Quote:
|
I mentioned that they found out (without Tiarht probably through FOIA) where Cho bought the weapon and can subpoena the Gun Store for his records in a lawsuit to find out if another owned the firearm prior to Cho.
|
FOIA will not allow someone to get that information. That's the whole point of Tiarht. I don't know how they found out about Cho's gun, but they didn't get it
LEGALLY from the government. If they DID get the information from a government "leak" the Tiarht amendment makes it inadmissable in a civil case. My guess is that they asked an acquaintance and the acquaintance told them where he got it.
I don't know if 4473 information can be subpoenad from an FFL holder, but even if it can, you'd have to know WHICH FFL holder to start with. Other than in specific situations you'd have no idea which FFL holder was concerned. With access to the trace information you could get that information easily.
Quote:
|
As I have demonstrated there are other ways to get the info.
|
Not in general. In specific cases it might be possible to find out. FOIA will not do it.
In other words, if you want information about a SPECIFIC gun you might be able to track it down with footwork getting information from sources OTHER THAN the government. Without Tiarht you could just ask the BATF for the information.
FURTHERMORE, without Tiahrt you could ask for a list of all the traced guns and go on a fishing expedition to see if anyone with deep pockets had, at one time, owned a gun used in a murder/injury/crime.
By the way, without getting into all the nitty gritty details, the best way you know that the Tiahrt amendment is a valuable law is that the antis are working hard to get it overturned/removed.
The correct spelling is 'Tiahrt'. I've spelled it wrong several times above but I'm not going to go back and fix all the errors.