HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » How bout requiring purcha...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:24 PM

How bout requiring purchasers pass background check.

Not just require national background checks, but PASSING it!

I’ve an idea, which is to stop FFL’s from selling firearms to people who have NOT been cleared by the Brady Act’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.
It seems to me that many, probably most Americans are unaware that there are thousands of people every year who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms who, pick up their firearms from licensed FFL’s after paying their money and walk out into society, thumbing their nose at the intent of the law!
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2011 There were 3,166 firearm retrieval referrals forwarded to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by the NICS Section. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011

27 replies, 1993 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply How bout requiring purchasers pass background check. (Original post)
russ1943 Jan 2013 OP
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #1
russ1943 Jan 2013 #14
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #18
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #2
russ1943 Jan 2013 #7
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #8
russ1943 Jan 2013 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #13
russ1943 Jan 2013 #15
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #17
russ1943 Jan 2013 #9
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #12
azalia Jan 2013 #3
Callisto32 Jan 2013 #5
gejohnston Jan 2013 #6
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #23
Callisto32 Jan 2013 #4
sarisataka Jan 2013 #11
russ1943 Jan 2013 #16
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #20
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #21
sarisataka Jan 2013 #24
gejohnston Jan 2013 #19
spin Jan 2013 #22
oneshooter Jan 2013 #25
russ1943 Jan 2013 #26
Straw Man Jan 2013 #27

Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:30 PM

1. Wow...just wow...

Show me where this happens, and the FFL dealer, does NOT get arrested for committing a federal felony? This OP just told one of the wildest outright lies I have read in the forum in quite a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:30 PM

14. No lie.

The FBI’s operations reports states, clearly this happens. The FFL is allowed to do this, as I described. You might consider retracting your accusing me of lying. How about my question; Would you be in favor of not just requiring but PASSING a background check prior to transfer of firearms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:20 PM

18. No retraction you made a very misleading op.....

It is not the ffl dealers fault that the nics check cannot clear a purchase in 3 idays when the credit card used to make the same purchase can clear in a matter of seconds. All he is doing is complying with law. I have no problem with background checks but in todays information age there is no excuse for them to take more than a few minutes.

Instead of making wild statements that are designed to be misleading. You should be pressimg to make the nics check more efficient. Than you will find much more support. But by the very missleading way you made your op. You assured much loling at it insted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:35 PM

2. You might want to fact check what you posted

It is already illegal and a felony for an FFL to turnover a weapon to someone who has failed a background check. It is serious go to jail country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:43 PM

7. Facts checked.

Facts checked. Wow is right. Check the link I posted. It is allowed and I don't think it should be. There were 3,166 firearm retrieval referrals forwarded to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by the NICS Section. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:54 PM

8. How about a page citation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:57 PM

10. Page 14

Firearm Retrieval Referrals
Because of the NICS Section's commitment to public safety and national security, the search for the needed disposition information continues beyond the three business days allowed by the Brady Act. In some instances, the information is subsequently obtained and a final status determined; however, if the final status (determined after the lapse of three business days) results in a deny decision and the NICS Section is advised by the FFL that the firearm was transferred, then the ATF is notified a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm. In 2011, the NICS Section referred 3,166 firearm retrieval actions to the ATF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:16 PM

13. So your concern is when the Government does not do its job...

That makes sense, but your framing is was upside down.

Yes there are cases where the Gov cannot get its shit in one sock and persons who should be denied are not. I cannot blame the FFL holder for following the law.

It should also be noted that many other Brady Bill violations are ignored by the DOJ as well. One of the things Obama said he would do is fix that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:40 PM

15. Just noting what I think is a serious flaw.

My question to you is; Would you be in favor of not just requiring but PASSING a background check prior to transfer of firearms?
The way things stand is, an ineligible person is getting a firearm. The FFL is allowed to complete the sale. I’m not blaming anybody, just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:55 PM

17. I think that all transactions should have a eligibility check

Not just sales, but gifts, and inheritance.

I also believe that the Government has to hold up its side of the equation and get things done in a timely manner. Alternatively, it could pay some sort of liquidated damages, but that would not fly either.

The real issue is that while it is against the law for the person to lie on the paperwork, it is almost never prosecuted. If it was, few if any people would sign fraudulently sign the paperwork and the specific issue that concerns you would go away.


I like the analogy used elsewhere in this thread...if you are good with requiring people to wait until the Government gets it shit together for guns, I assume you are good with denying the right to vote due to paperwork issues too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:54 PM

9. Require "no sale" until background check is PASSED.

Default Proceed: When an NICS check cannot be completed electronically (5% of all checks), the FBI must identify and contact state and local law enforcement officials. The Brady act allows the FBI three business days to complete a background check. If the check cannot be completed in three business days, the sale or transfer may be completed although potentially disqualifying information might exist in the NICS. The dealer is not required to complete the sale and the FBI will continue to review the case for two more weeks. If the FBI discovers disqualifying information after three business days, they will contact the dealer to determine whether or not the gun was transferred under the "default proceed" rule. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Brady-Act-Gun-Buyer-Background-Checks.htm
http://www.rgj.com/article/20121118/NEWS/311180048/ATF-U-S-Attorney-rift-leaves-guns-wrong-hands-Northern-Nevada?nclick_check=1
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/results.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:10 PM

12. So your real complaint is that the NICS check is slow?

Agreed, in a day when i can get approved for a loan for $120,000 in a matter of minutes (did this last week, to 'try to" buy a house), you think they could do a back ground check just about as fast.

It is not the purchasers fault the system is overwhelmed. Heck I had a "hold" put on me the last time I bought a rifle. I LOL'ed about it . Their I stood, in the FFL dealers shop, even used my Concealed Weapon permit, as a form of ID, to purchase a almost 100 year old bolt action, 5 shot rifle, and had to drive home, and come back and get it later, when they finally decided I was "ok". They had to make certain I was "a safe citizen", it mattered not that my state saw it fit to allow me to carry a modern semi-automatic pistol just about everywhere I go, and that about 25 other states will honer my VA permit to do the same.

In this day and age, their is no excuse for that sort of inefficiency, it is clear what is a disqualification, or is not. Especially at a gun show, which may be only a day or two event, with people traveling many miles to attend.

How about this, when you go vote, and they can't find you in the voter rolls, you can just go home, without voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:38 PM

3. I believe that person who killed all those children at that school failed a background check

and still got plenty of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azalia (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:41 PM

5. Not because an FFL turned them over to him, though,

which seems to be the situation the OP is suggesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azalia (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:41 PM

6. that he stole from his mom

after murdering her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azalia (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:56 PM

23. The murderer did not fail a background check

Under CT law, anyone attempting to purchase a long gun, who does not have either a hunting permit or pistol permit (which allows the carrying of a handgun in most public places) must wait 2 weeks for a background check to be completed before taking the firearm home.

Apparently the murderer chose not to pursue the transaction and then at some point later shot his mother 4 times in the head while she slept and then proceeded to the school with the guns from the safe they were stored in. While obviously the safe was not secure enough to stop a person who reported to be extremely smart, it is unknown if before hand a reasonable person would have considered the guns properly secured.*

* There has been some really bad reporting on this story, with information changing almost daily in the first week since the shooting took place. Since then there have been no official statements made to the press or the public as far as I have heard and since I am a CT resident, I'd probably would have heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:40 PM

4. Are you familiar with the old robot saying...

"does not compute.?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:01 PM

11. True, with selective reading

When a NICS transaction is delayed, the Brady Act allows the FFL to legally transfer the
firearm if the NICS transaction is not resolved within three business days. However, the NICS
Section continues to search for the information necessary to make a final determination until the
transaction purges after 88 days.

It is the law, not the FFLs who are at fault

From the Brady campaign, who does not make a big issue of this:
The NICS system gives a “delay” response if there is some information that indicates that the prospective purchaser may be prohibited from receiving firearms. In those cases, the FBI has up to three business days to review records and determine whether a prospective purchaser is prohibited from receiving a firearm and communicate that either to the POC or to the federally licensed dealer, depending on the state.

If a federally licensed firearm dealer does not receive a NICS denial from either the POC or directly from the FBI within three business days after contacting the system, a dealer may proceed with the sale or may wait until the background check is completed. These transactions are referred to as “default proceeds.” Typically, “a default proceed involves a record showing a felony-related arrest with no information to indicate whether the case was prosecuted and whether it resulted in a conviction” (Loesch, 2000).

Default proceeds occur “primarily because many states’ automated criminal history records not show the disposition (e.g., acquittals or convictions) of felony arrests, and manual efforts to find such information took longer than 3 business days”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/bradylaw

Per the FBI info, 1.14% of the 8% delays are ultimately sent for retrieval. If you are in Nevada you don't have to worry since the US attorney and ATF are having a pissing contest; no one is acting on the retrieval notices.
http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Report-Guns-slip-through-NV-background-checks/vH4StXEw_UGXUJqppt80eg.cspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:42 PM

16. I'm not concerned so much with fault.

The outcome is the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:26 PM

20. Biden does not seem to share some of those concerns

During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/#ixzz2IMvAfFwU



http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:30 PM

21. Ok i now see where you stand.

Your are more concerend with the 3 day rule. Than fixing the underliying problem?

I am sorry but you will find zero support from me or most gun rights advocates. You are fine with paperwork snafu's snarling law abiding people that travled many miles to purchase a firearm. Instead of fixing the problem you would rather let it drag on for days and days....

Well until you decide to support fixing the problem in the first place. I cannot support doing away with the 3 day rule..... sorry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:07 PM

24. It falls back to innocent until proven guilty

if a deny cannot be determined, then the sale must be allowed to proceed. It begs the question of how long should the majority have to wait on completion of a legal purchase, three days, three weeks, three months?

Hopefully some of Obama's initiatives will improve the NCIS so they can catch more that should be denied and allow more to pass who should not have to wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:25 PM

19. your title implies that FFLs still sell after the FBI says "deny"

what you are talking about are late decisions and default proceeds after three days. Your title should have mentioned it. If you think it should be a no sale until the "delay" becomes "proceed" then say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:53 PM

22. I don't oppose this idea but I have some questions for you. ...

1) I have a Florida Concealed Weapons permit and consequently have had a background check ran. Would I have to have another background check ran every time I bought a new firearm under your system? I recently renewed my license and it was good for another 7 years at that time.

2) When I first submitted my paperwork for a carry permit I was told it might take up to three months before it could be considered and granted. (It took two months.) I've know women who have attracted the attention of a stalker or had been in an abusive relationship. While they had filed and been granted a restraining order they realized that they were still in some danger and wished to obtain a firearm for self defense in their home. Waiting two months or more might allow a truly dangerous attacker to injure or kill them and they would have no effective means of self defense. Would you allow the court to grant them or any other individual who had the immediate need for a firearm to bypass the background check and obtain one? Would a judge in New York State grant such an exception as easily as judge in Florida?

3) How much would this requirement cost? If this background check was several hundred dollars and have to be renewed yearly, it might prove a significant burden to poorer people who might actually have more need of a firearm for self defense than a rich person who lived in a gated community with guards. All too often history has shown that gun control has been directed at minorities or the poor while the elite ruling class can afford to get a license to obtain a firearm.

The initial cost of a concealed weapons permit in Florida is $112 and for a renewal $70. The initial fee includes $42 for fingerprint processing which is not required for a renewal. This to me is a reasonable fee. (Of course if you have no proof that you have had firearms safety training in the past you have to go through this training and the expense can vary. A good class with a top notch instructor will cost firearm than one obtained at a gun show but will be well worth the expense to many as if you go though a concealed carry class with such an instructor you will gain far more knowledge and often spend more time on a range learning the basics of shooting.)

I have suggested in the past that anyone who buys a firearm or ammo should have a photo ID that shows he/she has had firearms safety training. I would see no problem with adding a background check in order to get this card as long as the expense was reasonable. I would personally like firearms safety training be required in all high schools but the likelihood of this ever happening are about the same as banning and confiscating all semi-auto firearms in our nation. Of course as I have suggested some people may have an immediate need for a firearm for self defense and I feel that should be able to bypass this requirement with an approval of a judge as long as they obtained the training requirements and the background check in a reasonable amount of time.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:23 PM

25. Since I have a Texas CHL there is no NCIS check needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:04 AM

26. Why do you say that?

Do you mean National Instant Criminal Background Check System? That’s NICS.
At the Texas Department of Public Safety’s website there is a FAQ section.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Texas Concealed Handguns
# 18. Do you have to meet all of the federal Brady Law requirements to obtain a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL)? A. Yes. Texas law requires applicants to meet all state and federal laws regarding handgun possession. See, 18 USC Section 922 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/faqs/index.htm
So how do you think there is no NICS check needed? Don’t you have to have (and pass) a Brady background check to obtain a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL)? Once you’ve passed the NICS check and have a valid CHL you can use that CHL as proof that you’ve already meet all of the federal Brady Law requirements to purchase. I don’t understand how having documentation that you’ve passed a National Instant Criminal Background Check can be described as there is no NICS needed. Can you provide a source for your (repeated) claim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:03 AM

27. It's simple.

Without a CCW, a NICS check is required for every sale. You may have to get one NICS check to get your CCW, but once you have it, it becomes your free pass to NICS-less transactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread