either its manufacturer (or an importer, if it was foreign-made); through a chain of distribution, which typically involves a wholesaler as well as one or two retailers; and on to the first purchaser, Wozniak said.
And if it went beyond that initial purchase, even in a universal background check state, things get virtually impossible.
In this case, they know who had the gun and are trying to see if they can find a link to someone who may have helped him. Unless the gun was originally purchased by a third party a few weeks or so before the shooting, or if the original buyer reported the gun stolen, then there’s not a whole lot else to be learned.
Once a gun leaves the hands of the original buyer, the trail largely dies. That’s true even in universal background check states, where people might be required to go to a gun store to transfer a firearm, but they’re not required to remember which one they went to or anything else. Depending on how long ago such a purchase was, the original buyer may legitimately not remember anything about the transaction.
And that’s if everyone is trying to do everything lawfully and you have a near-totalitarian regime in place to make everyone do everything exactly like they’re supposed to.
Realistically, though, even that wouldn’t be the case in most states.
For all the hysteria about gun tracing, the people screaming the loudest don’t actually understand how tracing works and what its limitations are. In this case, we see a report that explicitly outlines what the ATF can learn from a trace, and that ain’t much.
While it’s a tool law enforcement uses, they don’t bank on that solving crimes, and they have never gotten a conviction based primarily on gun-tracing data. They do actual police work because that’s what puts criminals behind bars.
In this case, they hope they can find anyone who helped, but let’s be real, they’re not likely to find one. The only reason they found one in the Columbine case was that the killers were underage, and they needed someone older to buy the guns. That’s it, and that’s rare.
I’ll be shocked if they learn anything useful this time.
