In recent weeks, we’ve seen a steadily-increasing flow of newspaper editorial boards and prominent law enforcement leaders (including the National Sheriffs’ Association) come out in favor of repealing the Tiahrt restrictions on crime-gun trace data. Here are some of the most recent editorials and reports:

• Crime-fighters vs. Congress – Boston Globe
• Groveling on guns – Albany Times Union
• Aim for safety – San Francisco Chronicle
• Local cops lose on gun data issue – Minneapolis Star-Tribune
• Police Chief to ask Congress for access to weapons database – Louisville Courier Journal
• The NRA’s Senate – New York Times
• Taking on the NRA – Baltimore Sun
• Tracking illegal handguns – Philadelphia Inquirer
• Repeal gun info ban to make streets safer – Chicago Sun-Times
• Gun tragedy – Worcester Telegram

I’ve just finished reading a summary report from Injury Prevention, an academic journal, on the effectiveness and limitations of California’s laws on secondary sales and gun shows. The study was conducted by Dr. Garen J. Wintemute, director of UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, and concludes that regulation of gun show sales reduces illegal gun sales without restricting legitimate gun sales.

Also of interest is the report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, concerning ATF investigative procedures at gun shows. According to the report, “most gun show promoters and all state and local law enforcement personnel… were supportive of ATF operations at gun shows,� and “[a]ll gun show promoters… were concerned about illegal gun sales and purchases at gun shows.�

In the gun violence debate, there are people – on both sides – who pretend that it’s an all-or-nothing fight, and that we must choose between two extremes. These studies help make the point that there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the flow of illegal guns without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

California is one of only a handful of cities and states that have closed the “gun show loophole,� requiring that all firearms purchasers go through a Brady background check at the time of sale. Dr. Wintemute, who based his study on his own extensive personal observations at gun shows, expected to see far fewer transactions in California than in the other states he observed. According to some gun lobby talking points, background checks at gun shows are such a hardship that they prevent even honest sellers from conducting business. It has always been hard for me to believe that background checks would be that burdensome, particularly given modern technology. Dr. Wintemute’s study helps show that California’s regulations do not hinder gun shows, and that the regulations also make straw purchases much more difficult for criminals to conduct.

In his report, Dr. Wintemute concludes that “[g]un shows can be regulated so as to diminish their importance as sources of crime guns without greatly reducing attendance or commercial activity.�

That’s what the gun violence debate should really be about: finding ways to reduce access to firearms by dangerous individuals without unduly affecting law-abiding citizens. Treating gun show sales like regular gun purchases can go a long way toward that goal.

I know some readers are upset when I use the phrase "gun pushers." Still, this term seems to be an apt description of the smugglers, dealers, and shills (along with their apologists) who are willing to do almost anything to make a dollar selling lethal weapons to people who shouldn't be armed.

There are similarities between gun pushers and drug pushers: they help create and hype demand for dangerous products; they exploit jurisdictional boundaries and loopholes; and they have no regard for the consequences of their actions. Once they pocket their cash, they wash their hands and absolve themselves of responsibility for the havoc they wreak on our communities.

When I was Mayor, I asked my Chief of Police, public safety advisors, local prosecutors, legal experts, and community members to come up with new and innovative ways of stopping the drug pushers. The importance of sharing information was critical to almost all of the ideas we discussed.

Similarly, sharing crime-gun trace data could have an enormous impact. Debates on appropriations riders dealing with this crime-gun trace data can become abstract and arcane, however, to drive home the fact that the gun pushers are separate from legitimate businessmen and legitimate gun owners, and to remind us all of the fact that the gun pushers have a real and devastating impact, I recommend everyone read this in-depth report from the Newark Star-Ledger.

The weapon's 1,100-mile passage from gun store to killing scene was the work of a small ring of smugglers who helped feed Newark's lucrative underground arms market. Exploiting Florida's lenient gun laws, they bought dozens of high-powered pistols to resell on the streets of New Jersey, home to some of the country's toughest firearm restrictions.

Make no mistake: the gun pushers are usually breaking the laws already on the books, but our law enforcement agencies are shackled or slowed down by underfunding, arbitrary regulatory restrictions, and jurisdictional boundaries. If we want to tackle violent crime without passing new laws, we need to focus on shutting down the illegal gun market, fully funding law enforcement efforts, and removing the restrictions on the sharing of crime data.