National Sessions pushes prosecutions for those who lie on gun background checks

[DB is Here]

sip of whiskey after dinner

Yes please.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't Pocahontas lie on every form imaginable about everything regarding her very existence in order to make a buck and destroy the country? and she's of course running for a yet higher office, yays

 

[etrain16]

As much as I wish we didn't have to have BGC's, I'm in full agreement that if we're going to have them, they need to be properly enforced. It's pretty simple - you know whether or not you're lying on that form - none of those questions take a degree to understand. Are you a convicted felon? Yes or no? If you can't answer that question 'no' without any hesitation or reservation, then you're fine. Not sure if the drug issue applies to you, then talk to someone who knows before you commit a felony. No one is forcing you to go fill out a 4473 - that's a personal choice. I can't say I have much sympathy for those who chose to do so.

The benefit for us is fewer of the folks that shouldn't have guns, getting them then doing something stupid which we all end up getting blamed for. I'm all for keeping guns out of those folks' hands.

Either way, until existing laws are fully and consistently enforced, no discussion of adding new laws should even be allowed. Personally, I think it should be a requirement that government has to show 99% compliance with enforcement of all existing laws before any new laws can be passed - and add to that they must provide a plan that shows the funding and the staffing to enforce the new laws as well. Can't do it? The law goes away.

 

[thorborg]

I was taught a liar and a thief is awfully low down. Nonetheless, I would not lie just to avoid the hassles now that doing the honorable thing is no longer vogue..
Frankly, it is impossible for me to respect anyone or system that allows politicians to literally get away with murder but will hang a baker out to dry!
There is a word to describe governments which employ fear over promoting decency, pride and respect, but since half the population doesn't seem to care, I'll just let out a heavy sigh.

 

[DB is Here]

Personally, I think it should be a requirement that government has to show 99% compliance with enforcement of all existing laws before any new laws can be passed - and add to that they must provide a plan that shows the funding and the staffing to enforce the new laws as well. Can't do it? The law goes away.

^^^^
THIS!!!

 

[DB is Here]

I was taught a liar and a thief is awfully low down. Nonetheless, I would not lie just to avoid the hassles now that doing the honorable thing is no longer vogue..
Frankly, it is impossible for me to respect anyone or system that allows politicians to literally get away with murder but will hang a baker out to dry!
There is a word to describe governments which employ fear over promoting decency, pride and respect, but since half the population doesn't seem to care, I'll just let out a heavy sigh.

Your point is well taken:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-John Adams

 

[Argonaut]

Didn't Pocahontas lie on every form imaginable about everything regarding her very existence in order to make a buck and destroy the country? and she's of course running for a yet higher office, yays

She should be prosecuted and fired from her professor job too but academia is so infested with liberals it will never happen. It illustrates the fallacy of affirmative action rules in general that deter society from promoting the best and brightest. It also encourages the notion that exclent minorities were successful because of there race, sex, or whatever protected class they are a part of instead of there own merit.

 

[kott0n]

I like the drug question.

"I quit using X yesterday. I decided it was time to move on." So today, while filling out the form, you would answer "No.". Right?

 

[CountryGent]

I like the drug question.

"I quit using X yesterday. I decided it was time to move on." So today, while filling out the form, you would answer "No.". Right?

TD ATF-391 may be of interest to your research. A relevant excerpt is reproduced below:

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or multiple arrests for such offenses within the past five years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year.

The DOJ Office of Policy Development inquired whether the proposed definition includes persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year. In response, ATF agrees that this information would give rise to an inference of unlawful drug use. Accordingly, the final regulations are being amended to identify these persons in the definition as an example of unlawful drug user.

 

[kott0n]

Exactly.

So someone who quit yesterday and had every intention and good will effort to maintain this sobriety, they would answer no.

As if you in good conciois you quit, how could you possibly answer yes. Furthermore unless you used after the fact, and it was recorded somehow, how would rhey prove you didn't quit yesterday with good intentions?

 

[DB is Here]

Exactly.

So someone who quit yesterday and had every intention and good will effort to maintain this sobriety, they would answer no.

As if you in good conciois you quit, how could you possibly answer yes. Furthermore unless you used after the fact, and it was recorded somehow, how would rhey prove you didn't quit yesterday with good intentions?

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I don't see this as some kind of Gotcha, but that we don't want some controlled substance riddled person (which is illegal) having weapons at their disposal.

 

[kott0n]

Just pointing out how the question is ambiguous and could be argued via intent.

Are you a felon? Very clear cut.

 

[DB is Here]

Just pointing out how the question is ambiguous and could be argued via intent.

Are you a felon? Very clear cut.

With their lack of prosecuting current "Bad Hits" on form 4473, I suspect they'd only go after the "low hanging fruit"...Felons who lied.

 

[ThePhonMan]

A few years ago there was a DOJ Inspector General audit of the prosecution of people lying on 4473's. From 2008-2015 there were ~550,000 denials and the DOJ (under the previous administration) only considered prosecuting ~260 people. I believe only 24 went to trial and only 7 were convicted (but I can't find the actual number of convictions).

So, why not look at how many actually lied and prosecute them?

The previous administration touted how great the NICS system worked by throwing the denial stat around as justification for further infringement but never mentioned they declined to prosecute almost everybody. You can't have it both ways. If you eliminate all false positives you'd probably still have a hundred thousand eligible for prosecution. Go get them and leave us law-abiding folks alone.

 

[edslhead]

Meanwhile, NO one in south La or Chicago is filling out a BGG to give their buddy a gun.

 

[DB is Here]

A few years ago there was a DOJ Inspector General audit of the prosecution of people lying on 4473's. From 2008-2015 there were ~550,000 denials and the DOJ (under the previous administration) only considered prosecuting ~260 people. I believe only 24 went to trial and only 7 were convicted (but I can't find the actual number of convictions).

So, why not look at how many actually lied and prosecute them?

The previous administration touted how great the NICS system worked by throwing the denial stat around as justification for further infringement but never mentioned they declined to prosecute almost everybody. You can't have it both ways. If you eliminate all false positives you'd probably still have a hundred thousand eligible for prosecution. Go get them and leave us law-abiding folks alone.

 

[kott0n]

Wait a second... a criminal, someone with a record of proven crime, isn't following the law by filling out BGCs? I'm shocked I tell you!

Meanwhile, were happily creating a database full of stand up citizens who own guns. Absolutely nuts.

 

[kott0n]

There you go! A database for millions of law abiding citizens and their gun ownership to catch...66.. that's right only 66 of the dumbest of the dumb criminals. I couldn't embellish this if I wanted to.

 

[kott0n]

If I told you I was going to infringe on the rights of millions for 66 people, it would be laughed at.

Just not in this context.

 

[Koda]

you guys know that the majority of criminals get their gun thru straw purchases right?

you guys know its already illegal for prohibited person to possess a gun right?

maybe think about that for a minute before you agree to make someone a felon because he misunderstood a question on a form. How about those new extreme protection order laws they just passed... you know the ones that prohibit you without any conviction!