New focus of gun-control push: 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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Speaking of gun control, anyone else seen the videos of the new Sig MPX? Very impressive.
The Rogue Tomato on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I don’t mind background checks. I do mind a background check for every weapon I’ve bought. And the Viet Nam vet Blumenthal wants a background check every time I purchase ammo.
Bite my 4th point of contact.
hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM
I think anyone who wants to sell a gun or ammo from the trunk of his low rider Caddy should always ask for a FOID card. I think that’s the problem. Too many people are buying guns without the proper ID.
BobK on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM
I was turned down for a gun purchase once even though I have a concealed weapons permit. It took me two weeks to straighten out the government’s screw up. So, if it happens again I’m going to be arrested? And don’t tell me it wouldn’t happen as long as I didn’t lie. Plenty of people have had their lives turned upside down because of government incompetence.
RadClown on January 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Pretty much everyone, I think.
The Rogue Tomato on January 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Sadly, you’re right.
RadClown on January 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM
No it’s not. Under Bush, in 2004, there were over 10,000 prosecutions. Under Obama, they have dropped more than 45%
Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM
What the heII has all that paperwork been?
Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM
That is if I had filled out any paperwork.
Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Here in CT you get a background check for every long gun purchase you make, plus a 14 day waiting period if you don’t have a pistol permit or hunting license.
To get a pistol permit you have to take the NRA Pistol Basic course, get finger printed and checked by CT authorities and the FBI.
One week before Newtown Adam Lanza tried to get a rifle and failed the background check. No purchase made.
Liberals are screaming about Newtown but how would this law have prevented it?
Criminals and psychotics don’t do background checks. How stupid are these people to not understand that?
2lbsTest on January 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM
This.
CorporatePiggy on January 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to actually track down felons and see if they have weapons?
trs on January 14, 2013 at 10:36 AM
I know you were being rhetorical but…
They are Liberals, stupid comes with the membership card.
D-fusit on January 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM
I’m still worried they’ll try to ban “high capacity assault magazine clips”. It makes my uneasy to see some Repubs, like Grassley, saying they’d consider it. Any Repub who votes for that must be primaried out of office.
juliesa on January 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Here is how the Feds will encourage and enforce background checks in private gun transactions.
The original purchaser will be linked to the gun’s serial number.
The purchaser will be responsible for any crime committed with his weapon if it was committed by the person to whom he sold the weapon and no background check was performed.
This is similar to making bars responsible for drunk drivers.
Charlemagne on January 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Typical. Pass a law, don’t enforce the law, scream that the law isn’t stringent enough so congress has cover to pass another broader law.
US: Hey Obama, we’re on to you!
Obama: Yeah, well 53% of the people aren’t so bite me.
deepdiver on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Keep an eye on the threshold of disqualification. “Background checks” sensible and reasonable until anyone who has ever been cited for anything at any time in their life is denied the right to buy a gun in perpetuity.
forest on January 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM
I apologize but I am stealing that.
Les in NC on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Could someone please explain to me that if a background check is supposedly about the purchaser – why do they need ANY information about the gun?
Galt2009 on January 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM
From what I was told and I have not been able to confirm this, that it isn’t even about the sale. The background check is for the transfer of the firearm and covers temporary or permanent transfer. I was told that just handing a firearm to somebody else at the range would technically require a background check and getting it returned would require another one on you. Also leaving a firearm in a safe at home while the registered owner is not there but another family member is would be a transfer and require a background check. If no other family member had a permit it would in effect be illegal to leave them with the firearms. Supposedly this was why private transfers did not require a background check.
I was told this by a guy that leans kind of towards extremist when it comes to firearms so it may be BS.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Well, then maybe there is a problem with the law and that law needs to be fixed.
The IRS can impose penalties for not getting paperwork right regardless of intent and they don’t need to prove you lied.
Every municipality in the country can issue and collect a fine for speeding, or running a red light regardless of intent.
Dusty on January 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM
That may or may not to correct but one of the items being floated over the latest faux outrage is that if you want to purchase a weapon every legal adult living in your home would need to undergo a background check. Don’t think it will fly but it is on the radar.
chemman on January 14, 2013 at 11:47 AM
If lying on the paperwork for the background check is a felony then intent becomes important in the prosecution.
chemman on January 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM
[Dr. Frank Enstine on January 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM]
That scenario sounds like it’s in the gray area in which a lot of law resides, i.e., what does the law say vs what is the intent of the law.
Take, for instance, the law now that CO2 is considered a pollutant. You could rewrite you comment with that in mind, back date to 20 years ago and come up with the exact same conclusion at the end.
Dusty on January 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM
If lying on the paperwork for the background check is a felony then intent becomes important in the prosecution.
[chemman on January 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM]
Well, I don’t necessarily agree with that, but it is certainly a good reason to consider changing the law. Maybe there ought to be some levels of penalties established in the law:
Spelling errors — $100
Not knowing your address — $150
Not knowing you’re a felon — $1,000 or 10 days in jail.
Governmental Error — Refund of $250.
Look as it is now, it certainly appears that the law on the books now doesn’t merit a felony charge as it has practically no deterrent effect.
Dusty on January 14, 2013 at 12:10 PM
Well, the real reason for the data on the gun being purchased is that it is just a way of setting up for registration and then confiscation.
It just speaking the truth to the LIES of the background check issue.
Galt2009 on January 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM