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
Thanks, Dave
Where's the stats on failed backround checks vs enforcement?
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
- Status
I don't have the figures at hand but I know from past research that the number of prosecutions is very insignificant.
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
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.
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.
I found it the other day with a simple google search. I think these are out at the fbi or atf websites.
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)
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)
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.
Last edited:
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.
WaPo's Fact Checker has some interesting background on why this is a complicated issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d20c1fa-9ca9-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d20c1fa-9ca9-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
