Not enough? How about too much?

The editorial in The New York Times laments President Obama not urging repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment that "constrains efforts by the police and other authorities to combat shady gun dealers and gun traffickers":

Both as a senator and as a candidate for the White House, President Obama rightly urged repeal of the so-called Tiahrt Amendment that constrains efforts by the police and other authorities to combat shady gun dealers and gun traffickers. Regrettably, Mr. Obama’s budget proposal does not call for full repeal of these laws.
On the plus side, the president’s budget calls for eliminating a provision that restricts police access to trace data involving guns used to commit crimes. Right now, the police can access that data only for investigations of particular crimes, making it harder to construct a portrait of the criminal networks behind gun crimes. Lifting this restriction has been a goal of the national public safety coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City helped to organize.
On the downside, the budget contains new language that would prevent police departments and other law enforcement agencies from disclosing data about crime guns and gun trafficking obtained from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. That would muzzle public discussion about a serious issue. A local police commissioner should not feel constrained about testifying before the city council about such matters.
The budget leaves untouched an indefensible Tiahrt restriction that prevents the federal government from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory inspections to see whether they may have lost and stolen guns. It also retains a rule requiring the FBI to destroy the federal background checks required for gun buyers within 24 hours, ostensibly for privacy reasons. Both make it harder to correct errors and detect improper dealings, including illegal straw purchases of guns.
The White House says Mr. Obama is opposed to the Tiahrt restrictions and chose to recommend changes with a realistic chance of surviving opposition from the National Rifle Association. What he’s really doing is perpetuating bad rules, while sending another discouraging signal that he is not willing to stand up to the gun lobby.
Mr. Obama chooses not to fight to revive the assault weapons ban. Nor has he tried to strip language allowing people to carry loaded weapons in national parks from the credit card reform bill. We hope he will be more aggressive about pressing for the worthy if limited Tiahrt reforms included in his budget.

Rico says that, as usual, the NYT is on the wrong side of the firearm issue...