Background Checks

General Discussion Anything Non-Firearm Related
1

Background checks are a consumer fraud. The Feds rarely prosecute those who - being “prohibited” still try to acquire a firearm from a Federally-licensed dealer. The attempt violates 18 U.S. Code § 922 (a)(6). My conclusion is based on public and published sources, to which I cite.

Only 62 Federal prosecutions followed 76,142 denials (in 2010) of purchase applicants. For the data see, Regional Justice Information Service, Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010 , 2012, p. 7 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf .

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report (No. 18-440, Sept., 2018) shows that of 112,090 denials by FBI screeners, only 12,710 were sent for “investigation”. Of that number only 12 resulted in prosecutions!! Plainly, far more than 12 denials were fully justified.

It is a Federal felony for a “prohibited person” to possess or to try to acquire any firearm. So few prosecutions show that Federal authorities do little about stopping those, who seek to abuse firearms.

As at end-2018, there were some 423,000,000 firearms in the U.S., so it seems reasonable to assume a denied person - determined to get a firearm - will do so. For the number of firearms see: U.S. Department of Justice, Firearms Commerce in the United States , 2000 and 2019; these data exclude military firearms. The U.S. at end-2018 had about 328,000,000 residents.

Were even half of those properly denied to be prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys, they would have little time to prosecute other Federal crimes, e.g., espionage, securities fraud, drug trafficking, etc. See: U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report - Fiscal Year 2019 , p. 4. See: Annual Statistical Reports (justice.gov) .

It is thus clear that we’d have to hire an army of prosecutors and build many new Federal prisons to hold those who are so determined to get a weapon, that they’ll risk a prison term.

2

Background checks exist to keep honest people honest.

As an FFL, I have had two denials in the last week. Neither of them will be investigated, I’m sure. I have also had denials that adversely affect people they shouldn’t. The 55y/o pastor trying to buy some home defense, but can’t because of a fight he got into when he put his druggy son out of the house 15 years ago - since the cops got called, both were charged with domestic violence. Both have had no recurring issues with the law, plus the son got clean too, but neither can pass a BGC to buy a gun now.

3

As lying to a Federal Firearms Licensee on a Form 4473 is a specific Federal crime, the failure to prosecute reduces background checks to a needless burden on the law-abiding. Many support background checks, because they think - wrongly - that the process stops criminals from getting firearms. This is simply not so!

As to the Pastor and his son, suggest they hire a lawyer - knowledgeable about your state’s laws - to see if the old offenses can be “annulled”. Some states allow this, when a person has been - for a long time - a law-abiding person. If State law allows “annulment” for the crimes of which they were convicted, they may regain their civil right to be armed. Only a lawyer - who specializes in criminal defense and knows firearm laws - can determine this.

4

Unfortunately not in SC. A gubernatorial pardon has to be granted. The pathway isn’t too difficult, but it shouldn’t even be needed anyway. Neither are criminals, and they can’t buy one. But the people I know who are criminally involved get theirs from stealing, in trades for drugs, and in other shady deals that don’t require background checks.

I agree. BGCs only burden people who already want to follow the law.

5

Tell that preacher to stock up on some Polymer P80s. 2nd Amendment! This is America

6

The feds and the media have the masses brainwashed into thinking that they are going to get busted for anything they do out of line. I can’t really blame anyone who has been through the legal system for being fearful of being through it again.

7

SKREW THE GOVERNMENT is what i say!

8

Not defending the government BUT, they simply do not have the manpower/resources to investigate and prosecute those that falsify information on applications. Not saying they don’t investigate any but, many simply slip through the cracks. Heck, the ATF turns a blind eye to felons in possession of a firearm unless prosecuting the case would garner big headlines. Let’s be honest, what is the government really good at…besides taking and spending our money?

9

I made clear - in my post - that to prosecute all, who - being "prohibited persons - try to buy firearms, would require major outlays.

The key point: if this is not done, then what’s the point of background checks? Are background checks not a fraud, given that the 400+ million firearms in the U.S. means that a denied person will get a firearm?

Your comment, “that many simply slip through the cracks” is plainly wrong. Get and read the GAO report! You’ll learn that no effort is made to prosecute those, when their identities are known to the authorities. That is not “slipping through the cracks”. The authorities ignore the law. If a rank-and-file U.S. resident ignores a law, and is caught, we’re in trouble. But an official who neglects his/her duty gets a pass. Is that NOT deeply wrong?

If those, who lie, are not prosecuted, then that law should be repealed.

Your final comment ’ “what is the government… money”, is not relevant. Congress enacted that those, who lie to a dealer to get a firearm, are to be prosecuted.

That is what must be done. If it is not done, then let’s get rid of background checks.

10

I did not get on this forum to debate, compare notes or argue with someone that owns a computer. I am in LE and deal with the ATF quite a bit. I don’t need to read anything to know what I am told by actual agents. Some people ARE prosecuted, some are not. Yes, ALL that commit fraud SHOULD BE. I was simply making a comment based on my knowledge. Don’t make me hate this forum the first time I get on it.

11

Thank you for your service and for your efforts to maintain public safety!!

Background checks represent a huge investment of money and time. The GAO report (#18-440) suggests that Federal prosecutions of those, who lie to dealers to get a firearm, are about 1 in 1,000 of those referred for “investigation”. That should be of great concern to everyone, especially those in law enforcement.

What ATF agents think of this is not relevant. The decision to prosecute is not made by anyone at ATF. ATF is responsible for gathering the evidence. That’s not hard: dealers have to keep the Form 4473 for five years, if the applicant is denied.

My complaint is against Congress, that enacted a law setting a penalty for liars, but has not set aside the money to hire the prosecutors and to build the prisons.

Allowing those denied - who seek to get a firearm and lie to do so - to roam free, makes a mockery of the whole process and, as I stated, makes background checks a huge fraud.

I read headlines suggesting that 80% of Americans support background checks. I suspect that most of those have no idea that background checks, that result in denials, are without consequences for almost all of the liars.

12

The last thing we want on the forum is people trying to force their opinion on someone else. We are all in the same boat regarding the preservation of the 2A. Let’s post our opinion and move on. We don’t want to argue or have the appearance of arguing on the forum. Again, we are all in this for the same reason, the 2nd Amendment!!

13

Fact-based discussions here can help us better to respond to those, who back “gun control”.

I wonder how many knew of the GAO report, which shows that the Feds rarely prosecute those, who - being prohibited - lie to dealers to get a firearm. I wonder how many knew how many firearms there are in the U.S.

My point: fact-based discussions are helpful. By contrast, personal attacks and use of epithets (e.g., “moron”, “idiot”, etc.) do nothing to improve understanding of an issue.

I indeed have an agenda: it is to destroy the idea that “gun control” - beyond laws criminalizing abuse of firearms to harm others - is a sound policy.

Were “gun control” viewed as a policy as nasty and absurd as is the re-enslavement of African-Americans, attacks on the Second Amendment would vanish. Few suggest that African-Americans should be re-enslaved.

All this said, no one has to accept my view. But simply repeating the plain text of the Second Amendment does little to preserve our civil right to be armed.

14

I agree, any attempts to disarm the American people are in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as well as the spirit of the founding of our great nation. I will give a bit of background on myself for context. Many moons ago, when I was in my early twenties, I purchased a Glock 29 for personal use, which I later gave to my dad as a gift. Neither he, nor I, are felons or are in any way prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms in accordance with federal law. We both have many legally purchased firearms. Approximately three months later, I was denied a purchase on a Ruger .270, which I had chosen to become my newest deer rifle. I quickly found out, the only way to appeal this was in writing. I was devastated and went on to avoid purchasing any firearms for several years thinking I would likely be ignored by the feds. Approximately ten years later, I decided I was going to get to the bottom of this no matter what I had to do. I went to purchase a rifle fully expecting to be denied. I needed the transaction number so I could appeal in writing in order to start the process. After an hour delay the clerk came back and said I was approved. I was now the very surprised owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P 10. Since that day, I have purchased many firearms, at times up to three in a single week. Almost every single time, I am delayed. This is a huge inconvenience for me because I have to wait around at the store or gunshop for roughly an hour or so to find out that I will ultimately wind up having to come back at a later date to pick up the firearm. It is absolutely ridiculous to delay someone who has already purchased two firearms in the same week. I had purchased twenty five or so in the same year, and I always include full social in order to prevent mix ups. If someone, who owns on the order of sixty or so firearms on paper, is intent on doing harm to others, you are not going to prevent that by denying their latest purchase. I fully believe this is intentional harassment by the feds who are likely liberal communist wannabe gun grabbers, born of indoctrination in the liberal freedom hating universities in America today, who have infiltrated all vulnerable institutions of society. These people seek out positions of authority in order to thwart freedom and further their radical ideas. They are very driven as mentally distressed people often are. Why is race a question on the 4473? This is very dangerous to society. I am not sure it is not being used to harass members of certain genders or races by other genders or races. I fully suspect this very thing is going on against white males in our current society. This has probably been used against other races in the past. This is antithetical to America, which is based on the predicate that all people are individuals with God given rights and should be treated as such. Race has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you are a criminal and should not be part of the conversation. As far as felons go, if you can not be trusted in society, you have no business being out of prison. When you are released from prison, you have legally fulfilled your debt to society as well as (should be) determined to be reformed and therefore entitled to all rights enjoyed by other Americans. I know this is a radical ideal, but we have allowed our rights to be limited by an out of control Federal Government which derives its constantly growing power from the people. Certainly many people released from prison have no business being among society which is why they should be incarcerated instead of released in the first place. This is why there are so many repeat offenders. I realize this may be extremely unpopular but it is entirely true. Truth and justice are never a losing proposition. Banning a “criminal” from purchasing a gun will not stop them from acquiring one should they decide to use one in the commission of another crime. The government banned alcohol during prohibition and look how that worked out. It sounds absolutely great on paper, but it is ineffective in practice. It only further serves to infringe on the absolute rights of law abiding Americans. Take a good look at Chicago, it is a cesspool, and they have some of the strictest gun control measures in the nation. The ones that are unarmed there are the victims. The criminals acquire the weapons anyways. All of this being said, if we have passed a law against prohibited persons from purchasing firearms, it needs to be enforced, as we are a nation of laws, until that law can be reformed. I would argue however, that if they can’t be trusted with a firearm, then they can’t be trusted in society as they can be had on the black market
nearly anytime in nearly any place.

15

As an FFL, i have noticed patterns when it comes to the delays i get from NICS checks. The patterns tend to revolve around these identifiers.

I would love to do a FOIA request to see how many instant delays happened over the last month/year, and that number of delays broken down by ethnicity/race. I would love to do that, but I have a hunch that it would lead to me or my business (and by extension my customers) to be targeted for sudden “random” inspections and records confiscations.

16

Thats a great question. and I agree it is very dangerous to have as a question. quite scary.

17

I’ve held an FFL for over 35 years. I’ve never understood the basis or bases for the questions about race and ethnicity. Simply put, BATFE has never offered “definitions” for the terms used.

An example. “Asian” covers half of this planet’s population (2.8. billion in India and China; 0.5 billion in Indonesia and Pakistan; 0.3 billion in Japan, the Philippines, and Bangladesh). Surely India and China each should have a separate box on the Form 4473.

In a country with citizens from everywhere - and where residents marry as they wish - many don’t fall into a specific category. The race questions smack of South Africa’s “apartheid” system - now rightfully in history’s garbage can - where one’s race classification determined where one lived, etc.

Is someone from Papua New Guinea a “Black” or a “Pacific Islander”? Is someone from Iraq “White” or “Asian”? Are those from North Africa “White”, even though their skin colors may range from “White” to coffee-colored?

Let me be clear: I ask these questions to show how absurd it is to have “race” identification questions on Form 4473. It is repulsive to classify anyone on the basis of skin color.

As an FFL-holder, my only concern about a customer is whether or not they are qualified to own firearms. Race has NO part of that!

18

@jesguns you are so right. I havent really ever seen it explained as well as you did just there… excellent food for thought.

20

Incapacity at basic math is common. At end-2018, there were some 423,000,000 firearms in the U.S., military items excluded (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Firearms Commerce in the United States, 2000 and 2020). Things in superabundance - and mainly concealable - cannot be controlled. Violent criminals and lunatics are micro-minorities. We can design a process to get control of such, while robustly protecting their civil rights.

Instead of doing that, there’s a manic focus on controlling firearms. Between 1980 and 2019, the incidence of murder halved, from 10.2 per 100,000 to 5.0. Over the same time, the incidence of violent crime fell from 595.0 per 100,000 to 366.7, a 38% fall. Plainly, the greater supply of firearms did not boost the incidence of violent crime. (FBI, Crime in the United States, 1980-2019, Table 1)

So, why no focus on curbing those violent? Liberals’ brain chemistry causes them to get pleasure from helping someone needy. That pleasure is as intense as is that of an alcoholic, who finally gets “a bottle” or an opioid addict, who scores some fentanyl.

Liberals - if in control of public policy - make choices that ensure a steady supply of those needy. So, they back “gun control”, single-parenthood, uncontrolled immigration, degraded education, etc. These policies promote victimhood and/or neediness.

Conservatives are happy to help the needy, but doing so is not an obsession, as it is with liberals. Were Chicago pacified by putting behind bars the micro-minority given to solving disputes with lethal force, there would be many fewer needy.

Once public safety prevailed, housing prices would rise in no-longer crime-blighted neighborhoods. Business would open, given “safer streets”. More would use evenings to shop, dine-out, etc.

In short, Liberals’ brain chemistry drives them to do things that damage others, to get opportunities to help the needy.

22

Thank you! Bad ideas sometimes get an unbreakable grip. An old example: 80% of Israelites did not leave Egypt. They could not accept that they were going to be free, so made no preparations to leave. They died - by Hand of H-aven - during the Ninth Plague (darkness). Of the 603,550 non-Levite men, only two merited to cross into the Promised Land (Caleb and Joshua). The reason: all the rest repeatedly rebuked Moses for having led them out of Egypt. The A-mighty decreed that all men above the age of 20 (but not women) would die during 40 years of travel in the desert. That was “travel” NOT “wandering”.

Fast forward. For 60 years Soviet leaders tried to manage the economy, by having all major production decisions made by folks in Moscow’s ministries. This in a country that was the largest on this planet, spanned 12 time zones, and was known globally for very severe winters. Especially in the pre-computer age, this approach was utter lunacy. And Soviet computers lagged those elsewhere.

Despite mounting evidence that “central economic planning” made Soviets poorer, Soviet leaders persisted. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed into bankruptcy (1989-1990).

“Gun control” is a policy with great surface appeal: the promise of “safe streets”. The down-side to “gun control” is not unfairness to the law-abiding. The down-side to “gun control” is genocide.

The core idea is simple. It is impossible to murder hundreds of thousands - or millions - unless and until the intended victims have been disarmed. “Gun control” does NOT caused genocides. Murderous politicians caused genocides. But “gun control” makes genocide a low-risk or a “no-risk” proposition. That makes it easier for a genocidal leader to recruit the thousands of helpers needed, to carry-out the genocide.

Were it known that “gun control” promotes genocide, fewer would want “gun control”. Many, who embrace “gun control” point to Australia as a “success story”. But Australia has had “gun control” for only 35 years.

Guatemala’s “gun control” regime dates from 28 November 1871 (Decree No. 36). Guatemalan’s 20-year-long genocide began in 1965, more than 90 years later.

So, I try to change the terms of the discussion. Even if there were no Second Amendment, “gun control” is a policy that should be totally rejected insofar as it affects the law-abiding.

We need criminal and dangerous lunatic control. Urgently!!!