Firearms trace data is critically important information developed by ATF to assist state and local law-enforcement in investigating and solving violent crimes. This data tracks the transfer of a firearm from the manufacturer to the gun’s first purchaser, and can assist law enforcement in ultimately pinpointing the individual who used the gun to commit a particular crime.
During the investigation of the recent Virginia Tech incident, ATF provided the Virginia State Police (VSP) with trace information that allowed the VSP to determine where and from whom Seung-Hui Cho purchased the two handguns he used in the shootings. Firearms trace information was also used to solve a theft of 22 firearms from a security service in Atlanta that were subsequently purchased by an undercover police officer on the streets of New York.
ATF considers this information law-enforcement-sensitive because it is often the first investigative lead in a case. We treat it no differently than fingerprint matches and other crime-scene information, since disclosure outside of law enforcement can tip off criminals to the investigation, compromise cases and endanger the lives of undercover officers, witnesses and confidential sources.
Our agency routinely shares trace data with state and local law-enforcement agencies in support of investigations within their respective jurisdictions. Once a requesting agency receives law-enforcement-sensitive trace data from ATF, it becomes the agency’s data to disseminate and share with other law-enforcement entities as it deems appropriate.
Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041
You are still missiong it. Trace data is a top down trail, from manufacturer, thru distruibutor(s) to guns shop, so in other words, the police need the serial number of the gun in order to get trace data from the BATFE. Then they go to the gunshop and seek the 4473 for that serial numbered firearm, which is maintained by the gunshop indefintely, (until they close, then 4473s are archived in a warehouse somewhere....)
So, no trace data won’t help UNLESS the serial number is known.
Best.
The store owner who sold at least one gun to Seung-Hui Cho (the Glock?) was on a gun forum that night. It dawned on him that his shop sold it and that was before he was contacted. For all I know, he might have made the call.
Most of the trace info is gathered after the fact. They allready know most of the time who the shooter was.
Does it really matter where they brought their gun from. I guess only if you are interisted in violating the 2nd amendment.
Most trace info realy does not help in solveing a crime.
The recovery of the 22 firearms most likely was from a NCIB stolen firearm file check rather a BATFE trace. Traceing that firearm back to the security firm wouldn’t solve anything. Expect to prove it was sold to the security firm. I lot faster check is NCIB check that take seconds and doesn’t involve a middle man.