Federal Gun Control Requires IT Overhaul

New submitter Matt Slaybaugh writes "John Foley at InformationWeek has an editorial saying that the missing piece in the new gun control legislation is adequate data management. 'President Obama introduced 23 executive orders on Jan. 16 aimed at reducing gun violence through a combination of tougher regulation and enforcement, research, training, education and attention to mental healthcare. Several of the proposed actions involve better information sharing, including requiring federal agencies to make relevant data available to the FBI's background check system and easing legal barriers that prevent states from contributing data to that system.' But concrete plans are needed now to improve the current poor system of data collection and sharing. Federal CIO Steven VanRoekel's Digital Government Strategy, introduced in May, 'defines an IT architecture and processes for sharing digitized content securely, using Web APIs and with attention to protecting privacy. ... Unfortunately, on top of the data quality issues identified by the White House, and the FBI's and ATF's outdated IT systems, there's a lack of transparency about the systems used to enforce federal gun-control laws.'"

Comments

Shocking?

[Feyshtey]

Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?

Re:Shocking?

[capnkr]

Is it any surprise that the Federal govt. has knee-jerked and not thought through the repercussions, or the real-world applicability of their solutions?

Perhaps through our better handling of data management these days the War on Guns will prove to be as successful and as effective as the War on Drugs has proven to be.

Re:Shocking?

[Talderas]

What has happened in the last five years that even approaches the offensive intrusion of the patriot act? What liberties are you even talking about, or is the second amendment the only one you've read?

Renewing the Patriot Act?

Re:Shocking?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."

Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.

What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.

I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.

Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.

Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.

Re:Shocking?

[moeinvt]

"What has happened in the last five years that even approaches the offensive intrusion of the patriot act? "

1. The 2012 NDAA, which authorizes the government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without criminal charges, with no right to challenge the evidence against them, with no right to legal counsel and no right to a fair trial.

2. Arbitrary assassination of U.S. citizens without so much as a criminal charge.

3. Re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

Re:Shocking?

[Anonymous Coward]

As President it's not his job to GIVE UP POWER. Is Congress' job to TAKE BACK the power...

If Congress didn't pass the law again, the President couldn't approve it.

Are you kidding? It's called a veto. It's 3rd grade civics.

Re:Shocking?

[clarkkent09]

Not only renewed it but made it permanent so he doesn't have to renew it every year, and have go through the inconvenience of hiding that fact from his followers again.

Re:Shocking?

[moeinvt]

"As President it's not his job to GIVE UP POWER."?

It's his JOB to do what's best for the nation, not what's best for himself or the government.

He has this power called a VETO. He could have sent the Patriot Act and NDAA right back to Congress with a much tougher hurdle for passage.

Re:Shocking?

[Feyshtey]

I'll attempt to explain by rephrasing your statement.

The government decided that this was a perfect oppurtunity to do something they very much wanted to do already (disarming people). They pooled a lot of things their colleagues suggested as requirements (inter-agency sharing of information, pooled profiles, mental health reporting, etc.) and kicked out a bunch of nebulous "wouldnt it be great if" thoughts translated into mandates.

Well, it'd be great if we could all ride rainbows and unicorns to work every day. But the reality is it aint going to happen. When government dicates a thing that is unrealistic (rather than fully impossible, like unicorns) they ensure that a ridiculous amount of money will be spent to produce a "thing". After the initial uproar of public opinion wanes and the bureaucrats are no longer getting nightly soundbites on national news for the topic, they are still on the hook for translating the nebulous ideas into tangible action items. They are also required to find funding for this yet to be fully designed "thing", but they are desperately bored and have moved on to whatever new national crisis is making headlines. So their underlings are assigned to get the heads of various departments and agencies to agree on some methods to accomplish some fraction of the original idea, assuring that the "thing" that comes out of the beltway meatgrinder is a collosal expense, a half-assed solution that maybe fits some of the original requirements (sorta), and is implemented 5 different ways by 10 different groups that refuse to abdicate authority to any other party involved. No one actually owns this "thing" so it is mismanaged and ineffectual.

And this also assumes a great many things; That these nebulous ideas actually fix the crisis, that the mandates are are legal or appropriate, and that some whacko didnt hijack the whole thing for some completely unintended or unforseen political agenda.

And what's even better is that the next administration comes in and uproots half of this "thing" (or more), adding to the waste of time, sweat and money.

Two things I tell my 9 year-old son; "Dont make decisions when you're angry." and "If you dont have time to do it right the first time, you arent going to have time to fix it.", and he actually gets it. Apparently my 9 year old is able to wrap his head around these simple concepts far better than politicians.

Re:Shocking?

[Jiro]

This whole thing is basically the gun equivalent of the Patriot Act. Wait for some people to get killed and while it has national exposure, push through laws that violate out Constitutional rights using the deaths as an excuse.

Re:Shocking?

[Jane Q. Public]

"BS. GGP post was not referring to amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its the discredited Xth amendment stupidity. It doesn't work like that. This has been tested, and a war was fought on the issues. The Feds won."

Sorry, just wrong. Time to read the history books.

For just one example, the propaganda insinuating that nullification has been "discredited", or has racist roots, are what is really BS. One, and only one, Southern governor threatened to try using it against anti-discrimination laws, but he never actually did.

On the other hand, nullification was used successfully by the North against the Fugitive Slave Laws. It was never used in support of slavery. (In fact, South Carolina listed Northern nullification as its first justification, in its declaration of secession. Other Southern states listed it also in their declarations, but not as the first reason.)

It has been used many times since. Far from being discredited, it has been used numerous times, and is in active effect right now!

No less than 26 states have nullified the Federal "Real ID Act". It is effectively dead in the water.

A number of states have nullified Federal marijuana laws, making marijuana legal in those states (or at least decriminalizing it). Two states recently passed legislation making it legal for recreational, not just medical, use.

Several states have nullified Federal gun laws already. At least one of them has made it a felony for anybody to attempt to enforce Federal gun laws that the state considers to be extra-constitutional. Tennessee is considering similar legislation, as are other states.

So examples of modern, current state nullification are all around you. All Government propaganda aside, you can call it "discredited" all you want, but you would know better if you just pulled your head out and took a look around. For a "discredited" concept, it sure has been -- and continues to be -- pretty darned effective.

Reduce gun violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right.

So when's Obama going to give up his armed Secret Service agents? Oh, wait. He's never going to do that.

When's Rosie O'Donnell and other anti-gun celebrities going to give up getting "we're-special-and-you're-not" gun-carrying bodyguards? Oh, wait. They're never going to do that.

But they sure as hell expect US to want to protect ourselves and our children with words that say "No guns allowed."

And then call the people with guns AFTER something bad happens

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit. Or used to, when she carried a pistol in her purse. Now she has armed guards instead.

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[TykeClone]

BS He's a man and not a king and as such he has no more entitlement to personal safety than anyone else.

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[nabsltd]

Last I checked, the president's armed guards (or Rosie O'Donnell's, or anyone else for that matter) aren't carrying military style assault rifles or hand guns with extended clips.

Since "extended clip" was "more than 10 round" in the previous "assualt weapons" ban law, and some legislators are consdering 7 rounds as the limit, I can guarantee you that most bodyguards are carrying weapons with "extended clips" by those defintions.

Secondly, "military style assault rifles" are not a problem, as those are fully automatic, and are highly regulated. If you believe that the semi-automatic rifles that look "dangerous" and which were banned for sale by the "assualt weapons" ban can give someone an advantage over a person who is carrying a not-as-dangerous-looking hunting rifle (for long range) or a pump-action shotgun (for close range), then take your own advice and "stop spouting off about things you don't know enough about".

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[Curunir_wolf]

If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.

Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?

And, BTW, there have been numerous cases where the courts have made it explicitly clear that police are under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to protect anyone.

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[RoTNCoRE]

Bank balance? The realization that personal security is largely one's own responsibility (which I refuse to abdicate), and that I am in many/most cases the best person to provide that for myself, and determine the level that is adequate for me?

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[Curunir_wolf]

...and some legislators are consdering 7 rounds as the limit

Actually, New York state already passed that into law. It caused quite an outburst from the police in the state, because the legislators neglected to provide them an exemption. They've promised to "fix" the law, immediately, of course. Which just demonstrates it's not about gun control, it's about establishing a gun monopoly.

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[MozeeToby]

The secret service absolutely does use magazines that would be banned by this legislation (unless you think they load 7 round magazines in their submachine guns) and the only reason their weapons aren't banned by this law is because they are already banned by earlier ones. MP5s, P90s, SR-16s, Mk11s... this is not the tack to take when responding to this line of argument.

The correct line IMO is this: Those agents are all background checked, mentally evaluated, and properly trained. They also have a legitimate use case for those weapons; that of defending a high risk target against an organized and well armed attack. To use the obligatory car analogy, trying to compare the Secret Service to placing armed guards in every school in America (or every home in America) is like arguing that drag racers are really fast, so we should all drive dragsters everywhere we go.

Re:Reduce gun violence?

[clarkkent09]

If they are anything like regular police, they carry handguns with 15-17 round magazines, and an Ar-15 with 30 round magazine as a backup, like police carries in almost every squad car. Exactly the things they are trying to ban. Happy now, dumbass?

Enforcement and Business

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is not polution, corruption, gun-control, or any one specific issue. It is a matter of enforcement. I think at this point that if congress were to read through every federal law on the books that they would be unable to complete the read-through in a years time (not counting all of their vacations and holidays). If the current laws are not enforced how is creating more going to solve anything? There is an industry around creating new laws. This is wrong at a fundamental level. Coincidentally it is the same problem with the medical situation. There is an entire "medical-billing industry": middlemen paid to shuffle papers with no real gain for the people footing the bill.

Same old crap.

[MaWeiTao]

The government needs to dump what they've got and start from scratch. But all I can say is good luck.

They can barely set up a site properly, let alone build and manage a sophisticated database. Visit most government sites and they're a convoluted maze of poorly organized content. And federal government sites are halfway decent, state and municipal sites are many orders of magnitude worse. I can't comprehend how the companies that build that junk remain in business.

Well, actually I can. I know people IT and web who've done work for my state and it's an absolute nightmare. It's the sort of thing that they've consistently said they'd never do again. I think the few willing to do it haven't so much figured out how to work through the red tape so much as exploit the system for personal gain. It doesn't help when you're dealing with government workers who are total incompetents, managing things they know nothing about. But as long as they look productive they don't have to worry about accountability.

And that's part of the problem. You still have to deal with the human component. I know someone who was self-employed and struggling. Because of it he was eligible for free health insurance through the state so he applied successfully. There's no copay or anything because, as was explained to him by a social worker, even if they only charged a dollar most people on the program would still refuse to pay. The expectation is that it all should be free.

So a year in he lands a decent job and is no longer eligible for the program. He gets in touch with the worker to cancel the plan. Over the next year he continues getting plan updates. They even switch providers for him. The state partners with various companies and over so often they have to switch providers. The user is supposed to pick a plan or risk cancellation. But apparently if you ignore all the paperwork they take care of it all for you. So here he was calling multiple times before they finally dropped him. Someone with fewer scruples could have milked the plan indefinitely. And in fact, I know of some people who've done just that.

That's just one example. I have others. With this level of incompetence how can we expected any program to be implemented and managed properly? The existing program should already be addressing these problems. No one ever assess and analyzes. It's always that we need something even bigger and more complex couple to the idea that more money can fix any problem. Then when the next grand program fails they'll just start the cycle all over.

I'm not suggesting we don't need an overhaul. I'm simply pointing out that it's almost certainly going to be a financial morass resulting in something no more effective than we've got now.

Harder than it sounds

[SirGarlon]

I suspect the problem of establishing interoperability among the government agencies is harder than it sounds. The DoD has been working on getting their stovepiped systems to talk to one another for 20 years. Remember the big push after 9/11 to get all the first responders talking on the same radio frequencies? Hundreds of millions spent, and still no results. So "incompatible computer systems" doesn't sound to me like a minor hurdle that can be overcome with a couple years' R&D. It sounds more to me like "doomed from the outset."

Possibly our best defense against Big Brother is that the government adopted all its major IT systems before the Internet was a household word.

Why do we need new laws and regulations?

[Attila Dimedici]

Prosecutions for violating existing federal gun laws are down significantly under Obama. Joe Biden said that they do not have the time and manpower in order to pursue violations of the law on background checks. If the Administration does not enforce existing laws, why should we believe that any new laws will make any positive difference?

Re:Why do we need new laws and regulations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has hamstrung the administration's ability to enforce existing gun laws. They've done everything they could to guarantee that the ATF is a permanently incompetent agency.

Unauthorized

[fyngyrz]

the War on Guns will prove to be as successful and as effective as the War on Drugs has proven to be.

And also, just as unauthorized.

Prohibition WRT alcohol required a constitutional amendment. Marijuana, for some magical reason, did not. Why? I mean, other than government out of control? Where did this magical power to step on our liberties come from?

The 2nd amendment is explicit: The government is forbidden from infringing upon our right to keep and carry arms. They are engaged in applying unauthorized power to the citizens with every law that infringes on the right to keep and carry arms, of which there are a huge number.

Any law that interposes licensing, restrictions on carrying (whether open or not), or restricts any particular arm, is completely outside the scope of the government's legitimate authority.

The constitution is the highest law in the land. The government is engaged in breaking that law.

Welcome to government by fiat.

Re:Unauthorized

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm sorry, but you're missing out on three things: one, the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like. Two, we're already restricting what arms can be carried. Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile? Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban. Yes, it is a restriction, but only at the dictionary level. I hope you understand context.

Man, I know you're one of the more level-headed posters here. If you're going down the rabbit hole of selectively quoting the constitution, ignoring commonly-accepted precedent and basic logic, I'm not sure if there's any hope for any sort of reasoned debate anymore.

Re:Unauthorized

[Obfuscant]

the full second amendment includes a bit about a militia. You don't get to ignore parts of the constitution you don't like.

And you don't get to ignore simple English when trying to eviscerate basic rights. The clause about the militia is an explanatory clause, not a regulatory clause. I.e., it explains one reason (but not every reason) why the right that is specified in that amendment is important. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear ...", it says "the right" unqualified.

And when talking about the militia, in the day that was written, "the militia" meant, essentially, everyone.

Or do you think you can just get a fully-automatic weapon, or an anti-tank missile?

Actually, from your comment about the 2nd amendment applying only to a militia member, those are exactly the kinds of weapons that should be protected by the 2nd amendment. In any case, yes, according to a prima facie reading of the 2nd amendment, there is no limit on the arms with respect to automatic or semiautomatic, or size.

Three, licensing is not the same thing as a ban.

Licensing is exactly the same as a ban for anyone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements for obtaining the license, and it is absolutely an infringement for everyone else.

Some obvious observations

[Okian Warrior]

I just wanted to point out some really obvious things

There is an wide chasm between "Non compos mentis" and "mental health issues". Note that the 2nd term isn't "mental health disorder" it's "mental health issues".

How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder. Will a judge be involved in the ruling, or will the police make the determination? Will it be "confiscate first, check later"?

Will a doctor's word - patient "X" is on antidepressants - be sufficient for the police to come and confiscate arms? Will the confiscation last forever, or can a person be deemed "cured" and get their guns back? Will this cause people to hide real mental health issues for fear of having their property confiscated?

Many people with "mental health issues" have broken no law. This means the government will be taking away the rights of a group of people based on a warm-fuzzy "it seems like the right thing to do" attitude. We could just as easily restrict blacks from having firearms because blacks commit more crimes than whites in this country.

People make a lot of hay over the "social contract". It turns out that our ancestors made a social contract which was explicitly put down on paper and said that you could have your centralized government so long as the people can keep guns.

You cannot break that contract directly, you have to change the constitution to do it - that's the rules, and everyone has to abide by them. If you don't believe in the constitution, then the social contract is null and void, and we might as well do away with the federal government.

And where is state governance in all this? What if some states (Texas comes to mind) simply don't want to restrict gun control in this manner? The constitution explicitly states that the federal government can't take this right away.

And finally, you know that this will be abused by law enforcement to extreme levels. Cops will be grabbing guns off of everyone they see claiming "well, he looked like he had mental health issues". Prosecutors will dig up any thin hint of a mental health issue to justify keeping the guns, and no one will be able to get their property back - ever.

This whole issue is a train wreck waiting to happen. Especially since, given the statistics, it will cause more children to be hurt (on average) than relaxing restrictions.