ARIZONA is a funny state. There the full force of the law is brought to bear on the waning problem of illegal immigration, while a relatively lax approach is taken to the very real problem of gun-running. Take a couple examples from a new piece in Fortune. In one, ATF agents found that a man who purchased 476 firearms for $300,000 over six months was on food stamps. This would seem to suggest that he was a straw-purchaser of firearms—someone used by criminals to buy their guns for them. In the other, an unemployed man paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber sniper rifle, in what again seemed like a straw-purchase. In both cases the assistant US attorney in Phoenix warned agents about taking action against the men.
That's because in Arizona anyone over 18 who passes a criminal background check can walk into a gun shop and purchase as many guns as they want. They can also resell them. Here's how Patrick Cunningham, the US attorney's former criminal chief in Arizona, described the state's laws: "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful... Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." That's usually a difficult case to make, so prosecutors are reluctant to go after straw-purchasing, which carries a relatively small penalty anyway.
So the food-stamp guy and the jobless guy were allowed to go about their business. This frustrated Dave Voth, the ATF agent who had been in charge of stopping the flow of guns from Arizona into Mexico. When an agent in Texas emailed him about 63 confiscated guns purchased in Arizona and asked, "Are you just letting these guns walk?", Mr Voth recounted the story of the unemployed man and shot back, "any ideas on how we could not let that firearm 'walk'"?
The walking being referred to is "gun-walking", the process of allowing weapons to be sold to suspected straw-purchasers in order to follow them to the criminals at the end of the chain. This is what ATF agents are accused of doing in the now-infamous Operation Fast and Furious, of which Mr Voth was the supervisor. But the Fortune piece referenced above, which is a must-read for anyone following the case, claims that the ATF never intentionally let guns fall into the hands of criminals during Operation Fast and Furious, and that the gun-walking allegations are a result of shoddy reporting, political bloodlust and petty bureaucratic infighting.
Take, for example, the guns that set off this controversy—the two that ended up at the murder scene of an elite border-patrol agent. The man who bought the guns, Jaime Avila, was suspected of straw-purchasing, but prior to the incident on the border prosecutors were reluctant to indict him for lack of evidence. And while Mr Avila's purchase was reported to the ATF, the agents had no chance to seize the weapons, says Fortune. In the context of Arizona's weak laws and timid prosecution, it seems rather plausible that the guns in Operation Fast and Furious walked off on their own, so to speak.
But hang on a moment. Didn't the gun-store owner who sold Mr Avila his guns say he was told by the ATF to makes sales to suspected illegal purchasers? That sounds like the first step in gun-walking. And didn't the Justice Department admit to gun-walking? In December Eric Holder testified that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again." And what of the briefing paper, written by Mr Voth and his supervisors, which stated: "Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of additional co-conspirators"?
Has Fortune got it wrong? Not necessarily. Mr Voth's team did intentionally walk guns in another case—ironically, in a case masterminded by the impudent ATF agent who complained about Operation Fust and Furious to CBS News. And there seems to be some Clintonian confusion over the definition of "walking"—can you walk a gun that prosecutors probably wouldn't have allowed you to intercept? It's a bit murky, but two things seem clear. First, there was a comprehensive breakdown in America's effort to stem the flow of guns into Mexico that goes beyond the ATF's severly flawed Operation Fast and Furious. There is no doubt that Arizona's gun laws and timid prosecutors played a role in this failure. Second, neither the administration nor Darrell Issa, who is heading up the congressional investigation of the operation, seem intent on figuring out exactly what went wrong.
Mr Issa, for his part, has actually tried to stop ATF agents from sharing their opinions on the relevant gun laws, which one agent called "toothless" in testimony before his committee. The Republican congressman seems more interested in promoting conspiracy theories about Democratic gun-control efforts than solving the overarching problem in Arizona. Meanwhile, the administration at first denied the allegation of gun-walking, then confessed and is now stonewalling. On Thursday the House voted to hold Eric Holder, the attorney-general, in contempt for not handing over documents related to the case. The more light shed on the government's actions, the better, but the contempt citation has little practical impact. And somehow I don't see all this partisan bickering leading to any more clarity on the issue.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
？？？
got nothin' else to do today, might go out and buy a 50-caliber sniper rifle......
I'm not exactly sure how this happened, but the Economist writer apparently managed not to connect the "murkiness" of the case with Mr. Holder's refusal to hand over documents requested by Congress--and this somehow means that Mr. Issa "doesn't seem intent on figuring out what went wrong." Ooooookaaaay.
I'm also unsure how Arizona's weak gun laws and timid prosecutors are responsible for the failure of an operation conceived and implemented by the ATF, a Federal agency, because nowhere in the article does the writer indicate that the operation was a collaboration between state and federal officials.
Interesting tidbit in the Fortune story. The investigation, such as it was, involved 2,000 guns over several years. The official estimate is that something like 2,000 guns transit the border heading south every day.
Holder isn't up to the job, and should go. But this is all just one extended shart by the usual suspects who really like gun trafficking and the associated mayhem, and work tirelessly to make it as easy and painless as possible, against the ATF.
And who do you think is to blame for the demand for guns in Mexico? It's America's gangster government with its sanctimonious drug war, which is a pretext to keep the prices high and prevent competition. After all, the CIA deals in drugs, and the US occupies Afghanistan which produces 90% of the world's opium. Despite America's anti-narcotics mania, it has built plants to process Afghan opium into heroin. But first America had to stage a false flag terrorism hoax on 9/11/2001 which wouldn't fool a baboon.
I find it hard to believe that the resale of $300,000 worth of fire-arms would not incur some kind of tax, even in Arizona?
And surely the ability of someone claiming foodstamps to purchase that amount of weaponry would imply the person was defrauding the government for welfare.
It might not be straw-purchases, but if straw-purchases carry minor penalties it hardly matters.
The ATF could have used other means rather than those it did. RICO laws could be applicable, they can cover almost anything. Or been imaginative enough to go after tax evasion or defrauding the government. They chose not to, in fact, they chose to do nothing.
Though I normally side with the Democrats on most things, the entire fiasco is ridiculous and it deserves an investigation. But not the political scoring contest these things always devolve into.
On the upside, the whole thing will feed conspiracy theories and expand upon the already polarised nature of politics. And as a fan of Stephen Colbert who resides outside the US, that's good for me.
You forgot the part where Eric Holder and the Obama administartion knew about the whole thing, covered it up, and are now furiously trying to cover up their cover up and how they refuse to deliver thousands of congresionally subpoenaed incriminating documents. Not to mentiom the democrat walk out when the contempt charge against Holder went to a vote. Why wont they deliver the documents unless its a cover up? How does executive privelege as it extends to matters of national security involve small time gun walkers? What remarkable transparency.
I couldnt help but remember yesterday when the dems walked out, an article one TE blogger wrote about how much more extreme the Republicans were in their use of the fillibuster as a minority in the house and how they weren't willing to "play by the rules" etc. Anyone else remember that?
because it's an absurd show trial, with (as stated in the article) less interest in it's dutiful constitutional directive than in forwarding lunatic NRA conspiracy theories to foment the base.
How do you feel about defrauding the US government by fraudulently obtaining food stamps while make thousands of dollars illegally smuggling guns to people who then illegally smuggle drugs and people into the US.
You don't seem to be concerned about the 56 police officers feloniously killed in the US in 2010--that's more than 1 every week. Average between 45 and 55 every year since 2000. Arizona seems to average about 3 every year. Police officers, killed, every year going back only to 2000. This was before the botched ATA case, but they were trying to do something the damned NRA doest want done. Keep these guns out of the bad buys' hands. The FBI keeps these statistics -- but you probably call that 'socialist propaganda'.
Did the killers have a constitutional right to 'bear' their firearms? And you want to make partisan politics out of it along with the NRA that seems to be more interested in right-wing politics than saving the lives of cops -- that is really disgusting.
"And somehow I don't see all this partisan bickering leading to any more clarity on the issue."
My guess is that Obama will win re-election, and will gain a few more seats in the House.
He should then propose a law which will greatly restrict gun purchases to straw-men, and help fix the problem.
Those on the Right will claim that he is restricting lawful gun purchases to US citizens.
Those on the Left will claim that he is restricting the use of guns to destabilize Mexican society, and to some degree US society as well.
If passed, fewer will die at the hands of guns.
The NRA will try to use this action to gin up votes against Democrats, but the NRA is becoming increasingly old and geriatric anyway, and won't be voting for Obama and Democrats anyway, so...
"...but the NRA is becoming increasingly old and geriatric anyway ..."
Very geriatric indeed, as with a good number of sharp-eye color-shooters. In a mere 10, 15 more years, perhaps not even that, they are the ones in cold nursing homes and hospices living the fruits of their lifelong labor - hate. I see that every time I go play piano for the old folks in the nursing home I volunteer my time playing piano. The sad, dilapidated ones are the haters. The fun ones have the opposite of hate on their faces - curious, unjudgmental, open to new information. You can tell a lot when people get to that stage in their lives.
I think those are the -
"I made some bad decisions in my life, I'm now paying for it, and I'm mad at the world" crowd. :)
"You can tell a lot when people get to that stage in their lives."
I believe you can tell a lot about people regardless of their age...
St. Augustine wrote in the 5th century "In order to discover the character of people we have only to observe what they love."
"In order to discover the character of people we have only to observe what they love."
Whiskey, guns, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer!
Hey! We aren't all such bad eggs, ash.
Of course you all aren't! I was broadbrushing. Seriously, there are dems too who seem to be in a fog. But this is all my personal kind of thing - passing on an observation, and an opinion derived from the observation. As you know, opinion is not a fact. Observation is necessarily piecemeal. As you also have said, when you get to know a person closer, most people aren't monsters. And that includes even the Republicans (:))
I am thinking: generalizing from what LaoTzu said about inaction equals action, no opinion is probably the best opinion. But then all the blogs will be out of business, and nobody can have any fun. Hey! Friends survive differences, even about Obamacare. :)
"St. Augustine ... we have only to observe what they love."
Yes! What you say is so true! And to know what they love we have only to look at what they do.
I am not a Catholic, nor a Christian. Some of my best friends are. They live a life that exemplies the teachings of the historical Jesus. They don't talk about Heaven or who gets to go to there. When I look at what they do, I know what it is that they love and that tells me about their character. I am honored to be their friends, as they feel good about me being their friends. There is a lot of good in people with or without religion. St. Augustine is a very wise man.
As you might realize, I am a Roman Catholic. Also, from my comments that I admire the teachings of Lao Tzu & Confucius, as well as the teachings of Blaise Pascal, St. Augustine, and St. Francis of Assisi (and others)... I believe the TRUTH is universal.
Also; Blaise Pascal wrote “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
And also, the term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal". In a WAY, I follow my faith in looking for what are universal TRUTHS.
Thanks for your thoughts. It is good that you are inclusive in your ideas, and countenance the possibility that Truth does not have to be of one brand, one stripe, or one name. I believe that is a good thing.
True – however; the more I explore the Catholic Faith, the more I enjoy it. Actually; the more I learn of, appreciate, and make use of the good teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others; the more I appreciate the Catholic Faith.
For me, it is the exact reverse. We have spoken earlier about how if you want to know the character of a person, look at what he loves (St. Augustine), and the best way to find out what a person loves is look at what he does, not the things he says.
Using this approach, in part pointed out by St. Augustine, I have found the followers of most organized religions for the most part unappealing. Indeed, for a recognizable majority of them, directly alongside the things they say, which are lopsidedly heavy with seasoning of the word “love” and all its synonyms, hate, not love, is demonstrated by what they do. And, and, as often is the case, a political agenda is behind what’s done.
I find all that repulsive to the nth degree. I want to make sure I amply communicate that what I am repelled by is not love and its clearest, most direct expression – kindness for a fellow man. What I am repelled by is hate and the expression of hate, however masqueraded as love. I respect all faiths if they teach love and reject any if it smacks hate.
I also respect a person, any person who practices his faith with a clear understanding of what love is and what it takes to practice it. This means no masquerade, no hidden agenda, no imposition of hegemony. , In the Bible, I hearten to teachings of St. Paul in Corinthian 13 on LOVE. (I should not need to quote it here). All roads lead to Rome. Each is free to choose which road to take. As to heaven, I don't need it as a reward. Faith is a very private thing.
I really feel we have exhausted a very interesting subject with respect to your view and my view. I have appreciated our exchange. I would like to now stop. Do feel free to have the last word if you need to.
You ranted & railed against me because I said that I enjoy and appreciate my Catholic Faith. When I mention my Catholic Faith in an Economist comment, I know that I leave myself open for attack. On one hand – you did not disappoint me. However, on the other hand – you have. I mention my Catholic Faith because that is what I am.
You mention that the most direct expression of Love is “kindness for a fellow man”. This is dispassionate and well short of the mark. True Love ultimately leads to deep pain. True Love is the willingness to accept the deep pain. Lao Tzu came close when he wrote “…an excessive love for anything will cost you dear in the end.” An excessive Love for anyone will cost you dear in the end. True Love is a willingness to pay the price.
I’ll leave you with one final quote regarding your views of the world. Werner Karl Heisenberg said “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
.
I did not rant. You ranted, Sir, in this reply.
I am sorry I did not serve up what you wanted, which is that I must agree with you that the Catholic faith is the greatest faith of all the faiths in the world (including Buddhism) and every other faith must therefore kneel to it; not only that, only a Catholic such as youself would know what love is, nobody else does. Peculiarly, not even St.Paul.
You could not come up with a response in substance to anything I said. So you accused me of not knowing what "love" is.
I have checked your reply with two good Catholic friends I have, one of them, a 79-years old, life-long devout Catholic, who does charity work in Catholic Charities, who is a professor in theology at one of my local universites. I asked her if what you said here is representative of what Catholic love is. She said not at all. On the contrary, it is quite the opposite. She also said my points are difficult to refute, but I did not rant.
In any case, I never started this thread on yourself being a Catholic. You did. The reason still escapes me why you did. The last thing I said to you had been I am glad after all your readings, you appreciated other views on other ways of thinking about life, love and work, and then you came back with YES,but HOWEVER. In the "However", you indicated you think your faith has hegemony over others. I replied to disagree. That, on record, is what happened.
Let me reiterate what I wrote on July 2nd, 10:28 “True – however; the more I explore the Catholic Faith, the more I enjoy it. Actually; the more I learn of, appreciate, and make use of the good teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others; the more I appreciate the Catholic Faith.” Read what I wrote and do not insert yourself into it – I wrote of myself.
How can you write in reply:
• “I am sorry I did not serve up what you wanted, which is that I must agree with you that the Catholic faith is the greatest faith of all the faiths in the world (including Buddhism) and every other faith must therefore kneel to it”
Where did I say this??? Where did I say you must agree with me on anything??? I wrote of what I enjoy and what I appreciate - I wrote of myself.
• “In the "However", you indicated you think your faith has hegemony over others. I replied to disagree. That, on record, is what happened.”
On record??? You replied to what you wanted to believe I wrote - not to what I wrote. I had to look up the definition for “hegemony” - leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group. Where did I say this???
I wrote “…the more I explore…”, “…the more I enjoy…”, “the more I learn of, appreciate, and make use of the good teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others; the more I appreciate the Catholic Faith.” I never said that I appreciated the good teaching of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others less. I can actually find some of the good teachings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and others within Catholicism.
Your replies to me have more to do with your own personal agenda, than they have to do with what I actually wrote.
Following what you wrote ("The more I ... the more I..."), I replied, "For me, it is the reverse. ".
And I provided reasons for why I felt exactly the reverse.
In the reasons, I referenced our previously mutually covered ground: (1)Your original statement, on which we were in total agreement, that to find out the character of a person, you look at what they love (attributed to St. Augustine); (2) To find out what a person loves, you look at what he does, not what he says, which you had not indicated you disagreed.
Tracking the reasoning of (1) and (2), I provided for you the reasons for why I think organized religions , Catholicism being a major one, some might say the most major in the world, had repeatedly demonstrated failings. I also more than once emphasized in my critue of relgions faiths, I make a distinction between the individuals who practices a faith and the organized church which historically had come to be an instrument of political power . The former I respect. The latter I don't.
You read that, and attacked for not knowing what love is.
And now you accused me for having a personal agenda.
Look, keep your faith. Do what you want. I do not want to continue this pointless, meaningless exchange. Let it be concluded, if you like, that I don’t know what love is, and I have a personal agenda if I defend against that vicious, nasty personal accusation. Fine. I have no more time for this nonsense.
There is no excuse for the federal government not to have put the kibbosh on this gun-walking. It is not an excuse to say that criminal prosecution is too hard, or that local laws are too lenient.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) covers a whole host of illegal activity, including the unlicensed sale of firearms by a person who makes a living engaging in “the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms”, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(6) prohibition against knowingly making a false statement “in connection with the acquisition” of a firearm from a federally-licensed dealer. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g) prohibits the receipt of a gun by a person who may have been convicted of a illegal drug deal in the past. And Section 924(b) prohibits the receipt of a firearm intended or reasonably expected to be used to commit an illegal drug deal in the future. Finally, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(d) provides for the seizure and forfeiture of any firearm or ammunition seized in connection with a violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Civil forfeiture needs only to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, so there are legal ways of attacking the flow of illegal firearms that do not involve criminal prosecution.
The fact that this problem has been going on for some time, through at least 2 administrations, although I have no reason to beleive it magically started in the Bush administration, suggests that fix is not as simple as the statutes would make it seem. It may be politics that makes it difficult, rather than frank legal issues, but I don't think it is coincidence that Arizona is the hub.
You know something's wrong when an agent in Texas calls you up to complain about all the Arizona guns turning up.
Thank you for your post. I'm surprised at how many of the comments on TE consist of the same, empty, partisan accusations. Yours is a notable exception, for which I'm grateful.
I would ask though, about the burden of proof per Section 924(b), the only one that would seem to potentially apply. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if the ATF detained and accused an American (NRA Member) for buying more guns than the ATF thought he could use, or afford. I'm sure there's precedent here and I'd imagine that the precedent had a lot to do with the Vos's frustration regarding the Texas guns.
FORTUNE or TE should follow-up with an in-depth investigation of the applicable statutes and relevant precedent. The four dozen of us that care about the facts would be no doubt consoled by the realization that the whole thing was neither as sinister or as inept as it was portrayed as being.
Thank you, again, for the information.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unless the gov't provides them, apparently. As awful as this is, does anyone think that if these guns the ATF was "walking" over there, the drug gangs wouldn't have had guns to shoot people with?
Tracing goods through a black market is often the only way to shut it down. It's why the DEA sometimes operates money laundering fronts in South America for a while, in order to further infiltrate an organization. Don't kid yourselves thinking that some of that money doesn't ever get used in abysmal ways.
But at the end of the day, this is just another sad story brought to you by the War on Drugs; too bad no one is framing it in that reference.
The federal government could have easily interdicted the flow of these particular guns by seizing them and using civil forfeiture. The whole notion that "well, the dealers would have gotten their guns anyway" is not a justification for not enforcing the law when it lands squarely in your lap.
Isn't the argument against restricting gun sales to civilians that the "criminals" will get guns anyway?
The goal of the operation was not just to take the guns from the straw purchasers, but to bring criminal indictments against both these people, and the ultimate purchasers. As noted above, this dealt with 2,000 guns over several years when 2,000 guns a day are making their way over the border.
This is the point made by One, seizing all 2,000 guns would almost certainly not have stopped the killing of the border agent.
It appears to me from the Fortune article that it is Federal statutes and US attorneys which are to blame, rather than Arizona's laws and prosecutors. This is consitent with the fact that the ATF is a federal agency and any charges they bring would be prosecuted by the US attorney under Federal law. Even if Arizona adopted laws more resembling, for example, my state of California, the US Attorneys would still encounter the same problem faced in this case.
That was my thought, too. But a closer reading showed that it's Arizona law that makes this possible, even though it's also federal officials making all the decision. Arizona law should not trump US law, so I don't know exactly why the feds can't do what they want in Arizona...
Looks like it is partly political, Arizona is an important state and despite it's reputation could be a swing state, but the whole gun thing seems to be at least somewhat bi-partisan in Arizona. There is also the hint that maybe the US Attorney was also a gun guy. Thirdly it is difficult for the feds to operate without the cooperation of local law enforcement. Then you set that against the Federal agenda of keeping relations reasonably good with Mexico, the justice of the Mexican complaint about all the guns heading south, and you get a task force that is basically a diplomatic PR stunt, but without any hope of making a difference.
Then there is the sheer enormity of the problem, 2000 guns in F+F over several years, vs. 2,000 a DAY just in everyday traffic.
"No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking"
It is my understanding (which might be mistaken), that federal gun control laws deal mainly with who can purchase guns. So if this guy had been a convicted felon etc., the federal prosecutor could have brought a criminal case under Brady or whatever law it was.
Just because it is federal agencies and federal prosecutors does not mean that they would necessarily be prosecuted under federal law. These agencies and people could lead the investigation before turning it over to state prosecutors. It seems from the article that the prosecution was contemplated as being under state law, because it was the only applicable law.
Let's not kid ourselves, if this was the Bush administrationOliver Stone would already have a movie out about the Fast & Furious fiasco and the left would have anointed a new martyr in Brian Terry.
Possibly, although they may have been distracted by all the torture, suspension of habeas corpus (which has been strangely overlooked when Obama did it) mismanagement of two wars, started by the administration, and the interesting cherry picking of CIA intelligence.
Some Republicans and conservative commentators have claimed that senior Obama administration officials must have initiated or authorized the tactics. But public testimony and documents have not produced evidence to support such claims. Information has emerged, however, showing that the Phoenix division of the A.T.F. had a running dispute with Arizona-based prosecutors over how much evidence was necessary to bring charges in straw-purchasing cases, and that its agents had used similar tactics — and lost track of guns — in three other investigations, during the Bush administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/fast-and-furious-holder-co...
You link doesn't work and the Bush admin programs actually collaborated with the Mexican authorities to track the guns.
Link works fine for me.
So instead of tightening the gun laws, the Republicans give us The Punch and Judy Show.
Par for the course.
NPWFTL
Regards
At the time, the Arizona gun laws were under the administration of Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.
Par for your course.
"public testimony and documents have not produced evidence"
Its hard for the documents to produce evidence when you refuse to produce the documents as evidence.
Because everyone knows that gun control would fly through a Republican state legislature.
This is what's wrong with the country.
The House Republicans "could" pass a bill tighening up the rules as a wsy to show their support for law enforcemnt.
A "Brian Terry Bill" or "Terry Bill" similar in respect to the Brady Bill.
Is the family of Mr. Terry lobbying for this, or are they allowing themselves to be used as a political tool?
NPWFTL
Regards
"The Republican congressman seems more interested in promoting conspiracy theories about Democratic gun-control efforts than solving the overarching problem in Arizona."
Well, knock me over with a feather! I had always assumed the Mr Issa's inquiries were nothing but legitimate attempts by the legislature to check executive power.
"Meanwhile, the administration at first denied the allegation of gun-walking, then confessed and is now stonewalling."
Well knock me over with a feather. The most inept and political AG ever is running a political operation to protect his boss.
I seem to remember the Bush administrations AG have some problems with short, long and mediium term memory
I don't think he recalls.
There's a lot of that going round
There are legitimate reasons for the Administration withholding the documentation - do you know them? You might look into that before biting on the 'stonewalling' hook. Tens of thousands of documents have been provided but that's not what Issa wants, he wants a sideshow and so is ignoring cooperative, good faith efforts by the Administration so he can preserve his outrage.
Look into it, a bit. I think you'll find things aren't quite the way they are portrayed by FOX news.
It is stupid that we would have to use such an obviously dangerous tool in order to prosecute the purchase of guns that are rather certainly going to be used for no good. The fact that it is impossible to prosecute blatant gun runners in Arizona would be a far better subject for a congressional hearing.
How can we have a "comprehensive breakdown" in America's effort to stem the flow of guns into Mexico, when it seems that Arizona law is designed to guarantee the flow of guns into Mexico? The breakdown is the law.
Can we just vote Arizona off the island, already?
We could give them the "Utah" treatment. That is, Federal occupation unless they clean up their act. Or perhaps a "reconstruction," Louisiana could probably use another one of those, too, [as could the "F" state that lets paranoid lunatics with guns pretend to be police officers and shoot unarmed teenagers}.