Talk:Project Gunrunner

Questionable interpretation
In October 2011, documents were released that indicated Holder was sent memos in regards to Operation Fast and Furious in 2010, contradicting Holder's sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in which he said he was unaware of Operation Fast and Furious until April 2011. In response, Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama, requesting the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate whether Holder committed perjury by lying to the committee while under oath.

That LA Times article: does it indicate that Holder got those memos (emails) or did individuals in the Justice Department (i.e. James Trusty)?

I think the above text isn't factual, and isn't NPOV.

--Biggus Dictus (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The LA Times article you ask about above is linked in the References section of the article. You can read it here. The content which yoou question above was changed in this edit to read, "In October 2011, documents were released that indicated Justice Department officials were sent memos in regards to Operation Fast and Furious in 2010.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional source
Self reminder to mine additional information from : William Hoover, Assistant DIrector for Field Operations, ATF. BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE (February 7, 2008). BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Formatted ref:

Opening paragraph
I changed the opening paragraph in two respects. 1. It initially read that the program was to stem the flow of guns into Mexico. The facts are starting to show quite the opposite: over 2,500 extra guns that flowed into Mexico is not a stemming of the tide. They actually increaded the flow of guns. 2. I mentioned the recent controversies that have arisen in the last few days. -- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2008Olympian: Your edit was reversed for a couple of reasons. The original paragraph accurately reported the official purpose of the Project as supported by the citation. While the information you posted is probably accurate, it doesn't affect the official purpose, and isn't supported by a citation. The information you included is adequately covered in Controversies further down the article. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Should this be merged with other ATF gunsmuggling articles?
Media coverage of this and the other ATF gunsmuggling operations like Operation Fast and Furious is fairly nonspecific over what particular operation is being discussed. Perhaps these should be merged on one article on BATF gunsmuggling operations or similar? Nevard (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The term BATF gun smuggling is inappropriate, since as best we know, ATF did not directly smuggle any guns to Mexico. Rather, under Operation Gunrunner they permitted, encouraged, and facilitated the sale of thousands of firearms to various 'straw purchasers' (including undercover ATF agents) for purposes that are yet unclear. The Wikipedia topic on 'Fast and Furious' is redundant, since this operation (along with others) was a subordinate project under Operation Gunrunner. In my opinion, 'Fast and Furious' should be expanded under Project Gunrunner. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

According to testimony of ATF field agents, handling of straw sales under Project Gunrunner operated under the rule of interdicting the guns and purchasers as soon as possible, but under Operation Fast and Furious beginning in the fall of 2009 the rule became let the guns "walk" to see where they ended up. Operation Fast and Furious (sarcasticly called "gunwalker") may have grown out of, or branched off, Project Gunrunner, but it is distinctively different. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be some kind of article merge of the various "gunwalking" operations between 2006 and 2011, but leave Project Gunrunner a separate article because it is a larger umbrella including other, less controversial, efforts. Maybe I'll work on this.Hazydan (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What keeps coming out in hearings now is that "Operation Fast & Furious" was under the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), but the DoJ OIG Report on "ATF Project Gunrunner" criticizes ATF for concentrating on stopping the straw purchasers rather than use (OCDETF) Program resources to conduct more complex conspiracy investigations. (DoJ OIG WORKING DRAFT REPORT, Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner, September 2010.) Naaman Brown (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
I'm reverting the edits by EMEONE. They are poorly written and extremely POV. They were really just a two paragraph editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.230.187 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging ATF gunwalking scandal and Project Gunrunner because the two articles are about the same thing, just with different names. I don't know or care which one should be the resulting name if the merge does in fact take place. Magenta 447 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The 'scandal' was a consequence of the failed Project Gunrunner. The scandal page should be merged into Project Gunrunner. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's worth noting that this article was around a couple of years before the scandal even broke. In other words, it is probably notable as a separate topic from the scandal. Project Gunrunner is much broader than gunwalking, and while that scandal may be its largest claim to fame, that doesn't automatically mean that it should be one article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: SOP with Project Gunrunner was to identify straw purchasers, follow them to the hand-off to the actual buyers, then arrest the purchasers and buyers and interdict the guns before they hit the streets or crossed the border. The "gunwalking" episodes were abberations allowing the guns into black market circulation in violation of SOP for given reasons that make no sense. There were several operations besides "Wide Receiver" and "Fast and Furious" under the overall project that quietly accomplished their goal without publicity. Naaman Brown (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: They're two separate things. The ATF gunwalking scandal deserves an article of its own, and especially because there is a lot of info about it. ComputerJA (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Absolutely not. This is a miscarriage of justice of epic proportion, of which, much of the factual content is just now and will continue to trickle out of the media over the coming years. I'm not interested in some Wiki community technicality to justify this position. Suffice to say, the sadly unintended consequences of Fast and Furious, are a major event and will continue to remain so. This issue won't go quietly into the night.10stone5 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose: Project Gunrunner was an ATF project that has gained national attention because of the ATF Gunwalking Scandal. The scandal itself involves the original project and a year and a half of fallout to date. The death of Jaime Zapata, for instance, is certainly a part of the scandal, but not officially connected with Gunrunner. Lwsimon (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree with other "opposers." They are two separate topics.  This article talks about this project and how it works.  ATF gunwalking scandal talks about the scandal caused by this project.  They should not be merged.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 02:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Merging seems like an attempt to try to bury the scandal. Both articles are well sourced and fairly thorough in their coverage and have more then sufficient notability on their own merits. Merging most of the coverage from the gunwalking scandal article would lead to complaints of balance issues in the gunrunner article. Both articles link to each other and Project Gunrunner has a hatnote linking to the gunwalking one. Veriss (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose that since the merger proposal has been open for nearly a month with a very clear consensus that we close it and remove the merger tags within the next couple of days. Veriss (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of it. It looks like the editor who suggested it has actually been banned, which I guess makes the consensus even more complete. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 01:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest using more information in the history section aside from explaining what eTrace is. Some links have expired, as well. Arigee (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)