Where's the stats on failed backround checks vs enforcement?


PDA






Nowhere Man
April 18, 2013, 11:29 AM
I'm having a debate w/ someone over broadened backround checks. How many checks did the BATF prosecute vs illegal attempts to purchase? I can't find the numbers.


Thanks, Dave

If you enjoyed reading about "Where's the stats on failed backround checks vs enforcement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Steel Horse Rider
April 18, 2013, 11:34 AM
I don't have the figures at hand but I know from past research that the number of prosecutions is very insignificant.

Nowhere Man
April 18, 2013, 11:35 AM
Found it.....Federal data show that in 2010, people lied on federal forms and failed background checks more than 76,000 times. Only 44 of those people were prosecuted

GambJoe
April 18, 2013, 07:05 PM
A...does that mean that background checks kept 76,000 people that the law deems shouldn't own guns from making a gun purchase?

Outlaw Man
April 18, 2013, 08:22 PM
A...does that mean that background checks kept 76,000 people that the law deems shouldn't own guns from making a gun purchase?
No, it means they kept 44 people from getting guns that shouldn't have. 75,956 people either got guns through another source (theft, likely) or shouldn't have been denied.

So, either the system is broken because it doesn't catch criminal, or it's broken because it restricts law abiding citizens.

rdhood
April 18, 2013, 08:25 PM
does that mean that background checks kept 76,000 people that the law deems shouldn't own guns from making a gun purchase?

No, that means that background checks denied 76,000 people a gun purchase. The federal government has no idea if those people are TRULY disallowed, or if it was just a clerk's mistake, or a case of same name, or whatever. I suspect that they only prosecute the slam-dunk cases.

joeschmoe
April 18, 2013, 08:30 PM
They lump criminals and those denied their rights together. They don't see a difference.

Oklacoyotekiller
April 18, 2013, 08:33 PM
Didnt lanza fail a background check? Why was he not arrested?

Nowhere Man
April 19, 2013, 09:46 AM
Because he was one of the 75,956.



Dave

lpsharp88
April 19, 2013, 10:15 AM
Found it.....Federal data show that in 2010, people lied on federal forms and failed background checks more than 76,000 times. Only 44 of those people were prosecuted
Care to provide us with a link?

rdhood
April 19, 2013, 11:57 AM
Care to provide us with a link?

I found it the other day with a simple google search. I think these are out at the fbi or atf websites.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 19, 2013, 12:01 PM
Here is the DOJ report to Congress for 2010:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Short version:
Around 76k denials
About 5k referred to field offices for investigation
Between 27-30% of these cases were people who were not prohibited under law
62 cases referred for prosecution (of which 18 were dismissed by the prosecutor)

rdhood
April 19, 2013, 12:04 PM
Didnt lanza fail a background check? Why was he not arrested?

Because not everyone that submits to a background check and is denied is guilty of a crime. Notice I did not write, " and fails". No one "fails" an NICS background check. You are either cleared or denied. Denied does not imply "guilty" or "failed" or anything else. If you are denied, it simply means that the NICS database contains an entry that MAY or MAY NOT apply to you, and that MAY or MAY NOT be correct. They really don't know! So, on appeal, you supply your fingerprints and a more detailed form of information, and they determine if it does , in fact, apply to you. If it does apply to you, that still means that the information that they have that disqualifies you MAY or MAY NOT be correct! They really don't know, as their records are only as accurate as the clerical person who input the info into the local or state database (which was forwarded to the NICS database). If it is not correct, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove your innocence and clear your record, starting at the local/state level.

That is why, I believe, they only prosecute slam dunk cases... cases that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt with a minimum of effort. Filling out a 4473 when you have a NICS disqualifying record is not a crime. I did not know that I had an INCORRECT disqualifying record in the NICS database until I attempted to purchase a gun. There was absolutely no way I could have known. Lanza might not have known either. He might have suspected, or he might have been totally ignorant. Either way, that is not enough to prove criminal intent when applying for a gun. The Feds would have to prove that 1) the disqualifying record is correct and 2) the applicant knew it he/she was disqualified when he/she attempted to purchase a gun.

natman
April 19, 2013, 01:36 PM
I worked in a gun store for three years. We had hundreds of denials. Many we overturned on appeal. None were prosecuted or followed up on in any way, even in California.

Hapworth
April 19, 2013, 01:43 PM
WaPo's Fact Checker has some interesting background on why this is a complicated issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/lindsey-grahams-claim-that-no-fugitives-have-been-prosecuted-after-gun-background-checks/2013/04/03/5d20c1fa-9ca9-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

Hapworth
April 19, 2013, 01:44 PM
Didnt lanza fail a background check? Why was he not arrested?
I might've missed an update, but I believe Lanza withdrew from the attempted purchase to avoid the background check, not that he was denied.

rdhood
April 19, 2013, 02:41 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f755_blog.html

BTW, that article says essentially the same thing that I wrote. The NICS database is not trustworthy, and only the slam dunk cases get prosecuted.

If you enjoyed reading about "Where's the stats on failed backround checks vs enforcement?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!