GAO report on investigations & prosecutions of NICS denials due to false answers

[Alamo]

What GAO Found

Investigations and prosecutions.
Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.

At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

There were about 25.6 million NICS checks done in 2017.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The background checks are fraudulent. Everyone in Indiana knows this.

Since 2003 the Department of Justice has held that the Indiana background check for LTCHs is insufficient and fraudulent. Indiana law enforcement refuses to do anything about it.

What is particularly maddening for me is that prosecutors will tout the background check for the Larry as if it is some stamp of purity when they know it is fraudulent. I cannot stand this institutional lying and fight it at every turn.

 

[Trigger Time]

The background checks are fraudulent. Everyone in Indiana knows this.

Since 2003 the Department of Justice has held that the Indiana background check for LTCHs is insufficient and fraudulent. Indiana law enforcement refuses to do anything about it.

What is particularly maddening for me is that prosecutors will tout the background check for the Larry as if it is some stamp of purity when they know it is fraudulent. I cannot stand this institutional lying and fight it at every turn.

What do you mean by fraudulent? As in they dont even do one or they dont have access to the right data to be thorough?
Or they just dont even do a check but claim they do?

It sickens me that they do not prosecute the people they knowingly break the law on the 4473. This is why people will keep attempting to acquire guns they cant legaly posses. Think of it this way; If someone is a criminal, Why even risk going and buying a stolen gun on the street, when you can just take your chances and go buy one in a shop and hope they dont catch you? You know they arent gonna prosecute you for trying even though you just committed a felony.
Sure, they can trace that gun to you but not every criminal is going out and committing murder with their gun. In all honesty I'd imagine that They want to protect themselves from other criminals too and know that only guns stop other bad guys who have guns.
, or those criminals buying the guns are then selling them to other criminals on the street for more money? I dont know. Do guns on the street sell for more than guns in a shop? By street I'm meaning criminals buying and selling.
.
Am I making sense or am I completely wrong? I dont know.im not a cop or a fed or a lawyer or a politician. I'm just a regular guy who likes legal guns and I dont like criminals or people trying to punish me for what criminals do.
I just cannot understand why our federal law enforcement would refuse to prosecute these provable crimes unless they are just overwhelmed or they are lazy or are directed to look the other way by prosecutors with other agendas. Or they want gun violence to continue to push for more restrictions on legal gun owners?
Help me understand here. I want to be on the side of the law here and the cops or feds but their actions are making it hard for me to get it

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What do you mean by fraudulent? As in they dont even do one or they dont have access to the right data to be thorough?
Or they just dont even do a check but claim they do?

The former (they don't do it enough to satisfy the feds).

Let me find the 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs.

Wait one.

Here it is: https://www.atf.gov/file/83766/download

Recently I had prosecutors tell me how vital the background check of the Indiana LTCH was. I chuckled and asked them if they knew about the September 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs. He had not. He has now as I filed it in court as an exhibit.

The politicians opposing Constitutional Carry (i.e., the repeal of the LTCH provision) have been blowing smoke over the quality of the Indiana LTCH background check. It is not what they claim.

I should have been more forceful about this fact when testifying at the General Assembly. I regret that I did not.

 

[eldirector]

If I read that correctly, ISP will apply Indiana State Law, but will not apply US Federal Law. What is the gap? Anyone have an example of what is A-OK by ISP, but a disqualifier for the ATF?

 

[KellyinAvon]

The former (they don't do it enough to satisfy the feds).

Let me find the 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs.

Wait one.

Here it is: https://www.atf.gov/file/83766/download

Recently I had prosecutors tell me how vital the background check of the Indiana LTCH was. I chuckled and asked them if they knew about the September 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs. He had not. He has now as I filed it in court as an exhibit.

The politicians opposing Constitutional Carry (i.e., the repeal of the LTCH provision) have been blowing smoke over the quality of the Indiana LTCH background check. It is not what they claim.

I should have been more forceful about this fact when testifying at the General Assembly. I regret that I did not.

It sounds like it's time to start warming up for the 2019 ConC season.

 

[Fargo]

The former (they don't do it enough to satisfy the feds).

Let me find the 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs.

Wait one.

Here it is: https://www.atf.gov/file/83766/download

Recently I had prosecutors tell me how vital the background check of the Indiana LTCH was. I chuckled and asked them if they knew about the September 2003 DOJ letter to Indiana FFLs. He had not. He has now as I filed it in court as an exhibit.

The politicians opposing Constitutional Carry (i.e., the repeal of the LTCH provision) have been blowing smoke over the quality of the Indiana LTCH background check. It is not what they claim.

I should have been more forceful about this fact when testifying at the General Assembly. I regret that I did not.

That letter says that the handgun license is deemed insufficient because ISP is/was only using the Indiana definition of a prohibited person, not because the check itself is less than the federal requirement.

Do we really want argue for more federal control here?

I see a lot of very good arguments for Constitutional carry, hell I testified as such multiple times last year, but I'm kind of hesitant about this one.

 

[Fargo]

If I read that correctly, ISP will apply Indiana State Law, but will not apply US Federal Law. What is the gap? Anyone have an example of what is A-OK by ISP, but a disqualifier for the ATF?

Well, that was written under the law as written 15 years ago. Off the top of my head, Indiana's proper person definition largely mirrors the federal requirements. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head as far as license issuance goes, but there are some that come to mind as far as license revocation goes.

I am guessing there are probably some minor differences on the drug abuser, disability, and mental commitment definitions.

 

[eldirector]

Well, that was written under the law as written 15 years ago. Off the top of my head, Indiana's proper person definition largely mirrors the federal requirements. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head as far as license issuance goes, but there are some that come to mind as far as license revocation goes.

I am guessing there are probably some minor differences on the drug abuser, disability, and mental commitment definitions.

That's what I am trying to understand. "Fraudulence" usually requires some sort of intent to deceive. To my untrained eyes, it appears more like the ATF has simply set the bar a bit higher than Indiana, and the State of Indiana simply doesn't care. Doesn't look like the State is issuing pink cards under false pretenses.

Suppose I could be wrong.

 

[Fargo]

That's what I am trying to understand. "Fraudulence" usually requires some sort of intent to deceive. To my untrained eyes, it appears more like the ATF has simply set the bar a bit higher than Indiana, and the State of Indiana simply doesn't care. Doesn't look like the State is issuing pink cards under false pretenses.

Suppose I could be wrong.

I think Kirk was using that word to describe the way the general assembly acts like it's LTCH background checks are really effective. I tend to agree that they are not, but it is not because of failure to adhere to the federal standards. I think the word fraudulent is a hyperbolic in this context.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That letter says that the handgun license is deemed insufficient because ISP is/was only using the Indiana definition of a prohibited person, not because the check itself is less than the federal requirement.

A distinction without difference I argue.

think Kirk was using that word to describe the way the general assembly acts like it's LTCH background checks are really effective. I tend to agree that they are not, but it is not because of failure to adhere to the federal standards.

Fraud in the political context, i.e. a lie, rather than the legal context. LEOs and politicians who tout the background as some sort of shield are committing a fraud on the voters.

 

[Alamo]

The former (they don't do it enough to satisfy the feds).

....

The ONLY case I know of where the Feds tried to prosecute someone for violating the GFSZA solely for possessing a gun, that is where the charge was not an add-on to a more serious drug charge or a shoot-out, was against an Alabama fellow. This guy had an Alabama license to carry, and I think the Alabama background check consists of the local sheriff giving you the hairy eye. Anyway the federal prosecutor argued that the Alabama background check was insufficient for the state carry license to qualify for the exception in the GFSZA.

Neither the federal trial court nor the federal appellate court bought the argument. They pointed out the GFSZA law says you must have a license and the guy had a license - the law did not say you had to have a federal background check or its equivalent, just the license issued by the state. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the case right now, but I think it was around the time that this letter that Kirk links to was promulgated. The feds they love their background check.

[Iin the interests of completeness: the Alabama guy was also charged with felon in possession, because he had been convicted of a felony in Minnesota (IIRC) and served time for it. But in Minnesota once you serve your sentence, all civil rights are restored by operation of law. The feds argued he still met the definition of a prohibited person under federal law, but the trial court and the appellate court were all "NOPE!" on that argument as well.]