INCH by INCH: Obama Issues Executive Order That May Drive Gunsmiths Out of Business – The Truth About Guns

President Obama has the ability to issue “executive orders” that direct the agencies controlled by the Office of the President to change the way they operate. Government agencies have a large amount of leeway when it comes to the interpretation of the law and how it applies to the American people, and these executive orders are intended to allow the president to specifically direct those agencies in whatever manner he sees fit.

Last Friday President Obama issued one such order which changed the definition of a “manufacturer” under the ITAR treaty regulations, a change which now means anyone who so much as threads a barrel on a firearm needs to pay thousands more dollars in fees and is subject to further registration. From the NRA:

By way of background, the AECA and ITAR concern rules by which military materiel is exported from, and imported to, the United States. The so-called “defense articles” governed by the AECA/ITAR are compiled in what is known as the U.S. Munitions List and include some, but not all, firearms and ammunition, as well as their parts and components.

Thus, for purposes of the regime, a spring or floorplate from the magazine of a controlled firearm is subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.

The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year. These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article.

Moreover, under ITAR, “only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business” and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements.

The issue is the definition of “manufacturer.” Previously, only machine shops who actually produce a firearm from scratch were required to register as a “manufacturer.” Local gun shops with a shade-tree gunsmith happily threading barrels and trueing up receivers were exempt, since they didn’t actually make anything new.

This new interpretation of the ITAR regulations has changed all that, and anyone who so much as threads a barrel now must further register with the Federal government as a “manufacturer” and pay an additional $2,250 in registration fees. That might not seem like a lot to a big shop, but for the small mom-and-pop gunsmiths this could be enough to put them out of business.

The NRA’s opinion on the matter is predictable:

DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. Like ATF’s early “guidance” this year on theGCA’s licensing requirement for firearm “dealers,” it is also likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated.   

The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce. That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November.

Source: BREAKING: Obama Issues Executive Order That May Drive Gunsmiths Out of Business – The Truth About Guns

Gun Groups Push to Make Silencers Easier to Purchase, Own

Gun rights advocates hope to remove a number of federal restrictions related to the purchase and ownership of firearm silencers.

The Hearing Protection Act would exempt silencers from the National Firearms Act of 1934, a law that also regulates fully automatic weapons. Under the current law, individuals who wish to purchase a silencer must pay a $200 tax and wait several months for the ATF to process paperwork on the item before bringing the accessory home. The process is more complex than buying a firearm.

A coalition of gun rights groups, including the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, are making the Hearing Protection Act a top priority for 2016. SilencerCo, a leading silencer manufacturer, is also at the center of the effort.

“It could be a really big deal for the gun industry,” said SilencerCo CEO Joshua Waldron, who also holds positions at the American Suppressor Association and NRA. “We’re gaining momentum. The best part about this bill is we didn’t understand how much support we would get from all of the organizations: NSSF, NRA, Congressional Sportsman Foundation. It’s really a strong push because in essence everybody understands what suppressors really are.”

“They make hunting and shooting safer. That’s an issue that everybody can get behind on both sides of the table.”

Waldron said his company was heavily involved in crafting the bill and has advocated on its behalf through advertising and email-writing campaigns. “We helped the American Suppressor Association in drafting the language for the bill,” Waldron said. “From our website alone we’ve generated 60,000 letters sent to lawmakers in support of HPA.”

Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.), an avid shooter who uses silencers and introduced the Hearing Protection Act, said he has seen a groundswell of support from his colleagues.

“It’s been very positive,” Salmon said. “We already have 55 co-sponsors. We have Democrats on the bill as well. It’s actually picking up a lot of steam. Suppressors really should’ve never been placed in the act in the first place. I think it was a mistake in the first place. There’s no rationale. It’s not the same as fully automatic weapon. To me it’s a great training tool.”

Salmon and Waldron both said silencers are not used in crime.

“There have been zero legally-owned suppressors used in crimes since the ‘30s,” Waldron claimed.

Salmon said that is why there has been little organized resistance to the bill.

“They’re just not used in crimes,” Salmon said. “People are buying them for training purposes and because they are concerned about the noise levels. Most people that have any level of opposition to it are operating on urban legend instead of reality. They’re the kind of people that get all of their knowledge from watching The Bourne Identity.”

“I think once people know exactly what they do and the benefits they have, the opposition just kinda withers up because it’s not rational,” Salmon said.

Two leading gun control groups, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety, did not respond to a request for comment about the bill, but gun control advocates have opposed silencers in the past.

“A silencer is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are also illegal,” a 2008 report by the Brady Center said.

Many gun advocates view silencers as safety devices because they dampen the sound of gunshots so they do not damage shooters’ hearing. Some hunters like silencers because they prefer not to use hearing protection that blocks out the sound of approaching game. This results in hearing loss for many hunters, including Salmon.

Waldron said that current restrictions on silencers do not make sense. He pointed out that silencers and car mufflers are essentially the same technology, invented by the same man.

“It’s ridiculous when you think about it,” Waldron said. “Can you imagine if you had to pay a $200 tax for your muffler for your car and had to wait six months before you could go pick up your car from the lot? It doesn’t make any logical sense.”

Advocates of the bill said it is likely to pass the House and Senate easily this year, but will face a potential veto from President Obama.

Source: Gun Groups Push to Make Silencers Easier to Purchase, Own

Obama executive actions on guns coming Tuesday

President Obama

The White House announced it will unveil President Obama’s promised executive orders Tuesday morning on “common sense” gun control, but Second Amendment advocates and Republicans in Congress say “not so fast.”

They’re gearing up for a battle that will extend to the legislative branch and the courts.

Obama is expected to announce his unilateral plans to work around Congress to rein in gun sales and “make our communities safer,” according to a White House statement that appears to borrow the exact talking points of Michael Bloomberg’s Every Town For Gun Safety. He plans to deliver remarks at 11:40 a.m. EST Tuesday from the East Room. The president also plans to pitch his ideas at a nationally televised town hall Thursday with Anderson Cooper on CNN.

On Monday evening, the White House released a memo titled, “Promoting Smart Gun Technology.” The memo ordered the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to “conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.” The White House also instructed the departments to “explore potential ways to further [the technology’s] use and development to more broadly improve gun safety.”

In the memo, Obama said he directed the Department of Justice in 2013 to review gun safety technologies “such as devices requiring a scan of the owner’s fingerprint before a gun can fire.”

As WND reported, Frank Miniter, author of “The Future of the Gun,” has warned that mandatory smart-gun technology could make every existing gun in the U.S. illegal.

Also, under the plan announced by the White House:

  • Obama plans to expand the definition of a licensed gun dealer to include anyone who sells firearms at gun shows and online. He argues the move will close a purported “legal loophole” that lets gun buyers bypass background checks by purchasing firearms through trusts and corporations.
  • Legal barriers will be removed so states can share information on Americans disqualified from gun ownership due to mental health reasons.
  • The FBI will hire more than 230 new examiners to process background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
  • Obama plans to ask Congress to authorize $500 million to fund increased access to mental health care.

Obama insists his actions are within his legal authority and supported by “the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners.”

But if Obama acts without Congress’ approval to expand background checks to person-to-person gun transfers among fellow gun enthusiasts, he will in effect be laying the foundation for a national gun registry, critics say. And they’re preparing to push back hard against any such measures.

“If you think Obama is going to stop now, you are badly mistaken. This is only the beginning,” Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, told WND.

“President Obama is determined to take away our Second Amendment rights before he leaves office. He has made a public promise to enact his gun control agenda with or without Congress,” Gottlieb said. “Now it appears he is starting to make good on his promise through executive orders. This is a direct assault on our Second Amendment rights.”

Gottlieb said if Obama follows through with this assault, he should expect SAF and other groups to mount a vigorous legal challenge.

“We intend to bring a lawsuit against to the Obama administration if he follows through on his executive orders and regulations against our constitutional and civil rights,” Gottlieb said.

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., said Republicans in Congress will attempt to cut funding for any executive orders on gun control, but the legislative body has already given up much of its leverage by passing the omnibus budget bill just before Christmas.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/obama-executive-actions-on-guns-coming-tuesday/#TYLbGO6HA4iPOoFL.99

via Obama executive actions on guns coming Tuesday.

Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales

AP STOLEN GUNS VIOLENCE A FILE USA MO

WASHINGTON — Renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws, following a succession of fatal shootings in the United States, immediately appear to be generating a boost for the gun industry.

Newly released August records show that the FBI posted 1.7 million background checks required of gun purchasers at federally licensed dealers, the highest number recorded in any August since gun checks began in 1998. The numbers follow new monthly highs for June (1.5 million) and July (1.6 million), a period which spans a series of deadly gun attacks — from Charleston to Roanoke — and proposals for additional firearm legislation.

While the FBI does not track actual gun sales, as multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s numbers are an indicator of a market upswing in the face of growing anxiety about access to guns.

“Whenever there is a call for gun control, sales increase,” said Larry Keane, general counsel for the firearm industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Unfortunately, this is a pattern that repeats itself.”

The summer trend is not on par with the panic buying boom that followed the 2012 Newtown massacre, which jump-started state and federal campaigns for a host of new firearm measures. During the months that followed the Connecticut attack, which featured new calls for an assault weapons ban and expanded background checks, apprehensive gun buyers emptied the shelves of dealers across the country. Yet, the recent uptick represents a similar buying pattern that dates to the uneasy period before 1994 adoption of the assault weapons ban. (That ban expired in 2004.)

Virginia Del. Patrick Hope, a Democratic member of the state Assembly who proposed an expansion of background checks following last month’s shooting deaths of two journalists near Roanoke, said the stockpiling of weapons represented an “over-reaction.”

“We’re not at all threatening any one’s ability to get a gun,” Hope said. “What we’re talking about here is common sense legislation. I don’t think any one is threatened by background checks.”

In the recent Virginia shootings, an attack carried out on live television, gunman Vester Flanagan passed a background check prior to last month’s purchase of two Glock handguns, including the weapon used in the Aug. 26 assault in which reporter Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were killed. A third person, a local chamber of commerce official, was wounded. Flanagan later used one of the weapons to kill himself.

Hope said his expanded background check proposal, supported by a petition containing 28,000 signatures, is aimed at the unchecked market of private firearm transactions, mostly over the Internet and at gun shows, that account for about 40% of firearm sales.

“I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented (the Virginia shooting) but because this would be easiest to pass,” Hope said. “We will not be able to prevent every single incident. We need to do something.”

But Keane said the legislative proposals commonly offered in the emotional wake of fatal shootings often do not account for specific circumstances leading up to the attacks.

“These things are being offered up before the person is even arrested or before (investigators) even know what happened,” Keane said. “For people concerned about their Second Amendment rights, the concern never goes away.”

Keane said the gun purchases prompted by calls for new restrictions are “certainly legitimate to the person exercising their fundamental civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment.”

“The concern that anti-gun politicians are seeking to infringe and restrict the right to keep and bear arms is very real and well-founded,” he said.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said there is risk during periods of increased sales when all purchases are not covered by background checks.

“When gun sales rise, more and more weapons find a set of dangerous hands to call home,” Gross said. “There are people in this country, people like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers who we all agree simply should not have guns.”

 

Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales.

Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because they’re fun to shoot – LA Times

AR-15

Even though assault weapons — guns originally designed for combat use and rapid fire — constitute only about 1% of all 300 million firearms in America, lately they’ve been flying off the shelves. Demand has outpaced production.

Weapons like the AR-15 represent the leading edge of the gun debate. Successfully enacted on a limited basis at the national level in 1994, the assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, a new ban was introduced in Congress, and although the effort failed, it raised an enduring question: What is their appeal to some gun owners?

The case against assault-weapon restrictions is familiar: Such guns are really no different from conventional rifles; they are useful for self-protection and hunting; and bans infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. But these arguments don’t amount to an explanation for the guns’ popularity (in fact the first point begs the question). If every last assault weapon disappeared tomorrow, thousands of other weapons would still be readily available for all of these purposes.Here’s the real story.First, assault weapons acquisition has become a form of political expression. Many have noted increases in firearms sales keyed both to the election cycle, notably Barack Obama’s elections in 2008 and 2012, and to mass shootings. The very purchase of guns, and especially assault weapons, is a statement that they should remain legal and unregulated, that guns themselves are not the problem. It’s also a way to express opposition to Obama. Within the gun industry, this pattern is called “political sales.”Second, some buy these weapons because of their enticement as “forbidden fruit.” After all, they were restricted nationwide for 10 years, and even today seven states plus the District of Columbia limit access to these weapons.

 

 

Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because they’re fun to shoot – LA Times.

Greg Gutfeld: Gun Control Losing Because Americans Refuse to Feel Guilty over Self-Defense – Breitbart

AP Photo/Rick Bowmer

On April 3, Fox News’ host Greg Gutfeld explained that the media’s gun control arguments increasingly fall on deaf ears because Americans refuse to feel guilty over using guns for self-defense.

Gutfeld said, “No matter how hard the establishment media tries, they can’t convince good people how bad guns are when they’re in the right hands.”

He then explained that the American people, while supportive of the police, have simply come to realize that there are long seconds–and frequently, agonizing minutes–between the time they dial 911 and the time police arrive. Moreover, he stressed that Americans understand that in many instances the police will only be coming to count bodies–that any defense that is going to happen has to happen before badges, handcuffs, or sirens are on the scene.

Gutfeld suggested the gun control media’s inability to understand these things has only placed greater distance between their esoteric arguments and the American people. He said:

Perhaps the media misses the big point. They do their theorizing from the fish bowl of a well-protected studio and travel to and from work at reasonable hours through tiny neighborhoods in secure vehicles. The fine people of Detroit don’t have that luxury; they realize that any argument against arming yourself is full of holes, which is not the way they’d like to end up being.

Empirical support for Gutfeld’s claims can be seen in the pro-gun attitude taking hold in Detroit’s heavily black community right now. Breitbart News recently reported that concealed carry is surging in the black community, and no less a prominent figure than Detroit Police Chief James Craig explained that this is a seismic shift from how things have been historically.

In a tone similar to Gutfeld’s, Craig explained that Detroit residents have simply come to realize that good guys with guns really can protect their own lives and the lives of their neighbors. They have also realized that being armed helps bring stability to their community.

In the real world, these realizations are drowning out anything that gun controllers might say to the contrary.

Greg Gutfeld: Gun Control Losing Because Americans Refuse to Feel Guilty over Self-Defense – Breitbart.

Gun bill would shoot down bullet bans

Gun legislation introduced Monday would prevent the Obama administration from ever again attempting to ban bullets.

Republicans are looking to shoot down any chance of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reviving a controversial ban on certain types of armor-piercing ammunition and “put an end to this attack on our Second Amendment,” even as Democrats rally for more gun control measures.

The ATF backed down last week from a plan to prohibit gun companies from manufacturing 5.56mm projectiles for M855 cartridges commonly used in AR-15 hunting rifles — but would not rule out any future restrictions on these bullets.

The Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act introduced Monday by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) would ensure that ammunition “intended, marketed, and sold for rifle use” is protected from the ATF’s grip.

Republicans accuse the ATF of thwarting the Second Amendment in a “backdoor” attempt to restrict the use of certain guns by banning popular ammunition.

McHenry called it an “assault on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

“The Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act would put an end to this attack on our Second Amendment by ensuring this popular ammunition used by countless law-abiding American sportsmen remains available and not subject to any future ATF bans,” McHenry said in a statement.

The ATF argued the proposed bullet ban would have protected police officers from bullets that were traditionally used in hunting rifles but can now also be used in handguns, which are more easily concealed; it backed down amid mounting pressure from Republicans and the gun lobby.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) called the ATF’s decision a “significant, but unfortunately temporary, victory for gun owners.”

“The Obama administration has made it clear that they will pursue an ammunition ban whenever they see an opportunity,” Chris Cox,  the NRA’s top lobbyist, said in a statement

Democrats are urging the ATF to revive the bullet ban. A group of lawmakers will introduce new legislation later this week that would give the agency the authority to ban all forms of armor-piercing ammunition.

The ATF may have scrapped the plan last week so it could further “study” the issue, but Republicans fear it could bring the bullet ban back in the near future.

“They have still left open the possibility that it could be proposed again in the future and many Congressional Democrats have called for just that,” McHenry said.

Gun bill would shoot down bullet bans | TheHill.

Spokane: Armed 2nd-Amend. Supporters Confront Feds; Feds Back Down

The sticking point is over the federal statute that prohibits possession of weapons in federal property (i.e., buildings), but not on federal property. InfoWars relates the exchange Bosworth had with federal officials, writing:

While inquiring on the alleged need to provide ID, Bosworth was accused of being in violation of federal gun laws according to a DHS agent on scene.

“It’s against federal law,” the agent claimed. “18 U.S. C 930 says it’s illegal.”

Bosworth, correctly citing the law’s wordage, asserted that the restriction only applied to the inside of federal buildings.

“On federal property,” the DHS agent argued. “You’re on federal property.”

18 U.S. Code 930 in fact never once uses the words “on federal property,” but instead repeatedly refers to the possession of a firearm inside a federally-run building.

InfoWars then cites the relevant federal code:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

None of this mattered, however, and Bosworth was handcuffed and hauled away. Even more strikingly, it’s alleged that his gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment weren’t the only ones violated. As Lynn Finney of the Jackson Presswrote, “He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for ‘failure to comply.’”

But Bosworth supporters say it is the federal government that didn’t comply — with the Constitution. As Finney writes, “It is of particular note that when Mr Bosworth requested an attorney, they laughed and told him that was ‘Hollywood Stuff!’”

Yet it is the feds who might be watching too much TV. It’s also alleged, Finney tells us, that in “their attempt to interrogate Mr Bosworth, the Marshal Service were [sic] looking for information on the Liberty for All movement…. They alternated between threatening Mr Bosworth with jail time and trying to recruit him as a snitch.”

As to this good cop/bad cop routine, Bosworth reports that the police and an FBI agent wanted to know about his future plans and political activism. And the story got even stranger after his release. As InfoWars reports:

Bosworth revealed that the same FBI agent, now using a different name, confronted him on the street and asked for a “private meeting.”

The agent reportedly stated that he lacked knowledge on the Second Amendment and wanted to learn Bosworth’s viewpoints, an obvious attempt to lure Bosworth into becoming an informant while gathering further information on his constitutionally-protected First Amendment activity.

Not surprisingly, Bosworth, who spent 17 years in the military and served in Iraq, didn’t bite. He alleges, however, that it was suggested he’d get bitten if he didn’t shut up. A federal marshal told him, reports InfoWars, “‘Between me and you some friendly advice, if you be quiet for a year there is a good chance this will all go away. Just some friendly advice,’ Bosworth recalled.”

Yet LFA’s claim that Bosworth’s arrest was illegal from the get-go seemed to have been vindicated March 2. That day was when Obama-appointed federal judge Rosanna Malouf Petersonsigned an order expanding the firearms prohibition “to include the federal property and grounds appurtenant to the U.S. Courthouses within the Eastern District of Washington”; this would seem a tacit admission that the carrying of firearms on said grounds was not illegal previously.

The question is: Is it even illegal now? LFA and its supporters say no, with the Patrick Henry Society’s Kit Lange writing that “Judge Peterson was not only out of line in her decision, she was absolutely against the law” and “could be charged with a host of crimes that involve penalties including imprisonment and more.”

This brings us to the March 6 LFA rally. Protesting Bosworth’s arrest and openly challenging Judge Peterson’s order, a large number of patriots gathered in front of the Spokane courthouse with loaded weapons (video here). This time federal officials — perhaps realizing the law wasn’t on their side (despite Peterson’s apparent judicial activism) or maybe just concerned about inflaming tensions — struck a far more deferential tone. In fact, a law-enforcement officer who appears to be one who was involved in the Bosworth arrest could be seen politely asking the protesters if they could please just stay away from the courthouse door. In short, the feds backed down.

But this doesn’t mean they backed off. Kit Lange attended the rally and later made some disturbing allegations. As she reported at her blog:

As we reached the courthouse, several DHS vehicles were outside. As we stood on the sidewalk, outside federal property, a few of us started scanning — and found what we were looking for. Aside from the DHS helicopter overhead, there was a roving perimeter manned by SUVs with fake license plates. A homeless man on the sidewalk next to a building, holding a smartphone that was taking video. Another man sitting on a bench pretending to read a book while watching closely. Someone else walking around through the crowd trying to chat up the attendees and get their business cards or contact information. There were snipers on the roof … many of them, positioned in such a way that no matter where we were in the area, we could be taken out any moment.

But for the moment, Americans can still exercise their rights — at least when they have the strength of numbers.

And, increasingly, citizens are opposing the federal government. There was the April 2014 stand-off at the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada, where the feds decided to back down after encountering armed patriots and negative publicity. Last December, between 1,000 and 3,000 armed Second Amendment defenders held a rally in Washington’s capitol, Olympia, in defiance of a new state gun-control law as the police stood down and refused to enforce it. And nullification efforts, in which state legislatures and local sheriffs have vowed to ignore unconstitutional federal dictates, are picking up steam from coast to coast. So it appears that while the feds show no sign of backing off on their constitutional trespass, some Americans still understand that, as Thomas Paine said, “The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government.”

Spokane: Armed 2nd-Amend. Supporters Confront Feds; Feds Back Down.

DEA chief: US abandoned plan to track cars near gun shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Drug Enforcement Administration abandoned an internal proposal to use surveillance cameras for photographing vehicle license plates near gun shows in the United States to investigate gun-trafficking, the agency’s chief said Wednesday.

DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart said in a statement that the proposal memorialized in an employee’s email was only a suggestion, never authorized by her agency and never put into action. The AP also learned that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not authorize or approve the license plate surveillance plan.

Automated license plate scanners take pictures of every vehicle that passes their field of view and record the information in a database that can be used to track a vehicle’s movements over time.

Federal, state and local police agencies routinely use the cameras mounted on patrol cruisers or in fixed locations, such as utility poles or busy intersections. Collectively, they capture the movements of millions of vehicles each day. Private companies, including tow truck agencies, also use them.

The scanners have raised significant privacy concerns even though they generally only record cars and trucks driving on public roads. There are no consistent, national rules that govern how police can use the information, how long it can be saved and how widely the records can be shared with other police agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reported the DEA’s aborted plan in Wednesday’s editions.



 

My Way News – DEA chief: US abandoned plan to track cars near gun shows.