Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
John Lott's Website: The Problem with Brady Background Checks: Virtually all of those denied purchasing a gun are false positives
The Problem with Brady Background Checks: Virtually all of those denied purchasing a gun are false positives
There are several things to understand about how the Brady Law background check process works. At gun stores or other registered dealers, would-be buyers have to fill out a form asking whether there are any criminal convictions or types of mental illness that would prevent them from legally purchasing the weapon. Falsely answering these questions amounts to perjury. If people answer the question by saying that they have a background that prohibits them from buying, a gun dealers stop right there and do not even process those forms. And if people are believed to have knowingly provided false information on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) form and prosecutors think that they can prove that knowingly false information was provided, the would-be buyer faces prosecution.
Yet, the NICS system accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun.
Some may remember the five times the late Senator Ted Kennedy was placed on a “no fly list.” If someone is flagged by the NICS system, it is because it appears that they didn’t put down something in their background that disqualified them from buying a gun. Yet, an initial denial does not mean that the individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2009, the latest year with data available. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives. The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn't too obvious). To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)
Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?
Of the cases referred to the BATF field offices there were still a number of false positives. A 2004 sample found out that about 21 percent of these cases were found to be false positives (the percentage is slightly higher if a weighted sample is used).
Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included. But of these 4,154 cases, only 140 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors, just 60 of which involved providing false information when buying a firearm. Of those 140 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 77 times.
Prosecution may be declined either because further investigation revealed that the person wasn’t prohibited from owning a gun, because false information hadn’t knowingly been provided, or prosecutors didn’t believe that the cases “merited” prosecution. But if someone is indeed prohibited from owning a gun and they left that information off their NICS form, it is relatively easy for authorities to prove they knowingly concealed that information. The most frequently claimed reasons that people failed the background checks are: “restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments.” How hard is it for prosecutors to prove that someone hadn’t accidentally forgotten that they had a conviction for a violent felony or they had a restraining order?
While prosecutors tend to go forward with their strongest cases, those prosecuted are often not found guilty. By the end of 2010, prosecutors had only 32 convictions or pleas agreements, and only 13 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.018% of the 71,010 initial denials.
So we have two estimates of the false positive rate: 94.2% or 99.98%. The first estimate is obviously too low, it assumes that all the cases identified up to that point are accurate. The second estimate is obviously too high, it only counts as prohibited individuals those who have been proven so beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. These numbers are just one of the reason that no study by criminologists or economists has found that the Federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.
Of course, being falsely labeled as being ineligible to own a gun isn’t the only cost imposed on law-abiding Americans. Even those who aren’t prevented from buying a gun face delays in getting approved. Eight percent of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks are “not resolved immediately.” Two-thirds of those checks take up to 3 business days, and the rest take even longer, though these further delays can’t stop one from obtaining a gun at that point.
Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.
Its boring.
But it's accurate comrade. It's called incrementalism and we understand its uses quite well....as do you...
Okie dokie...guess this worthless back and forth is done. Ill take it as you dont understand.
Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.
Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?
Because criminals obey laws.
So, because criminals don't obey laws, let's make it easier for them to legally obtain guns
Criminals have been barred by federal law from buying guns since 1968.Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.
What effect has this ban had on gun-related crime?
Except that a criminal can go to agun show or a private citizen and walk away with a gun with no background check. What effect would it have on gun violence if those loopholes were closed? Probably a significant one.
The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.
That's actually incorrect. For example there a some that are just plain impatient and don't wanna waste time while the government fucks with them. and there are a lot more.
Impatience isn't a good enough reason to allow lunatics to own guns.
Um a background check does neither. You have your right to privacy, dont buy a gun.pass the back ground and you can own said gun. Neither infringe on your rights to own a gun, you have the potential to own one anytime you want.Prove background checks infringe on your right to own a gun. Go ahead this should be funny.
Oh pred you havent changed, full of shit.
Are you talking the background checks we already have in place or the ones you looneys are proposing?
If you mean the ones you wing nuts want to add, well then that's easy.
Frist of all I said "rights", and not simply "Right to own a gun". If I have to have my neighbor perform a background check on me it infringes on two rights, 1, the right to buy a gun, and 2, my right to privacy. The problem with you is you don't inderstand the definition of "Infringe".
You haven't changed. You're still a partisan hack who will say any stupid thing as long as it is the opposite of what a conservative says.
Its ok pred you are not a conservative. You never will be either.
Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.
Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?
Because criminals obey laws.
So, because criminals don't obey laws, let's make it easier for them to legally obtain guns
Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks
So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.
A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.
Rational, thinking people do not support the infringement of the rights of the law abiding with someting that does not hinder the actions of criminals.I'm so happy you have no problem surrendering your rights. However, when you start trying to abrogate mine, I take issue with that. To date there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and not one has ever been shown to have prevented a crime.
You are totally wrong on your read of US V Miller, they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no forseeable military purpose". Their ruling had nothing to do with the civilian useage of weapons at the time.
Further, once the law was passed the ATF's precurser took it upon themselves (like all bureaucracies do) to add weapons to the controlled list via non-legislative "rules". They have passed thousands of rules that most people have no knowledge of.
And that leads to the final issue which is namely once something is regulated, the regulations can be made ever more onerous. But you anti civil rights propagandists know that, you simply don't care. You want power over the population and you willuse whatever nefarious methods you have to to obtain your goal.
Lol im not going to change your mind on the issue like most other people. You are going to weasel your way out of everything in order to say the government is going after your rights.
Normal thinking people understand they are not. Sure some people want laws passed to ban guns, but that wont be happening. Scotus already stated you cant pass those type of laws.
Passi g a law that states you must have your gun locked and in a rack is not infringing on your rights. You already own the gun.
Good for those 20k laws on the books. Id still pass further background checks, higher more agents to check inventories of gun stores and maybe have gun locks on guns when being stored.
Rational people would be fine with this. I understand you are not a rational person on this issue.
Yes my methods are voting to have laws passed. Im fucking evil....
The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.
Criminals have been barred by federal law from buying guns since 1968.Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.
What effect has this ban had on gun-related crime?
Except that a criminal can go to agun show or a private citizen and walk away with a gun with no background check. What effect would it have on gun violence if those loopholes were closed? Probably a significant one.
And have therefore broken the law.It is. But they can obtain them without a background check at gun shows and from private sellers.
Apparently, the law did not deter them from doing so, and so your argument regarding deterrence is demonstrated unsound.
And have therefore purchased a gun without a background check. Apparently, because of these loopholes, they ARE able to buy guns DESPITE there being laws against criminals buying guns.
And what's your solution besides nothing?
You people offer no solutions, just excuses..
You wont stop people. Its a poor example. Out there someone might want to kill you and hey who cares right? We bother trying to stop them because in the end they will find a way.
Really its a great outlook on life. How about we just remove cops period? I mean under your opinion they are redundant.
You are not doing a damned thing to stop these crimes. All you want to do is interfere with a citizen's right to legally own guns. You offer no solutions to crime, you only want to make more criminals by making gun ownership illegal.
Personally, I have no issue with registration of guns, licensing owners or even background checks; however, this call for "enhanced background checks" is nothing more than bullshit smoke and mirrors.
Only an idiot actually believes these will stop criminals from obtaining guns. Neither you or RDD are idiots. That makes me think you are simply taking the partisan stance on this.
And no, I do not have a solution, but neither do you so don't try pulling that shit on me.
And compromise? Are you serious? I suppose you believe you are willing to compromise on things but those terrible conservatives just won't give in. Do you really want us to believe you are willing to compromise? Please!
Immie
I See all assumptions in this post. You dont know what I want. What I want is reasonable solutions, without the emotional attachments.
Back ground checks on all weapons.
More agents to check the stock and records of gun shops.
No limits on ammo, clip size, or what you can own as a citizen.
Are you telling me that that is so fucking extreme that you have to say no? That you have to cry about your freedoms which I wouldnt be taking away.
At some point one just has to say hey, you are a unreasonable person and thus don't get a say.the same goes for those retards who want to ban guns outright. Thats not a solution.
So save the bullshit about criminals are not going to stop. Thats a poor excuse of a weak argument. You want to be treated like an adult who can handle owning a gun? Then knock it off with the stupid.
A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.
How many lives have been saved by background checks?
I said could save a life, meaning background checks have the potential to save a life.
No one should oppose background checks. You still get your gun, you just have to wait a short while to get one. Its not a big deal.
You are a retard. I suggest buying a helmet.And what's your solution besides nothing?
You people offer no solutions, just excuses..
You wont stop people. Its a poor example. Out there someone might want to kill you and hey who cares right? We bother trying to stop them because in the end they will find a way.
Really its a great outlook on life. How about we just remove cops period? I mean under your opinion they are redundant.
Your solution is to make life more difficult for everyone but the criminals and the crazy people? In what fucking universe does that make sense?
I said guns are tools just like a car.
Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. Im not impressed at all.
You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.
waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?
District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary
keep swinging....
I'm so happy you have no problem surrendering your rights. However, when you start trying to abrogate mine, I take issue with that. To date there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and not one has ever been shown to have prevented a crime.
You are totally wrong on your read of US V Miller, they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no forseeable military purpose". Their ruling had nothing to do with the civilian useage of weapons at the time.
Further, once the law was passed the ATF's precurser took it upon themselves (like all bureaucracies do) to add weapons to the controlled list via non-legislative "rules". They have passed thousands of rules that most people have no knowledge of.
And that leads to the final issue which is namely once something is regulated, the regulations can be made ever more onerous. But you anti civil rights propagandists know that, you simply don't care. You want power over the population and you willuse whatever nefarious methods you have to to obtain your goal.
Lol im not going to change your mind on the issue like most other people. You are going to weasel your way out of everything in order to say the government is going after your rights.
Normal thinking people understand they are not. Sure some people want laws passed to ban guns, but that wont be happening. Scotus already stated you cant pass those type of laws.
Passi g a law that states you must have your gun locked and in a rack is not infringing on your rights. You already own the gun.
Good for those 20k laws on the books. Id still pass further background checks, higher more agents to check inventories of gun stores and maybe have gun locks on guns when being stored.
Rational people would be fine with this. I understand you are not a rational person on this issue.
Yes my methods are voting to have laws passed. Im fucking evil....
I said guns are tools just like a car.
Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. I'm not impressed at all.
You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.
waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?
District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary
keep swinging....
Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.
Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.
A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.
Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.
Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.
Its boring.
Tell me the one again how cough drops are just as dangerous as guns.
Wouldn't I have to say that before I could say it again?
Lol please deny that I made up my signature.
You're as bad as Rabbi.
Where exactly is that right outlined..... specifically.
Why does it have to be outlined? What if it is only highlighted, would that work for you?
And the back pedaling begins.
