Fast and Furious – Justice Department Responds to Congressional Investigation – New York Times Reports

Fast and Furious – Justice Department Responds to Congressional Investigation – New York Times Reports

These couple of paragraphs from the NYT article indicate, in my opinion, the DOJ’s continuing effort to deflect criticism from the current Fast and Furious investigation to the earlier Operation Wide Receiver operation. I’ve quoted the first paragraphs of the NYT article. Read that and then see below it to what John Lott has already said about the two gun operations.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE [New York Times]

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Friday turned over to Congress nearly 1,400 pages of “highly deliberative internal communications” about the drafting of a February letter in an effort to show that agency officials did not knowingly mislead lawmakers in connection with a disputed gun trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious.

Officials now acknowledge that the claim was misleading. It has come to light that A.T.F. agents in Arizona have on several occasions, dating to a 2006 investigation called Operation Wide Receiver, tried to identify the leaders of gun-trafficking networks by allowing lower-level suspects to transfer guns — and have lost track of weapons in the process. . . .

Read the rest of the NYT article here.

But, the problem here is what John Lott has already shown in an earlier article I posted, the two operations, Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver are very different in how they were carried out. Wide Receiver had in place ‘guntracing’, and they notified the Mexican government about the weapons so that they could be traced or tracked. Fast and Furious didn’t do any ‘guntracing’ nor did it notify the Mexican government, according to John Lott.

See John Lott’s earlier analysis and comparison of Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious here.

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom – Looking Back at the Supreme Court’s Chicago Decision

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom – Looking Back at the Supreme Court’s Chicago Decision

Jacob Hornberger’s editorial on the Supreme Court’s ruling against Chicago’s handgun ban last year is worth rereading.

He draws attention to the incredible blindspot that statist gun control advocates have when the law allows gun rights to prevail. Hornberger illustrates the statist blindness by citing a New York Times editorial that howled about the ‘gun violence’ in Chicago, and the how-could-the-Supreme-Court-possibly-rule-like-they-did? Amazing, that is the point. Chicago’s example, with its strict, draconian, unconstitutional gun control laws, has not worked in real life. GET IT?

A Victory for Gun Rights and Freedom
by Jacob G. Hornberger

When it comes to gun rights and gun control, liberals are so predictable. Condemning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Chicago gun case that applied the Second Amendment to the states, the New York Times editorialized, “Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials.”

What is the Times’ justification for taking such an extreme position? The Times states: “The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.”

What? Say again?

What the Times claims about gun deaths in Chicago last year has got to be absolutely and totally false! Why is that so? Because they have gun control in Chicago! A total ban on handguns! Doesn’t the Times know that? Doesn’t it know that that was what the Supreme Court case was all about — the constitutionality of Chicago’s total ban on handguns within the city?

Therefore, the obvious question arises: How can the Times claim that there were 258 people shot in Chicago when there is gun control in Chicago? Doesn’t that suggest something important? As in, gun control doesn’t work! If a gun ban worked, there wouldn’t have been any people shot by guns in Chicago.


And that is the blind spot that statists have about gun control. In their antipathy for guns, they will not permit themselves to see that gun control doesn’t work — it doesn’t accomplish what they want to accomplish — i.e., no more gun deaths. . . .

Read the rest of Hornberger’s excellent gun rights editorial at
The Future of Freedom Foundation. He includes some great history on gun rights in his editorial.

The original NYT editorial Hornberger refers to can be found here.