Reply #32: You might be right.

[one-eyed fat man]

There are two big failures possible:

First, Claire Vouyant, the lady in charge of predicting future crimes at the call center in West Virginia where the NICS checks are done has not entered any data. Therefore, if data for crimes or other disqualifying information from the past is missing, not current, or as for mental histories, protected by privacy laws, someone whose name should be declined may not be there.

Second, even if the name comes up, nothing happens beyond the sale is declined. There is no follow up. Remember, when the Brady Law was first passed Janet Reno was testifying before Congress on how many hundreds of thousands of felons had been stopped by the Brady law. Since the attempt to buy a gun by a felon is a crime, she was asked how many of those felons were arrested for trying to buy a gun. She replied that the law only symbolic it was never intended to arrest anyone.

Consider that for a moment. Charles Manson could break out of San Quentin, walk into a gun store, give his real name and try to buy a gun. If the system works, when the clerk phones the FBI they will simply tell him to decline the sale, they won't tell the clerk why.

The clerk declines the sale, old Charlie walks out, finds a guy selling dope and asks to buy a gun. By Janet's definition he has been stopped.

There is no follow up. The FBI does not call the local PD and alert them that Manson is down at Joe's Gun right this minute.

Are you asking if, for the most part, most crooks already know they are crooks so they don't they don't even bother going to gun stores?