Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Chee-to, Jun 27, 2014.
The background system is not user friendly. I was going to do a private party to private party deal and wanted to run a check on the pistol in question. The seller gave me the serial number and I called it in, the conversation went like this: "I'm a non-FFL looking to do a private buy on a pistol and would like to run the serial number please", "what is the address of the pistol?", "I don't know the seller gave me the serial number so I could have it checked before we do the transaction", "well how would we know where to go to pick up the pistol?", "What do you mean?", "if its stolen the police wouldn't know where it is", "We haven't set up a meeting yet, I just wanted to make sure the serial number checks out", "We can't do that without the address of the pistol", "Fine, goodbye".
RE: "...enforcement action involving persons attempting an unlawful firearms transfer through a licensed firearm dealer..."
WtF is that? According to the top of every 4473 I've seen in quite awhile, that is something that is already illegal.
Will this make it an double secret illegal act (which would mean only getting probation)?
Gunny, I believe the issue is that it has always been illegal but nothing has ever been done when a purchase has been rejected. I believe there were some figures thrown out when fed gov was looking to require private sales to undergo a background check that there are over 70k denials annually in the US but a number under 20 was actually prosecuted (these numbers are approximately what I remember).
I read this as law enforcement will actually start investigating any time a purchase is rejected to see if the customer lied on the 4473 and frankly I think that it is a good thing. On one hand I don't want criminals buying guns, so if we can catch them before they get their hands on one then great. On the other hand we get to show all the uninterested parties that most of the rejections are false hits and that the purchases were eventually approved.
I like OFF but I'm not to keen on their press release on this one. Someone filled out a 4473 saying they weren't prohibited from owning a firearm and the OSP found something that made them put a hold on the purchase. Then they sent out troopers to meet the firearm owners and investigated whether the person knowingly lied on the 4473.
I'm well aware of the numbers. That promise was already made to us. Since they already aren't doing anything substantive or consequential in prosecuting the prohibited people they identify now, why would I think they will in the future?
" ...The Facts
The Brady law — named after Ronald Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who was gravely wounded in an assassination attempt on the president — requires federally licensed firearms sellers to check whether a purchaser is prohibited from owning a gun because of a criminal history. Generally, this is done through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) through either the FBI or state agencies.
All told, in 2010, the FBI and state agencies denied a firearm to nearly 153,000 people via the NICS system. To keep things simple, we will focus on the FBI, using a report on the 2010 data by Ronald J. Frandsen of the Regional Justice Information Service.
About 99 percent of people who apply to buy a firearm are quickly cleared. But about 1 to 2 percent are denied, mainly because the records show that he or she has a felony indictment or conviction. The data also show that about 5 percent successfully appeal their denials.
FBI denials: 72,659 (1.2 percent)
Appeals 16,513 (22.7 percent)
Successful appeals 3,491 (4.77 percent of denials)
The main reason listed for a denial is a felony conviction or indictment. Here are some of the key reasons:
Felony: 34,459 (47.4 percent)
Fugitive: 13,862 (19.1 percent)
State law prohibition: 7,666 (10.6 percent)
Drug use/addiction: 6,971 (9.6 percent)
But here is where it gets complicated. After a review by an arm of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), only a tiny percentage of the cases are actually referred to ATF field divisions for possible referral to prosecutors. Here are the data for 2010 concerning FBI denials.
FBI denials referred to ATF: 76,142
Referred to field: 4,732 (6.2 percent)
Not referred to field: 68,209 (89.6 percent)
Overturned: 3,163 (4.2 percent)
At first glance, these numbers seemed astonishing. In other words, another 4 percent of initial denials were found to be wrong — and nine out of 10 were not deemed worthy of further investigation.
Then, virtually all of these cases were declined by ATF field offices. Here are some of the key reasons, with essentially one-quarter being a case of mistaken denial — even after weeks of investigation.
No prosecutorial merit: 1,661
Federal/state guidelines not met: 1,092
Not a prohibited person: 480
Closed by supervisor: 457
No potential or unfounded: 396
In the end, 62 cases were referred for prosecution, but most were declined by prosecutors or dismissed by the court. Out of the original 73,000 denials, there emerge just 13 guilty pleas...."
...of course, there is one other possibility: The system is generating a 99.99982393% error rate.
Giving DoJ the benefit of the doubt, if the current system is currently capable of producing that many false positives, isn't it just as capable of producing that many false negatives?
Forcing more even background checks into that system will make that error rate grow exponentially.
This is only the BEGINNING of moves to attempt to intimidate lawful gun owners . . .
wait for step 2 . . . Then step 3 . . . Then stepx!
Don't bury your head in the sand!!!
Well, at least now we know that if we get denied due to whatever system glitch happens to pops up, we will have to have a friendly chat with a local LEO.
GunnyG, you saved me a lot of typing.
One would think that they maintain a record of the serial numbers of guns that were reported stolen. Especially since the system is supposed to be just for that circumstance. The questioning indicates that, with or without a stolen firearms report, the police have a record of the address of the last owner of every firearm in the state. That's not supposed to be the purpose of the system.
Either there is something very wrong with the system, or we have another cop/clerk that has decided to interpret and enforce the law according to their own feelings and interpretations.
The first example in the OFF report says that the person was still denied. They said nothing about a redress number or other follow up. There is something here that needs to be investigated further. Unfortunately, we'll most likely only be given anecdotal evidence with which to piece all of this together.
Gunny thanks for finding the numbers but I didn't write anything that disagrees with what you said. If it came off like I support private sales going thru background faults then I wasn't being clear enough.
Sheldon I think we are looking at this from different points of view. I don't enough support the background check system we are right now. That being said this seems to me that OPS is trying to determine if a crime has been committed. Yes th he system is inaccurate and will put us in contact with police more often. I am glad they are doing it now because Ginny will push her bill next year and we can say OSP has conducted x amount of investigated and this percentage was a false positive.
INDEED! You DO need to be pointing to that. If they can't show a conviction for it, then it didn't happen! By not enforcing the laws and not using the tools they already asked for and received, they have been enabling the gun crimes they are complaining about now.
Because, if they are satisfied with that "we stopped them, that's enough..." answer from our judiciary, nothing stopped 99.9% of those same prohibited people from going on and committing crimes with the firearms that they acquired in all of the same places that they buy/trade/whatever (now untaxed in WA) MJ, and all of the other various other illicit and stolen goods that they have.
We in Oregon sort of deserve what we are getting out of this Governor. After all we, as a state, elected him to be our governor, even after he said that this state in ungovernable. I am not a supporter of his and will not support his re-election but we need to convince a lot more people not to do so. God help us if he gets re-elected.
We have suffered 11 years of FAIL from Kitzy and he wants to shoot for 16. And Oregonians are seemingly happy to do it. They don't bother to remember, read, or think about history. He left this state a mess then his protege' took office and screwed us for another 8 years. Not remembering history from 16 to 8 years prior - the nitwits elected him again. I hate to sound defeatist, but "we" will likely do it again. The Multnomahlanemarion block will ensure that. People who almost have to remember to breath can't tax their precious brain cells to remember the past or be bothered to see what is unfolding in front of them. Throw in the super lib wackadoos who LOVE seeing what is unfolding and there you go - 4th term for Doctor Do-Nothing, more contracts for his cronies and his bed partner (the media really needs to stop referring to that twit as the First Lady of Oregon - they're shacking, not married)
If we had a Lieutenant Governor, I'm sure we'd elect someone like Tom Potter, Vera Katz, or Sam Adams to that post, or hell - maybe Ginny Burdick would take that title.
When is the last time we had a governor with the best interests of the state (as in the people, not the government), interested in REALLY drawing businesses in, and who gave a damn about the rights of all the citizenry? I can't think of one in my 33 years.
I don't support UBC, but I do think they need to investigate failed background checks. The fact that they do so little today makes a mockery of the whole system.
mkwerx - you forgot all the otherwise conservative, right, repub voters, or the conservative 'leaning', or right 'leaning', or repub 'leaning' voters who won't vote simply because 'their' candidate(s) didn't win the primary.
I consider myself a conservative with latent libertarian tendencies.
While I'd like to be ideological pure in my voting habits, pragmatically I find myself strategically voting against the candidate who least represents my views.
Yup - definitely sounds like a prep for pushing UBC to me.
A waste of time from the enforcement perspective IMO (they could always follow up later if they determine that the denial was due to the prospective buyer being an actual felon), but the governors office could care less if it gets them the political hay needed to pass a bill they want.
Which segues to the real question - *why* do they want UBC so badly that they are willing to waste time and money on what is obviously a fishing expedition??
UBCs go hand in hand with official registration. OSP already stores transfer info from the NICS checks they run. There is zero reason for OSP to collect any data on the transfer other than the person's name, SSN, and DOB and that they are trying to purchase a firearm. Recording the firearms type/make/model and SN = registration, at a backdoor level at this point. The FFL's already check the guns to see if they're stolen when they get them in - there is NO reasonable need to give the firearm types or quantities to OSP for a simple background check.
UBCs are one incremential measure of control. If they change the law and ban private transfers and mandate all transfers go through an FFL - the system will get bogged down, and if we look at the current stats, that means that all the law abiding gun owners who actually go through an FFL will likely have a percentage come back with false "positives" as being unlawful to receive said firearm. And so more troopers will wind up not chasing tail lights or working traffic crashes, but chasing down law abiding gun owners who have been delayed or denied for some reason. Yay for wasting resources!
I'd like to see more push back from our side - a push for Constitutional Carry, and a solid state pre-emption law that voids all of the little fifedoms like Portland, Salem, Eugene et al that have enacted their open-carry bans completely.
Maybe a push to more strictly limit the authority, role, and compensation for the governor as well. We don't need a full time governor anymore than we need a full time legislature. The office is a drain on the state's economy and we can't seem to fill it with anyone who can improve the situation. The governor should be called to service only when the legislature is in session, or in case of a state of emergency or disaster. That's a pipe dream though.
Separate names with a comma.