By Karen MacNutt,
Contributing Editor

The GAO-Government Accountability Office-is the federal government's super bean counter. No disrespect is intended by that title. The GAO has a bulldog reputation for looking at government operations based upon actual figures and giving a critical, but fair, analysis of what they find. Their motto is "Accountability, Integrity, Reliability." They have handled some very sensitive subjects in a dispassionate and professional manner.
In June of 2009, they released a report which, at first glance, seems to support the Obama administration's wish to restrict guns in the United States based upon a claim that Mexico's crime has intensified because the drug cartels are illegally importing guns from the United States.

First, it must be explained that it has been illegal to export guns from the United States without a license from the State Department for a long while. Second, it must be said that Mexico does not permit the lawful, private ownership of guns by its citizens. Any person who sells a gun across the border to a private party in Mexico has already violated the laws of two different nations.

Mexico's limiting gun possession to the police, the military and the crime syndicates who ignore the law, may be contributing to their crime problem. It is too easy for organized crime to intimidate witnesses and attack reform movements that might oppose them. Even in the United States, prosecutors in some of our larger, "gun free" cities complain that when gang members are on trial, their friends come to court wearing T-shirts that say, "Don't Snitch." For jurors and witnesses who live in the same neighborhoods as the gang members, that is very intimidating. It is especially intimidating if the police refuse to give honest citizens permits to carry handguns for their own protection. Reliance on law enforcement is not always safe for the anti-crime crusader. In the United States, organized crime has, from time to time, been able to corrupt law enforcement. For a while the New England mob had infiltrated the Boston Police, the Massachusetts State Police, and the local FBI office. People who went to the police to "rat" on the mob just disappeared.

The June 2009 GAO report made headlines by stating "87% of the firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last 5 years originated in the United States." The beginning of the GAO report is filled with statements that start or end with the words, "according to ATF..." and then blames the lack of background checks on private sales as a source of illegal guns in Mexico. However, the vast majority of states require gunowners to be licensed to carry a handgun. The background check takes place when the license is issued, before the sale. If the federal government required the interstate recognition of firearms licenses, all states would undoubtedly pass licensing laws. That would do away with the need for background checks. Licenses have the advantage of providing positive identification in addition to the background check. As long as licenses to carry handguns have clearly defined, reasonable standards (such as driver's licenses) and are not subject to the whim of the local police, they serve a valid purpose.

A quarter of the way into the 78-page GAO gun trafficking report, the reader still has not been provided with statistics to support the statements made by ATF and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). GAO seemed to be simply repeating what ATF and ICE said without any factual back up. The Department of Homeland Security criticized the report saying that ATF's statement that 87% of guns seized in Mexico came from the U.S. was misleading. Homeland Security pointed out that of the 30,000 guns seized in Mexico, only 4,000 could be traced. The "87% of the guns" stated as coming from the United States (a raw figure of 3,480 guns), was 87% of the 4,000 that could be traced, not of the 30,000 seized. Homeland Security concluded, "Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population renders this assertion [that 87% of the guns came from the United States] unreliable." Of the 30,000 guns seized, only 7,200 guns were submitted to the ATF for tracing. To put their own figure in reverse, 52% of the guns submitted to be traced could not be traced to the United States and only 11.6% of the total guns seized, could be traced to the United States.

Clearly the hand grenades and rocket launchers seized by the Mexican government did not come from a Ma and Pa gun store in the US. The most common calibers of guns seized in Mexico, are the same calibers used by the police and military. For the last 60 years the United States has openly and covertly supplied guns and other weapons to various countries and individuals in Central and South America. Considering a February 2008 GAO report criticizing the Pentagon for mishandling the sale of surplus weapons to foreign countries, it would be nice to know how many of the 30,000 guns seized in Mexico were at one time owned by a government entity.

ATF blamed so called "straw purchases" for much of the Mexican arms trafficking. In the straw purchase, the drug cartels gets someone with a clean record (someone who would pass the instant check) to buy one gun which is then transferred to a representative of the drug lords in Mexico. Only 2% of the traces involved multiple sales to the same person. Indeed, ATF claimed that the drug lords prefer that the straw buy be only one gun to make it difficult to trace the sale back to end purchaser. All those people who want the "one gun per month" sales limitations should read this report. ATF discredits the assumption that multiple sales of guns to one person is a significant contributor to trafficking. Laws preventing multiple sales to one person achieve no legitimate end.

A little further into its report, GAO got to the heart of the thing. It found that ATF was unable to provide data on the number of Mexican arms trafficking incidents that involved straw purchasers or unlicensed sellers because the agency does not track that information. ATF was also unable to supply information on the number of traces completed for firearms recovered in Mexico that were linked to FFL gun dealer sales at gun shows from 2004 to 2008 because ATF did not begin keeping records of that data until June of 2008. ATF did not have the cold figures to support its claims of how guns are illegally shipped to Mexico.

Very significantly, GAO found that ATF and ICE did not "consistently and effectively co-ordinate efforts." There was a lack of clear roles of responsibility between the two agencies when it came to gun trafficking. Each was unwilling to share information with the other to the point of compromising the prosecutions of each agency because of rivalries. Neither agency wanted to share information with Mexico because of gross levels of corruption within Mexican law enforcement.

There was a "lack of systematic analysis and reporting of aggregate data." The agencies were unable to account to GAO, or provide complete information on, their efforts to stop illegal gun trafficking. In fact, it was impossible to know where guns were coming from because of a lack of record keeping by the agencies. GAO appeared to be referring to records that should have been available, not to unavailable records. The agencies were not using the tools they already have to systematically gather information.

It was noted that ATF and ICE have only just started to apply resources to illegal gun trafficking. Neither agency had a well developed plan to address the problem. GAO said of the agencies:

"... an outdated interagency agreement and jurisdictional conflicts have led to instances of poor coordination between the two agencies. Officials from both agencies in Washington and in the field cited examples of inadequate communications on investigations, unwillingness to share information, and dysfunctional operations."
Because the agencies were not coordinating on some covert operations, efforts were potentially compromised. In some instances, ICE agents conducted surveillance on ATF agents unaware that they were watching other federal agents.

The strategic plans for the ATF and ICE do not focus on arms trafficking to Mexico. GAO found that although ATF and ICE were attempting to develop new plans, they could not agree on who would take the lead. Further, there was no dedicated funding to establish a special unit within ATF or ICE to combat arms trafficking to Mexico.

We should not allow law enforcement agencies to use the excuse that they need new laws to hide the fact that they have failed to establish functional policies within their own ranks, failed to co-ordinate with other agencies, and failed to develop the intelligence sources currently available to them. Our government needs to take a hard look at its own operations to determine if the problem is incompetence, lack of training, or corruption. Blaming others for their own failures will not work a solution to the problem. Mr. Obama, before passing new laws, you need to look to the administration of your own agencies.

One of the most revealing facts stated by GAO, was that customs officials expend little time checking individuals, as opposed to commercial traffic, leaving the United States. The United States checks people entering the United States. At the point of entry to the United States, or any another country, you have no right of privacy. Border agents can strip your car and you to look for contraband.

It was noted, as an example, that at the San Diego to Tijuana Mexico border crossing there are 24 northbound lanes (lanes coming into the United States) with inspection booths manned by U.S. agents. They can process about 110,000 vehicles and pedestrians crossing into the United States from Mexico each day. There are only 6 south bound lanes headed into Mexico. None of the south bound lanes have the inspections infrastructure that the north bound lanes have. GAO reported that, "... the majority of vehicles cross into Mexico without stopping at either side of the crossing (emphasis supplied)."

It is the job of Mexico, not the United States, to protect the borders of Mexico. If they fail in their duty, there is little we can do to help them.

Mexican customs authorities only aim to inspect 10% of the vehicles crossing into Mexico.

"Mexican customs typically has focused more on inspections of commercial vehicles for illicit goods, which result in the payment of a fine, than on inspections for illicit weapons. Officials said this . . . was due to several factors, including Mexico's general lack of capacity for detecting illicit weapons, as well as concerns about corruption and the risks faced by Mexican officials involved in the seizure of illicit firearms."

Why are the risks faced by Mexican officials seizing illicit firearms greater than those of United States officials? Is it because United States' officials and their families have a private right to protect themselves even off duty and Mexican officials do not? Clearly corruption is a problem in Mexican law enforcement.

The Government of President Calderon of Mexico has taken steps to address corruption. But Mexican authorities admit that corruption pervades all levels of Mexican law enforcement from local to national, and has included some high ranking officials. In one year, some 500 police officers in Tijuana were terminated due to corruption. In 2006, 945 federal employees were dismissed and another 953 were suspended due to corruption. According to the GAO, the ability of the United States to co-ordinate with Mexican government is hampered because of concerns about corruption in the Mexican government.

A drug addict can not be helped until he or she wants to be helped. Sometimes family members think they are helping by giving the addict a place to live, money to spend, and the means to hide their addiction. They are not helping the addict. They are enabling the addict to continue with his or her dysfunctional behavior. The clinical term for the family member is "co-dependent." A co-dependent enables the addiction by making excuses for the dysfunctional behavior of the addict and/or relieving the addict of the consequences of the addiction.

The Obama administration would have the United States be a "co-dependent" of the dysfunctional policies and corruption of the Mexican government by helping it to escape the consequences of those policies and corruption. We should not take the blame for Mexico's failures. Their condition is their own fault and unless they accept that fact, they will never cure the problem. The Mexican people are every bit as honest, intelligent, and worthy as the people of the United States. Yet their government, corrupt as it is, will not trust them with firearms.

Governments are simply collections of people. In the United States we believe that government can only exist with the support of the people. We have found that law enforcement works best when the police join with the community to fight crime. That is, police action without public support is generally unsuccessful.

Mexico will only have freedom from organized crime when the people of Mexico say, "no more." Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen if those honest people who would lead reforms have to depend upon the very same corrupt law enforcement officials that they are trying to oust for their safety.

If Mexico wants to stop the illegal importation of anything into its country it must start by properly manning its own border crossings, both to the north and to the south. If it wants to break the back of the drug lords, it must first clean the government's own house of corrupt officials. It will never be able to accomplish that while the right to own arms is denied to the Mexican people.

Some may think it presumptuous of me to tell the Mexican government that it should extend the basic right of firearms ownership to the good people of Mexico as a way to combat crime. It is, however, less presumptuous than the Mexican government telling the United States that it should take rights away from the American people because the Mexican government lacks the will and ability to man its own borders.