Ammo For Sale

« « About those companies distancing from the NRA | Home | And after they ban guns » »

Enforcing the laws on the books

New Gun Bill Would Mandate Reporting of Buyers Blocked by Background Check:

A bipartisan group of senators today unveiled legislation requiring federal authorities to notify state law enforcement officials when a person barred from purchasing a gun attempts to do so.

Shouldn’t they maybe inform the ATF?

9 Responses to “Enforcing the laws on the books”

  1. wizardpc Says:

    I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, several million denials and only a few dozen convictions means poor enforcement.

    On the other hand, any gun show dealer in TN will tell you that most denials are false positives due to governments not reporting the final outcome of an arrest (conviction, dismissal, etc)

  2. Lyle Says:

    So we’ve abandoned “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”. So anything goes then, at this point, being that the basic principle, the standard, is no longer considered. Now it’s only a matter of how far and how fast we fall into totalitarianism.

    If no one is innocent (can’t be trusted with sharp objects), then it would follow that no one is really guilty (because race or other victim status), and so we’re all somewhere in between. And so the whole world is to become some kind of asylum.

    Protecting our rights is gone, now replaced with keeping us “safe”. We keep using that word (“safe”), but we don’t know what it means.
    If basic rights aren’t protected, no one is safe.

  3. Mike Voncannon Says:

    They should be referred for further investigation and prosecuted if they are a prohibited person but it should be ATF doing it. Why not a law making prosecution of prohibited persons who try to buy a gun mandatory?

  4. mikee Says:

    Well, there are a lot of big cities where actual criminals using firearms in the commission of their crimes are allowed to bargain away their multi-year mandatory sentences on the gun, in order to get a plea deal on the crime and a lesser sentence. If DAs can’t be troubled to lock up actual criminals using guns, what makes you think they will ever prosecute a mere potential criminal for trying to buy one legally?

  5. Publicola Says:

    Guilty until proven innocent is the premise of the background check idea, as well as permits & licenses.

    The FBI runs NICS, not ATFEIEIOyVey.

    Many folks don’t know they’re prohibited. A felon, for example, is anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than 1 year federal or 2 years state. That 1 day suspended sentence for sneaking into a movie in Cincinnati or someone’s deposit didn’t beat their rent check to the bank in Birmingham gets a person on the prohibited persons list.

    According to Lott betwixt 94% & 95% of NICS denials are false positives. Of every 100 denials 94 to 99 people could legally possess weapons but were wrongfully denied.

    The appeals process for a denial is lengthy. A quick glance lead me to one fellow who was told they were processing appeals from 13 months prior.

    In Colorado an arrest, not a conviction but an arrest, is grounds for denial if no positive outcome (acquittal) is in the records.

    Until the false positive rate on denials is 93.5% closer to 0%, and until they get an appeal down to 10 business days, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about enforcing any laws on any books. In fact any time anyone in .gov or the MSM says “background check” a chorus of NRA reps should interject “which has a 94%+ false positive rate on denials & a year or more appeals process”. FixNics? pfft NixNics. From Orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

  6. Publicola Says:

    That should’ve read “According to Lott betwixt 94% & 99% of NICS denials are false positives.” Damn typoitus…

  7. JK Brown Says:

    In the two states I’ve done gun purchases, TN and VA, the seller called the state law enforcement to get the approval. So why are the feds needing to tell them someone was denied?

  8. Ron W Says:

    What Lyle said, “If basic rights aren’t protected, no one is safe.”

    I think Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin both said that in slightly different quotes, “those who give up Liberty for security, will lose both and deserve neither.”

  9. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    I see an enormous amount of false positives. Not sure if it is Lott’s 94-99, but 9 out of 10 would not surprise me.

    So many of the denials are crazy stupid. Take one example, Bill. Bill served in Vietnam late war. He was artillery. Bob was one of those guys who had hands like Michael Jordan and his forearms were like your thighs.

    Bill came back from Vietnam and after being mustered out found himself in a bar in a mid-sized Indiana city. The son of the Sheriff was also in the bar and running his mouth. Bill hit him, once (all it took).

    Bill spent the night in jail and was fined $25 by the Justice of the Peace (Indiana still had them in 1972). Bill forgot about it until 2009 when he went to buy one of those commemorative Vietnam 1911 pistols. Wanted to put it in a shadow box and tell the grandkids, that sort of thing, not looking to rob a liquor store or the like.

    NICS is run, Bill is a prohibited person because he has a . . . wait for it . . . a DOMESTIC battery in 1972. FBI did not know what kind of battery Bill had, so, by default, turned it into a domestic even though it was not. Bill had to hire a lawyer and spend several months straightening that out.

    The feds won’t admit that the background check is nonsense and does nothing but cause heartburn.