Is it Illegal for Prohibited persons to attempt to Purchase?
- Thread starter LubeckTech
- Start date
- Status
It's illegal for a felon to have a firearm. I'm not sure if it's illegal to try to buy one since it probably won't go through. A felon can't purchase body armor either.
The reason I posted this is I heard the scumbag who killed the Firemen just before Christmas had attempted to purchase on 5 different ocaisions. I'm not sure if he was unable to purchase because of the results of a NICS check or not. If it is illegal for him to attempt to purchase as a convicted felon then he should have been investigated/incarcerated and THAT would have saved lives. If it is not illegal for a convicted felon to fill out a 4473 and attempt to purchase then that would be something the government could do which would be positive instead of restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.
In writing to our legislators just stating your opposition to bans and such is not enough!. They are looking for something they can do in a proactive sense to stop violent actions and suggestions in that light will give us a lot of credibility.
If we still had the death penality for murder 2 volunteer firemen would be alive today.
In writing to our legislators just stating your opposition to bans and such is not enough!. They are looking for something they can do in a proactive sense to stop violent actions and suggestions in that light will give us a lot of credibility.
If we still had the death penality for murder 2 volunteer firemen would be alive today.
If he filled out the 4473 truthfully and checked off that he was indeed a felon, then the dealer would refuse the sale.
That's an odd thing to expect a murderous individual to do, but it does indeed happen.
If he lied on the form he did break the law, but then we don't know why the purchases were refused.
That's an odd thing to expect a murderous individual to do, but it does indeed happen.
If he lied on the form he did break the law, but then we don't know why the purchases were refused.
I had not thought it thru as well as Sam but that is my point. If he told the truth I'm sure the dealer would not have called it in so if the sales were the result of a failed NICS check where he claimed not to be a felon why was he not in jail?????
We have laws on our books NOW which if enforced would make a difference. Our legislators need to concentrate on seeing to it the current laws are enforced before enacting more.
We have laws on our books NOW which if enforced would make a difference. Our legislators need to concentrate on seeing to it the current laws are enforced before enacting more.
Hmmm...I see your point. If he ran the NICS check and failed it, that's generally simply a denied transaction. The dealer doesn't call the cops and the cops don't come arrest you for that, as there may be above-board reasons why the inquiry came back denied. NICS screw-ups are fairly common, and a whole process exists for appeal.
Further, the NICS call doesn't sound an alert if a prohibited person's information is flagged. It just says "denied" and that's it.
Further, the NICS call doesn't sound an alert if a prohibited person's information is flagged. It just says "denied" and that's it.
The ATF is very proud that over 100,000 purchases per year are denied. Mostly to Americans who are NOT prohibited. Fewer than 50 of those result in a conviction for a prohibited person trying to buy a gun. Usually when they realize they have allowed the sale to a prohibited person and they have to try to get it back and fail, so they prosecute the guy.
It is common knowledge for crimminals to try thier luck because it may go through and there is nothing to lose.
It is common knowledge for crimminals to try thier luck because it may go through and there is nothing to lose.
That is a good example of a positive step (improve inter agency communication) which could be taken in that if a convicted felon attempts to purchase ATF - forwards the informaation to law enforcement for further investigation. If it were to be a simple mistake that should be provable but if a convicted felon is attempting to procure a firearm and commiting perjury in the process this is what we pay our law enforcement community to deal with.
Bottom line is more laws are not a solution when the current tools are not properly utilized.
Bottom line is more laws are not a solution when the current tools are not properly utilized.
bikemutt
Member
Actually that is what allegedly occurs now. According to NICS, denials are automatically entered into a database accessible by law enforcement. I have no idea if that's a "push" type of entry which alerts LE, or a "pull" type which must be polled by LE.
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
I concur with this position. Apologies for length in advance.
Many voices have spoken out in favor of significant (bordering on draconian) changes to firearm laws in the US. However, most of these are at best reactionary and don't seem to be addressing the root issues that lead to tragedies such as Newtown or crimes committed with firearms in general (e.g. the Senate bill being proposed by Senator Feinstein).
It is disappointing that when a crime is committed with a firearm the only responses seem to center around creating more requirements for law-abiding citizens to follow, however, I respectfully submit (while I fully anticipate significant disagreement on this point) that the resistance to more stringent requirements for keeping track of firearms and who gets them (i.e. eliminating sales done without NICS checks, requiring reporting of lost/stolen firearms, better availability of mental health data for NICS checks) is problematic. If firearms can change hands without any paper trail, how can they more readily be kept from the hands of criminals? Can anybody honestly be certain (save when dealing with relatives/very close friends) that they have never unwittingly sold a firearm to a felon and/or unstable person who has bad intent?
A far more compelling set of ideas for meaningful reform (at least compared to those of Senator Feinstein) come from Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, NJ, described at (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/gun-law-reform_b_2346911.html). While I do NOT agree with any suggestions he makes regarding bans or on purchase limitations, Mayor Booker’s comments on things such as requiring NICS checks on all firearms transfers (many FFL dealers charge $20 - mine charges $15), requiring reporting when firearms are stolen, focusing on penalties for unlawful gun trafficking, and improving the information available to the NICS system for background checks (e.g. mental health records) are worth discussion. These would seem reasonable means by which those with criminal intent could be more readily deterred from purchasing firearms while yet recognizing the rights of legitimate firearm owners.
I know this wouldn't have stopped Newtown - some things will always defy prevention. I also know this is compromise that some will not wish to make. However, it would likely make a dent in other types of nefarious uses of firearms, and would still not stop anybody who can pass a 4473 check from getting anything currently legally available.
Best wishes to all for a happy New Year.
bikemutt
Member
by keeping those hands in jail
by no glamorizing the criminal acts of these spree kill / suicide idiots in the media
by having harsh penalties for violent criminals (regardless of tools used
tracking sales sounds good, but doesn't solve the problems of theft and black market
<buzzer sound> nope, try again
Lying on the 4473 form as the true buyer because he is prohibited for killing his grandmother and spending 17 years in prison.
That might be a clue.
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
OK, fair enough. Let's try it this way.
Can anybody honestly be certain (save when dealing with relatives/very close friends) that they have never unwittingly sold a firearm to a felon and/or unstable person, or one with other disqualifying characteristics as stipulated in Form 4473?
Have a great day.
I have no responsibility for the future actions of a buyer of any tool or device, so the rude (but true) answer is "who cares?"
If you sell someone a hammer and they smash their thumb, are you responsible?
If you sell someone a car and they run over a kitten, are you responsible?
If you sell someone a blade and they stab an innocent with it, are you responsible?
If you sell someone an anvil and they drop it off of a roof onto someone, are you responsible?
What makes a gun special?
If you sell someone a hammer and they smash their thumb, are you responsible?
If you sell someone a car and they run over a kitten, are you responsible?
If you sell someone a blade and they stab an innocent with it, are you responsible?
If you sell someone an anvil and they drop it off of a roof onto someone, are you responsible?
What makes a gun special?
Tommygunn
Member
__________________
It isn't illegal for a exfelon to possess hammers, cars, blades or anvils.
It IS illegal for them to possess a gun.
That still doesn't make it YOUR problem, fault, or liability. The law says you must not "know or have reason to know." It doesn't say you must run a background check on them, know them personally, call their references, or employ clairvoyance to determine their true character.
I think is was pointed out that at the point of sale a denied transaction is simply that - a denied transaction. The gun dealer receives no more information than the transaction was denied.
I was frequently denied purchase of firearms while on active duty in the US Air Force. I was always subsequently authorized a couple of days later after my application made it through whatever channels it went through. Even after subsequent approval, the dealer had no idea why. I did come into the gun shop in uniform one day and he asked which base I worked at, and what level of security clearance I had. The dealer told me he suspected it was my clearance, as many of his military customers were also initially denied.
Anyway, the dealer has no responsibility to call the police regarding an denied application as far as I know.
I was frequently denied purchase of firearms while on active duty in the US Air Force. I was always subsequently authorized a couple of days later after my application made it through whatever channels it went through. Even after subsequent approval, the dealer had no idea why. I did come into the gun shop in uniform one day and he asked which base I worked at, and what level of security clearance I had. The dealer told me he suspected it was my clearance, as many of his military customers were also initially denied.
Anyway, the dealer has no responsibility to call the police regarding an denied application as far as I know.
If communication between local and Federal authorities was perfect, it would make sense for a denial for certain reasons to result in an arrest. However, we are fortunate that nobody yet has enough faith in the system to make that a reality, because the system is flawed. There is plenty of miscommunication between local and Federal levels. Imagine getting denied for any of the various reasons, then shortly afterwards getting raided, arrested, and having all your guns confiscated until the issue is cleared up. The denial would make you a de facto prohibited person in probable possession. This is why the system is the way it is currently: you would have plenty of innocent people getting arrested for false positives.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Spengler killed his 92 year old grandmother in 1980 by striking her 13 times in the head with a hammer.
He plead guilty to manslaughter in 1981.
The parole commission refused to release him as long as the law allowed. He was release from prison 1998 after 17 years.
He moved into his mom's house next door to the dead granma's house.
In 2010 he got a 22-year old neighbor woman to buy a Bushmaster and a shotgun for him. He also had a pistol source unknown.
If he attempted to purchase on his own more than once, something should have been done then.
This is a guy who should not have been in the public. Period. The answer of our brainless leaders though is not to keep dangerous people in prison, but rather to turn society into a prison, so dangerous felons can roam safely among us.
He plead guilty to manslaughter in 1981.
The parole commission refused to release him as long as the law allowed. He was release from prison 1998 after 17 years.
He moved into his mom's house next door to the dead granma's house.
In 2010 he got a 22-year old neighbor woman to buy a Bushmaster and a shotgun for him. He also had a pistol source unknown.
If he attempted to purchase on his own more than once, something should have been done then.
This is a guy who should not have been in the public. Period. The answer of our brainless leaders though is not to keep dangerous people in prison, but rather to turn society into a prison, so dangerous felons can roam safely among us.
Yes. Either from an FFL or from a private individual.
And yes, nobody did diddly squat about it.
We don't need more laws (like criminals would follow NEW ones better than old ones), we simply need to ENFORCE the ones we already have.
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
So all crimes are now to have penalties of life imprisonment/death?
No problem there, all that needs done away with is the first amendment...
Because suicidal murderers who obtain arms illegally are always concerned about what happens after they go off on a room full of innocents...
Required reporting of stolen property at least lets somebody know that the arms are now out of legal hands. NICS checks would stop anybody that couldn't clear 4473 requirements, which would at least limit the opportunity for recidivism. At least one study found that 80% of those who used a firearm to commit a crime acquired it through a non-FFL sale.
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
With respect, that's the point. The seller has no way of knowing.
This said, I am not speaking to seller's problem, fault, liability or responsibility at all. I merely point out the ease with which a felon could acquire a firearm without raising flags simply by having an in-state drivers license (if that) and a willingness to lie with some modicum of ability (admittedly I'm assuming that).
Hence, under current circumstances, a private sale would be a very good way for a felon or one who has a disqualifying condition per Form 4473 to acquire a firearm with little or no risk.
- Status
