Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GAO: Only 12 of 13,000 Denied Gun Purchasers Were Prosecuted in FY '17
cnsnews.com ^ | 9/11/2018 | Susan Jones

Posted on 09/11/2018 9:40:31 AM PDT by rktman

Individuals who are prohibited from purchasing firearms for any reason (mental health, criminal convictions, etc.) are rarely investigated or prosecuted when they do try to buy a weapon, a federal study has determined.

According to a report published by the the Government Accountability Office on Sept. 5:

In fiscal year 2017, "approximately 25.6 million firearm-related background checks were processed through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and about 181,000 (about 1 percent) of the attempted purchases were denied because the background check revealed that the individual was prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: illegalsales; strawpurchases
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
So, 12 out of 13,000(?) out of 181,000 out of 25.6 million. Pretty obvious where the bad guys are getting their weapons huh? Why the low number of prosecutions? Not enough prosecuters? False positive/negatives? Obviously more laws are needed right?
1 posted on 09/11/2018 9:40:31 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

As a lag after obama there are still many people denied firearms for bogus reason.

BTW being denied isn’t a crime unless you obtain a firearm illegally.


2 posted on 09/11/2018 9:54:07 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Well unless you lied on the 4473 as well. But, impeach Trump is the main focus of the day so there is that...... ;-)


3 posted on 09/11/2018 9:58:54 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Denying gun purchasers their second amendment recognized right to KABA is a clear infringement. My copy of the Constitution does not preclude freed felons or crazies from owning and carrying arms.

Anyone who can’t be trusted to be armed should not be running around loose.


4 posted on 09/11/2018 10:10:39 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
BTW being denied isn’t a crime unless you obtain a firearm illegally.

Being denied is a crime, by the government against the citizen, depriving him of his rights recognized in the second amendment .

5 posted on 09/11/2018 10:13:47 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
"Denying gun purchasers their second amendment recognized right to KABA is a clear infringement. My copy of the Constitution does not preclude freed felons or crazies from owning and carrying arms. Anyone who can’t be trusted to be armed should not be running around loose."

Agree totally! I have never supported this NRA tactic of enforcing current gun laws. Every federal gun law is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment could not be clearer in it's intent or it's verbiage.

6 posted on 09/11/2018 10:13:51 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

And obtaining a firearm illegally should only mean stealing it.


7 posted on 09/11/2018 10:14:34 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rktman

so, it’s not possible that the purchaser doesn’t know he can’t buy a weapon ?
and why is mental health a reason for investigation\prosecution ?


8 posted on 09/11/2018 10:16:23 AM PDT by stylin19a ((Best.Election.Of.All-Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Did you get your permit yet? LOL!


9 posted on 09/11/2018 10:20:19 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Why the low number of prosecutions?

Many are not even aware they are ineligible to own a gun. So why would we expect large numbers to be investigated? They applied to purchase a gun and were denied. I would suspect that the ones who are investigated are ones who have tried multiple times over a short period of time.

10 posted on 09/11/2018 10:25:39 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

DING! DING! DING!
We have a WINNER!!


11 posted on 09/11/2018 10:32:43 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (Diversity is tolerance; diverse points of views will not be tolerated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rktman
The prosecution is usually based on a supposedly false statement by the applicant about his lack of disqualifying facts. Proof for a criminal conviction is difficult because the applicant may have innocently misunderstood the form or the facts.

Cases involving a domestic restraining order are especially problematic because claims of violence are often falsely made so as to get a restraining order. Not having been violent or threatened violence and with the preliminary order dissolved by the court at hearing, the poor sap innocently swears on the background check form that he is not the subject of a domestic violence restraining order.

Federal prosecutors correctly regard such cases as virtually impossible to win despite the severe terms of the background check law. The defense is usually able to demonstrate a lack of criminal intent by the applicant.

12 posted on 09/11/2018 10:42:59 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Permit? We don’ need no steenkin’ permit!


13 posted on 09/11/2018 10:57:58 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Many of these people are probably not even aware that they will fail the test.


14 posted on 09/11/2018 10:58:41 AM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

#7. A person can illegally obtain a legal firearm if they use a “straw purchaser” for it, but the act itself is illegal and the purchaser is now a criminal for knowingly doing it.

As for the next commentor’s remarks about why should mental health be an issue, it is obvious. Some people are just plain weird to the point of being known as potentially dangerous.

While you have guys like Arthur Bremer and John Hinkley, lone psychos but without much prior notoriety as being a ‘dangerous wacko’, there are other people you know are going to explode into some act of violence. Their past behavior tells you this (and I’ve had to deal with one, which resulted in a combined FBI/local police operation that finally put his ass in jail).

The “old lady” on the block is not your threat. It is the guy who often openly is carrying a grudge way beyond its normal lifetime, or it could be the “weird loner” who suddenly goes off the deep end and either ends up as a mass murderer or a serial killer.

There is a fine line that law enforcement has to walk in trying to determine who is a “potential” or “real” threat, but if they don’t try, more people are going to be killed.
That is why “psychological profiling” is an useful tool as well as “behavioral profiling” (i.e., watching a person’s behavior on the streets and over time).

To do nothing is to invite more needless deaths and injuries. That is not acceptable.

There are a lot of crazy people out there just waiting to explode. A scientifically and lawfully based system of “awareness” factors is needed to try and address this very real threat.


15 posted on 09/11/2018 11:01:02 AM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
The defense is usually able to demonstrate a lack of criminal intent by the applicant.

Oooh, yeah; the Hillary/private server defense!

16 posted on 09/11/2018 11:01:17 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

LOL! There are a LOT of folks I would prefer not have weapons, yet, there they are.


17 posted on 09/11/2018 11:03:37 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
Some people are just plain weird to the point of being known as potentially dangerous.

There are a lot of crazy people out there just waiting to explode.

And they should not be running around loose.

But a lefty psychologist or psychiatrist will abuse any law restraining crazies by declaring all permit applicants crazy for wanting (shudder) a GUN!

18 posted on 09/11/2018 11:09:45 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Not always. Sometimes, a defendant is genuinely not guilty.


19 posted on 09/11/2018 11:27:43 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Lie?

Or was under the impression that something was (and should be) OK but the lying government changed the criteria or ‘miss-read’ it.

I frequent gun stores. I know and work with owners, gunsmiths and salespeople. I see people who have had no problems buying Guns one year and then after the Kenyan got into Office all of a sudden the gummint reads the qualifications differently.

Don’t be so happy to let creeps in government take over your life.

All that being said…nothing in the constitution says a person who has paid his debt to society doesn’t have the same rights as you or me.


20 posted on 09/11/2018 12:04:48 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson