Politico.com:
Here’s how the system is supposed to work: Before buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer, you are required to fill out a federal form with basic questions about criminal history. The seller calls the information into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), in Clarksburg, W. Va, and on the spot your name is run through the database. In a matter of minutes, you can complete your purchase if no red flags pop up.
So who can’t get a gun? The federal law instituting instant background checks was activated in 1998 and bars convicted killers from being able to buy firearms, as well as anyone imprisoned for more than two years; those convicted of domestic abuse; fugitives from justice, illegal immigrants; soldiers who have been dishonorably discharged; and people who are under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year behind bars.
Many people say that background checks don’t work. Forget the idea that nothing is going to work 100% of the time.
Politico gives examples of what is not working:
……. while the background checks cover mental illness, few states are submitting the required records to the federal database. From 2004 and 2011, the number of mental health records made available to NICS increased dramatically from 126,000 to 1.2 million, according to a July report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). But the GAO noted that the increase is largely a result of efforts by only 12 states.
Under the current restrictions regarding mental health issues, gun purchases are prohibited for anyone found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or found legally incompetent to handle their own affairs.
Like mental health records, drug violations are also under-reported to the feds, according to reports. The GAO concluded that “most states” aren’t informing the feds of failed drug tests, as the federal background check law requires — with 30 states not making any noncriminal data available.
With regards to drugs, the law bars anyone with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest happening in the last year. It also restricts someone who is convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the last year.
It seems to me that enforcement would be pretty easy. Cut off federal aid to states that don’t comply. They do it over everything else. These things are either law or they aren’t. Federal gun laws should be laws, not the federal suggestions.
If you ever want to buy a gun and you are a little iffy in the mental health area, perhaps it is just best to admit yourself. It sounds like if you go voluntarily, you aren’t barred from owning a weapon.
I think we can do better than this.
I have no problem with universal background checks. That being said, that would have done nothing to stop Adam Lanza.
Yes, that’s why we need an assault weapons ban in addition to background checks
@Starryflights
And how would that have stopped Lanza, who also had pistols and a shotgun? Furthermore, Connecticut ALREADY HAS AN “ASSAULT WEAPON” BAN. Under CT law, that rifle was NOT an “assault weapon.”
@Lady Emma
As long as it does not require registration and the use of a third party, like the FFL.
Not every measure will stop every crime. Most people know that gun violence can’t be eradicated. We just want to cut down on some of it. If one kid’s life had been saved that would be one less family in mourning.
Shotgun? 🙄
I am also for a reasonable universal background check. Again, one can be for something until the details are worked out.
I am still concerned about the levels of mental illness rising to one of violence. Some who have some form of mental illness should not have their rights affected either. So defining who doesn’t have an easy ride to gun ownership is both most important as well as most complex.
I also have a problem with the issue of inheritance or simply a gift. Sales between parties I can stand behind, but transference of ownership as a gift or inheritance also happens often.
Maybe (and again subject to details) one could also develop an idea of something similar to a host (bartender or just a party giver) who KNOWINGLY gives a drunk a drink and the drunk kills someone on the way home. Of course you can’t do anything about a deceased person (inheritance) but nothing is perfect.
I wonder if it would have had any effect if there were a law in CT that said an owner of weapon who is negligent on its storage can have legal ramifications. Again, the details are the more important issue.
@Clinton, I agree with you about the mental illness situation. How far are people willing to take that? Are there courts of arbitration? What if you suffer from depression because your grandmother died? How is that different from a chemical imbalance? Those are questions that would have to be worked out. I am sure some of those patients would feel that their rights have been taken also.
As for inheritance, I have actually inherited weapons. I have also been give weapons by family members. I think I should have to be checked out the same as if I gave a gun to a neighbor or sold one to a stranger. Its just checks and balances.
By the way, you would have to define “criminally or civilly negligent”.
That’s a good point…re definition.
Please pardon the spellings.
@Starryflights
What “assault weapon” did Lanza use? Please enlighten us. Or was that just another drive-by?
Interesting take by Fact Checker in Washington Post on the “40% of purchases not subject to background check”. Seems like the percentage was pretty high from a fairly nonscientific study with low participation rate (251 people). Even the questions were misleading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html
Clinton – your comment about potential negligence regarding storage is a good point for her insurance company to defend. I’ve asked many times why trigger locks for the weapons she only used at a range weren’t in place. It may have limited the number of weapons he eventually used. Under Connecticut law a person must be 21 to posses a handgun. Therefore she could be in some violation under reckless endangerment for not making her weapons inaccessible. Long reach but I wager it will be explored.
Further, just before the shooting she told others she needed to get him more help and that he was burning himself with a lighter. That leads to mental health status and possession. If they weren’t secured then I would interpret that as him having possession. So under 21 and mentally unstable….
This will sort itself out but it will take some time. I think this aspect of reckless endangerment will be an interesting thing to watch.
And if there is any way possible to make an insurance company have to fork out cash due to weapons being too accessible – the NRA won’t know what hit them. The banking/insurance lobby is bigger.
@Lyssa
“have to fork out cash due to weapons being too accessible – the NRA won’t know what hit them.”
I followed you all the way to the above? How would the NRA be affected by the negligence of a third party?
Because if the insurance/bank lobby takes one hit they’re going to make sure that never happens again.
@Lyssa
Sooo…they just won’t have any policies.
No homeowner policies?
In Virginia, background checks are run by the State Police. Names are run through the federal insta-check system AND State records. Because it is illegal for a felon to purchase a firearm in Virginia, our systemic checks are a fair bit more in depth.
@Lyssa
Wouldn’t that just fall under your homeowner liability?