Record number of illegal immigrants tried to buy guns this year

[RETG]

I didn't realize it was this bad. That's a lot of people trying to purchase guns who should not have them.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...umber-of-illegal-immigrants-tried-to-buy-guns

 

[Odd Job]

The other figures are interesting also:

 

[lemaymiami]

I figure it's a function of the numbers coming into the country... The more illegals the greater number of attempts to purchase weapons (for better or worse...). Of course anti- second amendment types will try to spin it into great restrictions on all of us -but I'd like to think that the general public is beginning to realize that our illegal immigration problems not only aren't going away - they're getting worse...

 

[Robert]

Keep this firearms related. If we get side tracked by immigration as its own issue then this will be closed.

 

[sota]

is that JUST for 2018?!?!

eta: I found the PDF this came from. I'd like to get some clarity as to what it means though. Based on the document title, is seems like it encompasses more than just the 2018 calendar year.

 

[hso]

I'm not sure what period that covers. Typically FBI/DOJ statistics cover the period either a year or two previous unless they state otherwise.

Here's the latest published NICS report. You'll find a similar tables starting on page 16 of the report. They don't quite match the WashExaminer, but they do indicate a shift of the second most frequent cause of denial.

 

[Browning]

I worked at a Gunstore for a few years in the late 90's. Lots of illegals came in and tried to buy guns, were refused and then came back later with a relative (usually female) and then tried to buy one.

Unknown is how many got smart after we refused them for a straw purchase and went to a different gun store. We were hardly the only one in Phoenix AZ.

On a different note, I was always under the impression that by the very definition of misdemeanors that the maximum jail sentence someone could receive was one year and that they didn't lose their gun rights except for domestic violence.

A quick look on the net yielded ...

A misdemeanor is a less serious criminal offense for which you can be fined $4,000 or less and be sentenced to county jail for up to one year. You do not lose any civil rights for a misdemeanor conviction. Misdemeanors include simple assault, theft and DWI, first or second offense.

My google-fu could only finding the two year jail sentence stipulation in Massachusetts. How is that legal?

(Fixed a sentence)

 

[FL-NC]

When I worked in a gun shop, we had many prohibited persons attempt to purchase (some were people who would have probably been fine if they hadn't come in reeking of booze or cannabis) along with many attempted straw purchases that were "outed" because of overheard conversations at the counter. You have to wonder how many were successful either by pulling off their plan, or buying somewhere else from a less scrupulous merchant. I am curious where the gun came from that was used to kill the officer in California on Xmas by that individual.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I'm waiting for the ACLU or someone to sue a show for refusing a sale to someone they have a concern about ie; a straw purchase. The shop it absolutely right to do so but I can see a lawsuit coming sooner or later. The situation is bad as it puts stores in a bad position. I would also love to see the gun laws enforced! If all these people are trying to illegally buy a firearm and they put their address down why doesn't someone go get them!?!?!?

 

[JONWILL]

So if I understand this 19 million people filled out the 4473 truthfully or did NICS catch them?

I remember a report where some States didn’t keep their criminal records for NICS updated

I wonder what the breakdown is by State for NICS rejections. I bet it is mainly the States bordering Mexico

 

[GAF]

Looks to me that the FBI NIC background checks are working very well.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-nics-operations-report.pdf/view

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Holy smokes. I had no ideas there were so many denials.

 

[Sistema1927]

How many prosecutions were there?

<crickets>

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Go to the bottom of the article, there is a corrected update that basically makes the whole report false.

 

[Kaybee]

I’ve been saying this for years but I am NOT against bg checks. What I am against is the REGISTRATION and TRACKING that usually goes with it (because that’s an essential, and historically proven as a tool for confiscation).

I think it’s a huge win for antis that these two things have become synonymous because it IS possible to have one without the other.

When republicans had control I wish they went after tracking and registration across the country.

 

[cheygriz]

How many prosecutions were there?

<crickets>

Now that is the real question, isn't it???

the ATTEMPT to buy illegally is a crime. BUT NEVER PROSECUTED!!!

 

[mgresh]

Go to the bottom of the article, there is a corrected update that basically makes the whole report false.

Huh? It just clarifies that this is number of 'barred transactions', and not 'attempted purchases'.

It just explained an error in a previous article. The 'correction' doesn't change anything about this article or it's intent or information.

 

[AlexanderA]

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't limit that right to citizens, or even to those with a legal immigration status. (In 1791, anyone could come here freely. There were no border controls.) I think that conditioning the right to buy a gun on citizenship or immigration status may be unconstitutional. OK, deny the guy a gun based on verified criminality, but don't deny him just because he came here looking for a better life while crossing the border without the requisite formalities. He may in fact have a legitimate need for a gun, for self-protection, more than someone who is more established in this country.

 

[alsaqr]

i wish folks would vet this stuff before posting. Washington Examiner often panders to the uninformed. Information at the link is trash.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-nics-operations-report.pdf/view

 

[mgresh]

The information is accurate. It represents the current number of prohibited people, and the reason, in the database. Not how many attempted to get guns, or were denied purchase.

 

[Odd Job]

i wish folks would vet this stuff before posting. Washington Examiner often panders to the uninformed. Information at the link is trash.

This may explain the difference between the two lists. From the operations report on page 16:

When a NICS background check matches a record to the prospective firearms transferee, the NICS Section determines if a federal prohibitor exists. However, if a federal prohibitor does not exist, the NICS Section employee processing the background check must further review the record match(es) to determine if any applicable state law renders the prospective firearms transferee prohibited.

The other table is an active record table, which seems to include all the records, both federal and state, going back to the time they started collecting them:

Active Records in the NICS Indices A continuing goal of the NICS Section in 2017 was making state and federal prohibiting records available at the national level. Efforts were undertaken for local, state, tribal, and federal agencies to submit records into the NICS Indices. On December 31, 2017, the NICS Indices records total 17,399,461, which includes a 1,589,422 record increase during 2017.

If you read the quote above, from page 26 of the PDF, it says there were 1,589,422 added records in 2017.

 

[cheygriz]

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't limit that right to citizens, or even to those with a legal immigration status. (In 1791, anyone could come here freely. There were no border controls.) I think that conditioning the right to buy a gun on citizenship or immigration status may be unconstitutional. OK, deny the guy a gun based on verified criminality, but don't deny him just because he came here looking for a better life while crossing the border without the requisite formalities. He may in fact have a legitimate need for a gun, for self-protection, more than someone who is more established in this country.

So you're okay with CRIMINALS who swim the river in the dead of night in violation of our laws being able to LEGALLY buy guns???

They come here for a better life??? Right! A life American taxpayers give them via welfare.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't limit that right to citizens, or even to those with a legal immigration status. (In 1791, anyone could come here freely. There were no border controls.) I think that conditioning the right to buy a gun on citizenship or immigration status may be unconstitutional. OK, deny the guy a gun based on verified criminality, but don't deny him just because he came here looking for a better life while crossing the border without the requisite formalities. He may in fact have a legitimate need for a gun, for self-protection, more than someone who is more established in this country.

Crossing the border illegally is, well, illegal. Are you considering only some illegal acts to be criminality?

 

[AlexanderA]

So you're okay with CRIMINALS who swim the river in the dead of night in violation of our laws being able to LEGALLY buy guns???

Just because someone overstays a visa, or crosses the border without a visa, doesn't make him the kind of "criminal" that we are normally concerned about when denying the right to a gun. If he has an actual violent record, then yes.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't limit that right to citizens, or even to those with a legal immigration status. (In 1791, anyone could come here freely. There were no border controls.) I think that conditioning the right to buy a gun on citizenship or immigration status may be unconstitutional. OK, deny the guy a gun based on verified criminality, but don't deny him just because he came here looking for a better life while crossing the border without the requisite formalities. He may in fact have a legitimate need for a gun, for self-protection, more than someone who is more established in this country.

I’m not sure I would necessarily agree with your assessment. Heller appears to have described “the people” as excluding certain groups.

Please take a look at this article from Harvard Law Review. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

It addresses the distinction you point out, although from a slightly different angle. I’m going to take the article at face value here, because I’m not a Heller scholar and have no real reason to disagree with what they are saying.

I do not pretend to take a position regarding my agreement or disagreement with this article. However, it appears to some that the definition is unclear at best, and may change depending on the right under discussion.

So, for the moment, I’m gonna go with the idea that illegals shouldn’t be able to buy guns here. And I don’t really feel the need to get into a long protracted argument about it.