Mexico Pulls the Rug from Under ATF Long Gun Registry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igiBcGJu-iE

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires) wants to create an “emergency” long gun registration to combat the flow of rifles from U.S. gun dealers to Mexican drug cartels. Huh? Setting aside the fact that there’s no proof that this so-called “iron river” of smuggled guns is anything more than a trickle, the drug wars in Mexico have been raging for at least four years. What’s the rush? Why has the ATF has truncated the public consultation period from the usual 90 days to 21 (and the clock is already ticking)? As I’ve posted previously, the ATF initiative’s existence, timing and [supposed] urgency has more to do with politics than, well, anything. And here’s the kicker: just as the ATF has declared an emergency the Mexican government is declaring victory. Check this from laht.com:

The government’s security strategy has succeeded in weakening Mexico’s drug cartels, including the Pacific cartel, whose members accounted for 24 percent of the drug arrests made in the country this year, the Security Cabinet said.

Record drug seizures and other blows have weakened the criminal organizations, the body, which is made up of several Cabinet secretaries and the Attorney General’s Office, said.

The blows against the Sinaloa cartel “have been equally intense and systematic,” resulting in constant arrests of members that “reduced the capabilities of that criminal organization,” the Security Cabinet said . . .

Five high-level Sinaloa cartel members – Jesus Reynaldo Zambada, Vicente Zambada Niebla, Eduardo Teodoro Garcia Simental, Manuel Fernandez Valencia and Jose Manuel Garcia Simental – were arrested this year, the government said.

So . . . emergency over! Time for the ATF to stand down and withdraw this 180-day—sorry, one-year plan to violate the Gun Control Act. Either that or claim that it’s necessary to keep the bad guys on the run. Which would be a scary thing for them to maintain, as that dubious rationale would be equally valid (and invalid) when the one-year program is set to expire. Huh.