By Chris Hershberger-Esh, MCC’s Context Analyst for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in Mexico City.
Last October a police officer performing a traffic stop in Kingsville, Texas found 35 AK-47 rifles and $26,000 in cash inside the pulled-over truck. The driver admitted the weapons were bound for Mexico. Investigators then traced the weapons back to Houston, where they uncovered a seven-man smuggling operation. All seven were convicted of conspiring to traffic weapons last month.
When it comes to gun laws, the lowest common denominator tends to determine the availability of weapons across both sides of state or international boundaries. Mexico’s incredibly restrictive gun laws are routinely undermined by the lax regulations in the United States. Much attention is paid to migrants and drugs crossing into the United States from Mexico, but the reverse flow of weapons is relatively ignored.
Powerful cartels in Mexico depend on this steady stream of military-style weaponry to battle other cartels and the Mexican state. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, it’s estimated that up to 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico originate from various sources within the United States.
As I wrote in an article last November, the U.S. Government is effectively arming both sides of the bloody drug war that has led to some 120,000 deaths since 2007.
While the United States government spends $500 million to fund the Mexican government’s war on drug cartels, loose gun regulations allow gun shops and smugglers to take in $127 million to arm the other side. U.S. military-style weaponry vs. U.S. military-style weaponry equals an all out war.
Last week, Mennonite Central Committee’s Washington D.C. office released an action alert, asking citizens of the United States to call on Congress to put an end to gun violence. That call resonates strongly throughout the United States, where gun violence has led to many unnecessary deaths across the country and terrorized communities. MCC supports ending straw purchases and illegal trafficking, and banning firearms with unnecessary military-grade capacity, in addition to universal background checks and better mental health services.
Most of these policies, if enacted, would have a substantial effect on gun trafficking to Mexico and Central America. As things currently stand, without sufficient background checks or regulations, a few individuals can purchase hundreds of assault rifles and traffic them at a huge profit.
If you live in the United States, please call your representatives today and ask for reasonable gun control. If you do, you’re not just protecting your communities, but also communities throughout Mexico and Central America.
MCC Washington’s Gun Violence Prevention Guide
MCC Fact Sheet on Gun Trafficking to Mexico and Central America
Chris – thanks for alerting us to this very important issue. Our gun crazy ways in the U.S. have international implications.
Yes, I’ve been amazed at the vast impact is of irresponsible gun legislation…Thanks for your ongoing work in Philly!
have any examples of “impacts” and any examples of “irresponsible gun legislation”? I’m “amazed” that you get paid for writing this stuff.
Because only chainsaw-happy narcothugs and corrupt government officials should have a means of self-defense…
Thanks for information. .
Sir,
Could I ask you to stop repeating a completely debunked myth; the one about 90% of firearms traced?
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
It simply isn’t true.
MCC supports ending straw purchases and illegal trafficking, and banning firearms with unnecessary military-grade capacity, in addition to universal background checks and better mental health services.
Great ideas; now how do you implement them? It is already against the law to make straw purchase — so without universal registration — how can you prevent someone legally capable of buying a firearm from selling it to a criminal?
How do you implement universal background checks without registration? There are already nearly 300,000,000 firearms in the country. The government (at all levels) knows only where a few of those are. Nor does it address the ease of producing firearms in a machine shop. Think the narco-cartels what are making submersibles for smuggling would have any trouble making their own firearms?
Of course, buying them from other countries or getting them from the Mexican Army happens more often then smuggling from America.
Bob S.
3 Boxes of BS
The 90% figure is an estimate made by the ATF at a congressional hearing. The Stratfor link you included is interesting, but doesn’t debunk the 90% estimate–it just shows how difficult it is to get an exact figure. If your point is that we don’t know the exact percentage, then I agree with you (because even if they could trace ever recovered weapons, that is only a small percentage of all the weapons cartels have). There is nothing in the Strafor article that indicates the percentage is necessarily lower than 90.
Of the 7200 submitted, only about 4000 could be traced, and of these, 3480 were traced back to the US (just below 90%). Of those that couldn’t be traced, the article says that many had their serial numbers removed, as was the case for many of the weapons recovered in the US trafficking ring I mentioned at the beginning of this post.
So while it’s true that only 12 percent of the seized weapons were traced back to the US, ONLY 13 PERCENT OF THE SEIZED WEAPONS WERE TRACED AT ALL. So using Strafor’s misleading logic, only 1 percent of seized weapons were traced to originate anywhere other than the United States, or about 10 percent of the total.
Yes, it’s a relatively small sample size, but enough evidence to conclude that a substantial number of the cartel’s weapons are coming from the US. Concluding the number must be lower is based on your hunch, not based on facts.
And regarding straw purchases, universal background checks would be a start. It’s far less risky for traffickers to go to gun shows, where they don’t need any kind of background check. Also, waiting periods or limiting how many guns a person can buy per month would significantly cut down on the incentive to be a straw purchaser. Would it still happen? Of course, just like murder and drunk driving still happen even though they’re illegal, but it’s still worth trying to prevent such things by any reasonable means. And banning assault rifles would limit the availability of those weapons to cartels (aside from the fact that no civilian in the US has any legitimate reason to own such guns…)
I’ve heard of the narco submaries, but I haven’t heard of them manufacturing their own assault rifles. Any sources?
Also, can you include some sources about gun trafficking from other countries and/or leaking from the military. I’m sure it happens, but what evidence leads you to believe more guns originate from those sources than the US?
I don’t think you understand what a ‘straw purchase’ is. A person with a clean record, but no personal interest in owning the firearm, completes the paperwork (4473) and buys the gun on behalf of someone else, who is providing the money. A background check WAS completed and the straw buyer passed the background check. This was the strategy used by the illegal buyers in your lead-in paragraph. Thus, your claim that ‘universal background checks would be a start’ to reducing straw purchasing is patently false. The straw buyer is already passing the background check.
on your response to the Stratfor analysis, how did you arrive at the comment that only 13% of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities are traced? Couldn’t quite follow that one.
The ATF has provided ample information newer than your 6-yr-old quote of a bureaucrat giving bungled information. You come across as if you’ve never even looked.
Let’s strive for accuracy and truth in these discussions. Thanks.
lies, lies, and more lies.
Mexico’s incredibly restrictive gun laws are routinely undermined by the lax regulations in the United States. – lie
the reverse flow of weapons is relatively ignored. – lie
cartels in Mexico depend on this – lie
steady stream of military-style weaponry – lie
up to 90 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico originate from various sources within the United States – lie
U.S. Government is effectively arming both sides of the bloody drug war – gross misrepresentation
loose gun regulations allow gun shops and smugglers – lie
to take in $127 million – lie
U.S. military-style weaponry – lie
an all out war – lie
these policies, if enacted, would have a substantial effect on gun trafficking to Mexico and Central America. – lie
without sufficient background checks or regulations, a few individuals can purchase hundreds of assault rifles – blatant unrepentant glowing hot incredible lie. Come on, Missy, give us a break.
you’re not just protecting your communities, but also communities throughout Mexico and Central America – lie
If you do a web search for other articles by this person you’ll see a consistent pattern.
So much for “peace and justice”. Check out her link to MCC’s website to see more illustrations of Christ’s Church polluted by politics.
I apologize. I should not have called you ‘Missy’. Somehow your two last names, helpless act, lack of firearms knowledge and excessive emotion combined to create a feminine atmosphere. How embarrassing to see your pic on another of your ‘documented’ articles. I did not intend to impart any sort of gender confusion, and should have remembered that Chris can be a shortened form of several different names.
from academic research:
ATF fails to address misleading factors in statistics of seized Mexican guns. For example, ATF fails to separately identify:
1. American origin guns legitimately sold to the Mexican military.
2. American origin guns legitimately and commercially exported to the Mexican gun shop in Mexico City.
3. American origin guns legitimately sold to Mexican police – at the Federal, state or local level.
4. American origin guns legitimately sold to Mexican banks, private security firms, or other companies.
5. American origin guns legitimately sold to other Mexican government entities.
6. American origin guns legitimately sold to police, military, security companies or private parties in other countries, which have been smuggled into Mexico.
7. American origin guns exported to Mexico many years ago. (The average age of traced guns from Mexico is over 14 years).
8. Foreign guns with American markings which were never imported into the United States for any number of reasons.
9. Counterfeit guns made elsewhere with fake American markings. ATF has acknowledged this is a problem.
10. Frequently, pictures of seized Mexican guns show many .22 rimfire rabbit rifles and sporting shotguns. Are these included in ATF statistics? ATF doesn’t say.
in September 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a draft report critical of Project Gunrunner, followed by the final version in November, 2010. The OIG analysis of ATF data shows, of the guns submitted for tracing, a much lower percentage of guns traced to the United States, ranging from 44 percent in FY 2005, falling to 27 percent in FY 2007 and 31 percent in FY 2009. These percentages significantly differ from those in ATF testimony before Congress.
Between September and November 2010, ATF admitted that “the 90% figure cited to Congress could be misleading” because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced.” During this 2010 review by the OIG, ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that originated in or imported through the United States.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101.pdf
see Wikipedia for list of dozens of references:
gun trace data is not statistically valid.
As far back as 1992, and as recently as 2009, the Congressional Research Service has warned about the use of statistics from ATF’s tracing system. “The ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, the information from firearms searches is limited and may be biased by several factors:
• traced firearms are generally recovered by law enforcement, and they may not be representative of firearms possessed and used by criminals;
• there remains significant variation over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to “when, why, and how” a firearm is recovered and selected to be traced; and
• a substantial percentage of recovered firearms cannot be successfully traced for several reasons.”
On June 9, 2009 the Department of Homeland Security criticized ATF’s tracing system, observing that it has numerous problems with data collection and sample populations which render some of ATF’s statistics as unreliable.DHS actually contributed to the problems with the data errors and ATF’s statistics problems by entering incomplete trace data from open sources and not entering the complete information on the firearm (make, model, caliber, manufacturer, importer if any). On many occasions, either ATF or CENAPI would go in and try to enter the full and correct data on a firearm only to find that DHS had already started an entry in ETrace causing problems. ‘Most trace requests that are submitted to ATF from Mexico are considered “unsuccessful” because of missing or improperly entered gun data’.
Nevertheless, ATF has continued to generate and quote misleading eTrace statistics, particularly regarding seized Mexican guns.
Although the number of trace requests from Mexico has increased since FY 2006, most seized guns in Mexico are not traced. Moreover, most trace requests from Mexico do not succeed in identifying the gun dealer who originally sold the gun, and the rate of successful traces has declined since the start of Project Gunrunner. Most Mexican crime gun trace requests that were successful were untimely and of limited use for generating investigative leads. The average age of traced Mexican guns is 14 years, and over 75 percent of traced Mexican guns were over five years old and the information considered useless for law enforcement purposes.Senior Mexican law enforcement authorities interviewed by U.S. OIG officers do not view gun tracing as an important investigative tool because it implicates only the innocent and legitimate parties in the gun production and distribution network, due to limitations in the information tracing typically provides.
Source: OIG Review of ATFs Project Gun Runner
Thank you for spending hours pulling together all of this information on the discrepancy of gun tracing data. My only question is, what is the point?? What are you trying to argue?
Did you read the executive summary of the “OIG Review of ATFs Gun Runner” you keep quoting? From the first page: “In part because Mexican law severely restricts gun ownership, drug traffickers have turned to the United States as a primary source of weapons, and these drug traffickers routinely smuggle guns from the United States into Mexico.”
That is the entire point of this post. “THE U.S. IS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF WEAPONS,” affirmed by the source you’ve provided. Why are we splitting hairs about the exact percentage when nothing any of you guys have produced refute this basic fact?
Here’s my real question to you: What makes you care about this issue, and more specifically, take your valuable time to write 800 words about it on our tiny, humble advocacy blog? Are you afraid of loosing your gun rights if the US Government recognizes the international impact of our reckless gun laws? Or what?
I’ll answer; or at least provide an answer to your question what are you trying to argue.
Most of these policies, if enacted, would have a substantial effect on gun trafficking to Mexico and Central America.
We are trying to argue against policies which will not greatly affect trafficking to Mexico and Central America — unless the policies apply to the US Government; both legal sales to foreign countries and criminal ATF activities like Fast & Furious.
THE U.S. IS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF WEAPONS,” affirmed by the source you’ve provided. Why are we splitting hairs about the exact percentage when nothing any of you guys have produced refute this basic fact?
The assumption you are making is that retail sales is the prime source of firearms and it is simply not the case. We aren’t splitting hairs but defending our right to keep and bear arms. I find it insane that the government — Eric Holder argues — that a simple photo id is an unconstitutional burden on a fundamental right (to vote) but is willing to push for laws like reporting how many firearms are purchased, requiring background checks on every sale, etc. How can one be an unconstitutional burden and the others not?
What makes you care about this issue, and more specifically, take your valuable time to write 800 words about it on our tiny, humble advocacy blog?
Policy should not be based on lies, wouldn’t you agree?
If only 13 or 18% of the firearms actually were traced to America; then the lie of 90% shouldn’t be the basis for restricting my rights.
And yes, we are afraid of losing our rights. 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, Hughes Amendment, The Brady Act, the assault weapon ban — dozens of times we’ve seen national legislation based on over reactions and false hoods. Assault weapons were never used in crime in high percentages but the lies and media manipulation presented the idea it was an epidemic. Just like you are trying to do here.
If you are so concerned about the effects of our gun control laws and firearms being smuggled into Mexico; then you should be willing to to support a near complete and total closure of the border; nothing illegal out and nothing illegal in; right?
Bob S.
Chris,
On the ATF trace data, looking for information reminded me there is a difference between ‘traced to America” and ‘traced to retail in America”
“Some 29,000 firearms were recovered in Mexico in 2008, of which approximately 5,000 were traced to U.S. sources. That means more than 80 percent of the firearms recovered in Mexico were not traced to the United States. Furthermore, according to the ATF, those firearms traced were originally sold at retail not recently, but on average 14 years earlier. This is completely inconsistent with any notion that a flood of newly purchased firearms are being illegally smuggled over the border into Mexico. And let’s not forget, no retail firearms sale can be made in the U.S. until after a criminal background check on the purchaser has been completed.
“In recent years as many as 150,000 Mexican soldiers, 17,000 last year alone, defected to go work for the drug cartels — bringing their American-made service-issued firearms with them. It has also been well documented that the drug cartels are illegally smuggling fully automatic firearms, grenades and other weapons into Mexico from South and Central America. Such items are not being purchased at retail firearms stores in the United States.
So some of the firearms are definitely coming from America; the American Government.
Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.
Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-45565369/
These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.
And again guns from the American Government; not retail operations.
Doesn’t it make more sense that the bulk of the firearms would be purchased in wholesale lots instead of one or two at a time in America?
Some do get smuggled across the border but the percentage is low.
Bob S.
A recent study by the University of San Diego found that 47 percent of U.S. gun retailers are economically dependent on arms trafficking to Mexico (which doesn’t imply that they are involved, but that some of their customers are). They also estimate that an average of roughly 250,000 guns were purchased to smuggle into Mexico each year between 2010 and 2012, and that only 14 percent of guns purchased with the intention of trafficking into Mexico are seized either by U.S. or Mexican authorities. http://pt.igarape.org.br/the-way-of-the-gun-estimating-firearms-traffic-across-the-u-s-mexico-border/
The 90 percent figure is not a lie–it is an estimate based on a limited sample (in the same way that public opinion pollsters can make educated assumptions about Americans’ opinions based on a sample of a few thousand respondents). Almost 90 percent of the guns seized were not traced at all, so it’s ridiculous to assume none of them originated in the US, when 90 percent of those successfully traced came from the US.
But yes, I totally agree with you that the US Government is at fault for much of the drug war’s violence, by providing arms and money to the Mexican army. That is not the only problem, however.
You have an agenda, and that is forcing you to ignore any data that disagrees with your assumption. I am biased too in my belief that military-grade weapons have no place in a civilized society, but my concerns about gun trafficking to Mexico are based on facts, which have not been refuted yet.
I don’t think a 1,954 mile long fence, with BP agents guarding every foot of it, is worth US tax payer money (estimated to cost about $40,000 per migrant detained–I’d rather spend that on schools). The real problem is American obsession with guns, and people like you that oppose any reasonable laws under the assumption the government is coming to take your guns. It’s not all or nothing.
Thanks for the discussion, I’ll leave it at that.
You accuse me of having an agenda and don’t look in the mirror?
You failed to cite the fact that only 2.2% of U.S. Domestic Sales are destined for Mexico. In other words, you want to try to limit the ability of 97.8 % of people buying firearms to stop an already illegal act. How does that make sense?
I am biased too in my belief that military-grade weapons have no place in a civilized society, but my concerns about gun trafficking to Mexico are based on facts, which have not been refuted yet.
Please define what a ‘military grade weapon’ is?
The semi-automatic versions that are readily available or the select fire that costs thousands of dollars?
Do you even KNOW?
The real problem is American obsession with guns, and people like you that oppose any reasonable laws under the assumption the government is coming to take your guns.
And you are showing you don’t get it. It isn’t an ‘obsession with guns’ but an obsession with our rights. We have had our rights chipped away for decades and we are tired of it. Not just our 2nd Amendment rights but of privacy, of search and seizure — can you say 100 MILE zone around the border??? — over and over again we’ve seen act after act try to stop crime. They don’t work.
The insanity of thinking that organizations paying millions in bribes, smuggling tons of drugs and murdering thousands of people will be stopped by background checks is astonishing.
The insanity of saying “let’s stop firearms from flowing into Mexico” but do nothing to stop illegal immigrants and drugs is just as amazing. Not all the people coming across the border are innocent cherubs who will improve our country; some of them are dangerous criminals. YET your focus isn’t on protecting OUR citizens from them….but protecting Mexican citizens from people already breaking the law. Makes no sense at all.
The way gun control works in the real world is that the wealthiest 1% and those connected to them get special exemptions to own guns, the middle class and the poor get play 911 roulette and the criminals still have guns that they can buy off of crooked government officials.
[…] ← Gun laws in the United States affect Mexico too […]
I saw this comment on another of your posts today:
“On the LACA Blog this week, I wrote a piece on how loose gun regulations in the U.S. undermine Mexican gun regulations and arm cartels.
And big surprise, some pro-gun Americans pounced on the comments section.”
Are you assuming that I’m a pro-gun American because I pointed out many of the inaccuracies in your report? Any person of any culture or political persuasion can look at your writing and see obvious inconsistencies. That’s why you’re so damaging to our cause.
There is a pattern in your making assumptions about other people and what they think, just like you make assumptions about numbers and facts.
Instead of detracting from those who dare to confront you, it would serve you and your ministry well if you demonstrated even a modicum of looking for truth.