NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

Punish Background-Check Liars
WASHINGTON — Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

The staggeringly low number of prosecutions for people who “lie and try,” as it is called by law enforcement officials, is being studied by the Obama administration as it considers measures to curb gun violence after the Connecticut elementary school shootings in December.

A task force headed by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is expected to offer proposals to President Obama as early as Tuesday. It is looking at a wide range of issues linked to gun crimes, including violence in video games and movies, and gaps in mental health treatment and background checks.

The most contentious initiatives, like reviving a ban on assault weapons, would require Congressional approval and have drawn fierce opposition from gun rights groups and Republican lawmakers, making passage a long shot.

“I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress,” David Keene, the president of the National Rifle Association, said Sunday on the CNN program “State of the Union.”

In the face of those difficulties, the White House has said it is looking for actions it can take without Congressional approval. Increasing the number of prosecutions for lying on background-check forms is an effort that the administration can undertake largely on its own, in part by pressing federal prosecutors to pursue such cases. It is also one measure that both sides of the gun-control debate have agreed upon.

It is a felony to deliberately provide false information in an effort to buy a gun, and studies financed by the Justice Department show that people who do so are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase.

At a meeting Mr. Biden held with gun control advocates on Wednesday, the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns recommended to the administration that it should instruct the Justice Department to investigate those who are denied guns and who have a history that suggests they might commit violence.

In a memorandum provided to the administration, the group suggested that “armed career criminals who have at least three prior violent felonies and/or serious drug offenses and would qualify for a mandatory sentence of 7 to 15 years” should be prosecuted if they lie on background-check forms. The group said that it provided a similar recommendation to the Obama administration in 2009.

The memorandum said that more than 800 mayors in the United States “support more aggressive prosecution of those who fail background checks.”

“This is not like looking for a needle in a haystack — these are people you know are too violent to buy a gun,” John Feinblatt, an official with the mayors’ group who met with Mr. Biden on Wednesday, said in a telephone interview. “Once they have been rejected, they go online or to a private seller or a gun show and get a gun.”

The low number of prosecutions in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, is consistent with other years. Prosecuting these cases has proved challenging because to get a conviction “you have to prove that the person knew they were lying when they tried to purchase the firearm,” said a senior Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters related to gun control before Mr. Biden’s proposals are announced.

A conviction usually carries a maximum sentence of just six months, the official said, adding that with a limited number of federal prosecutors the government has to prioritize its use of resources.

Although gun control advocates have been more vocal about the issue, the N.R.A. also supports similar action, arguing that the administration should enforce the gun laws that already exist before making new ones.

“It has been a longstanding frustration of the National Rifle Association that there’s no follow-through or follow-up on these cases and criminals, and those who shouldn’t be trying to buy guns have been getting away scot-free,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an N.R.A. spokesman.

Mr. Arulanandam said that the N.R.A. has “for decades been trying to get prior administrations — Republicans and Democrats — to take action on the matter but there seems to be no will by the Justice Department to enforce existing gun laws.”

Current and former law enforcement officials have said in interviews that few of these cases are brought because they get far less attention than cases involving white-collar fraud or terrorism.

Law enforcement experts note that more prosecutions for background-check failures probably would not have prevented the Connecticut school massacre, because the gunman in that case used firearms purchased legally by his mother.

Of those denied a gun because of a failed background check in 2010, 47 percent had been previously convicted of a felony or faced a felony charge, and 19 percent were fugitives, according to a recent study financed by the Justice Department.

Another study backed by the Justice Department found that people who are denied the right to buy a firearm are much more likely than the average person to commit a violent crime even after being denied. The study, released in 2008, revealed that people who are denied a gun are 28 percent more likely to be arrested in the five years after they failed their background check compared with the previous five years.

While the federal government has oversight over purchases from registered firearm dealers, it does not require background checks for the millions of firearms sold each year at gun shows and by individuals — loopholes that gun control advocates hope the administration will work to close.

In 2012, a Pittsburgh man who had been denied a weapon because he had been committed to a psychiatric hospital shot seven people, killing one, with handguns he had purchased from a private seller.

Two years earlier, a man who had been denied a gun opened fire on two police officers at a checkpoint outside the Pentagon with a weapon that had been purchased at a gun show. The officers, who were wounded, returned fire, killing the man.

Under federal law, anyone who tries to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer must fill out a form about his criminal history. If a person checks yes to any of the questions — including whether he has been convicted of a felony or is the subject of a restraining order — the gun dealer cannot legally sell the person a weapon.

But if the person checks no to all the questions, the dealer is required to call a screener who has the name checked against federal databases run by the F.B.I. Typically, the F.B.I. can determine someone’s status within minutes, and the dealer can inform the buyer whether he can purchase the firearm.

When people are denied, they are free to leave the store. The local police, however, are not informed that a prohibited buyer has tried to purchase a weapon. The F.B.I. has a process that allows people “who have been wrongfully denied a firearm transfer” to appeal through its Web site. According to the Web site, those who are denied are encouraged to provide copies of their fingerprints.

With such a low number of prosecutions, Mr. Arulanandam of the N.R.A. said there is no deterrent for criminals who take their chances by trying to buy a weapon from a gun dealer.

“If the Justice Department started prosecuting these people, it will send a message that if you are disqualified we are sending you to jail,” he said. “It’s a pretty good message to send to criminals.”
Click to expand...
 
comments -

Many people wonder why an asault weapons ban has so much opposition. It's simple. There are over 3,000,000 assault rifles in public hands, yet rifles as a whole are used in less than 2% of U.S. homicides each year.

That's less than 200 killings a year with rifles, of any type.

So, assuming that ALL of the rifle killings are carried out with assault rifles would mean that less than 200/3,000,000 or .006% of assault rifles are used in a crime in any one year.

What does that mean? It means that the normal owner of an assault rifles is an honest, law-abiding citizen. Banning something they own, which they have never used illegally, for the acts of crazed lunatics is absolutely unfair, unconstitutional, and unreasonable.

It seems like the assault weapons are already under good control, since there are so few of them used in crimes.

Arresting "career criminals" seems like a much more reasonable way to avoid gun deaths. Especially since we know who they are, we know when they commit their newest felony of lying on a firearms background check.
Click to expand...

Everyone, except the deranged, shudders and weeps after senseless gun violence. Newtown in particular.

What follows is a cacophony of irrelevant voices that obfuscate the issue, manipulated strongly by people with skin in the game (gun and ammo manufacturers and purveyors).

The call to "ban all guns" is about as hysteric, crazy, and unimplementable as is the call to "arm everyone - including kindergarten teachers."

As are the calls to: "solve every problem in the society including violent videogames and movies." I have been reading closely much of what was printed in the NYT on the subject, and it is clear: there is major heat, very little light.

What I am learning is this. People will do what they can. People will get guns if they can, use them if they can, kill if they can. If we try to produce a society where people cannot (any or all of the above), we will have a different society (background checks, video cameras, frisking in all public places, draconian laws that hurt mostly the law abiding citizen).

We have a consequence-free society right now (unless you are the wrong race, in which case, every infraction has a 40 year sentence). We could go to a totally consequential society. Isn't that one of the reasons some people got on some creaky wooden boats and left Europe in the first place?
Click to expand...

"the official said, adding that with a limited number of federal prosecutors the government has to prioritize its use of resources."

hmmm

Yet it sounds like they have plenty of resources to go after California medical marijuana providers. Sounds like the Obama Justice admin needs to be more focused on protecting citizens rather than legacy reputations.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
that's why NRA pushed for stricter background check system and harsher penalty for illegal selling (just like in the video) and we currently have it in place but guess what? the federal government ignored it especially Obama Administration.

underfunded and unenforced. and you're whining and crying for more laws? :roll:

btw - it's illegal to falsify information so if that guy wasn't what he claimed to be in the video.... he just basically broke a federal law right there.
Click to expand...
You are fucked up again and again. The customer didn't break the law. The dealers did. No paperworks, no taxes, no ID and all they wanted was cash from the customers no matter what. The evidences are right there in the video. Know what? That video will be displayed in Congress when they discuss gun control. I bet that ATF will be there during gun shows after they pass a bill.
 
CrazyPaul said:
You are fucked up again and again.
Click to expand...
didn't you read the Post #467 especially red bold print?

CrazyPaul said:
The customer didn't break the law. The dealers did. No paperworks, no taxes, no ID and all they wanted was cash from the customers no matter what. The evidences are right there in the video. Know what? That video will be displayed in Congress when they discuss gun control.
Click to expand...
uh... in case you didn't know..... it's not illegal nor required since it's at gun show. that's why it's a loophole.

CrazyPaul said:
I bet that ATF will be there during gun shows after they pass a bill.
Click to expand...
*shrug*

have been hearing that for a long time. nothing happened.

*shrug*
 
Obama's in press conference now to speak about gun control proposal as well as other issues.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Obviously you don't give a fuck!
Click to expand...

incorrect. you missed the 2nd sentence - "have been hearing that for a long time. nothing happened."

in case you don't understand, my *shrug* was referring to me not being concerned about what you just said.

in case you don't understand again... what I'm saying is - NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN :lol:
 
Jiro said:
incorrect. you missed the 2nd sentence - "have been hearing that for a long time. nothing happened."

in case you don't understand, my *shrug* was referring to me not being concerned about what you just said.

in case you don't understand again... what I'm saying is - NOTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN :lol:
Click to expand...
OK, no plm, however what do you think about how gun shows work? No paperworks, no taxes, no ID as you saw in the video. That means ex-cons can buy them there easily without background checks.
 
Obama was asked - "will you use executive action on guns?"

He gave a very vague answer and I know very well why :lol:

he looked very uncomfortable and it looks pretty obvious that the gun issue is the lowest priority on his table. he's got something much more important thing to do like quibbling around with GOP on debt ceiling.

so I say it again - *SHRUG* :lol:
 
CrazyPaul said:
OK, no plm, however what do you think about how gun shows work? No paperworks, no taxes, no ID as you saw in the video. That means ex-cons can buy them there easily without background checks.
Click to expand...

I don't feel like repeating myself several times.

Post #356 and Post #467 have all the answers to your questions.
 
Jiro said:
I don't feel like repeating myself several times.

Post #356 and Post #467 have all the answers to your questions.
Click to expand...
No, I can't find answers in those posts because it doesn't mention gun shows where unlicensed dealers sell guns. You think I am fucking stupid?
 
CrazyPaul said:
Very interesting! I am beginning to understand why Stein got frustrated when you always avoided answering his questions directly and honestly. I guess that's who you are.
Click to expand...

where exactly have I lied to you?

I believe I've already answered most of your questions and unfortunately, it's not an answer to you unless it's the answer you want. that's pretty dang dishonest.

I can't possibly see how none of the links I've given you do not answer your questions. Why don't you google for an answer that you want instead and then show it to me?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/politics/obama-to-press-house-gop-on-debt-limit.html?hp
Mr. Obama disclosed that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had already presented him with proposals to combat gun violence and promised to unveil them publicly later this week. He said his package would include a ban on assault weapons and on high-capacity magazines, as well as expanded background checks. But he declined to say how hard he would push for an assault weapons ban, and acknowledged that it and other gun measures might not pass.

“We’re going to have to come up with answers that set politics aside, and that’s what I expect Congress to do,” he said, reiterating his support for gun measures. “Will all of them get through this Congress? I don’t know. But what’s uppermost in my mind is making sure I’m honest with the American people and Congress about what I think will work.”

Mr. Biden said last week that he would present his recommendations to Mr. Obama on Tuesday, so the president’s comments suggested that the timetable had been moved up. He said that the vice president’s working group had “presented me now with a list of sensible common-sense steps,” and that he would meet with Mr. Biden later on Monday. He added that he expected to make a “fuller presentation” later in the week.
Click to expand...

there you go. the only sensible common-sense step to do is to start funding the current gun laws and actually enforce it.
 
Jiro said:
where exactly have I lied to you?

I believe I've already answered most of your questions and unfortunately, it's not an answer to you unless it's the answer you want. that's pretty dang dishonest.

I can't possibly see how none of the links I've given you do not answer your questions. Why don't you google for an answer that you want instead and then show it to me?
Click to expand...
"however what do you think about how gun shows work?" I haven't gotten your answer, either. Don't worry about what I want to hear. I just want to know, that's all! I won't bite you. :D
 
CrazyPaul said:
"however what do you think about how gun shows work?" I haven't gotten your answer, either. Don't worry about what I want to hear. I just want to know, that's all! I won't bite you. :D
Click to expand...

*shrug*

that's my answer since it's not a concerning issue. if you can provide me facts/statistics that a large number of guns used in crimes came from gun shows... then I'd be deeply concerned.

I'm all for requiring sellers to perform a background check if the government has a viable solution to make it happen. but as far as I'm concerned.... it's not the gun sellers I'm concerned about... it's the government neglecting its duty to enforce the laws. Because of that plus restricting law-abiding citizen's ability to protect themselves... criminals are thinking they can get away with it and not get caught.

so show me why should I be concerned about gun shows.
 
Jiro said:
...so show me why should I be concerned about gun shows.
Click to expand...
I guess it boils down to how many gun crimes were committed using guns that were purchased without background checks at gun shows. Does anyone know that number? :dunno:
 
Back
Top