In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
FBI Speeds Gun Purchase Background Checks
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
FBI Speeds Gun Purchase Background Checks
Washington (AP) - Nine out of 10 gun purchases are now subject to instant FBI criminal background checks, a marked improvement over the response rate from two years ago, the Justice Department reported Thursday.
Only about 9 percent of transactions now face delays, mainly due to technology improvements that have reduced the rate of false matches in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The immediate response rate rose from 71 percent average in early 2001 to 91 percent in 2002.
The improvement means that most gun dealers now can get information immediately over the phone or via computer about whether a prospective firearms purchaser is a convicted felon or is prohibited from buying a weapon.
In the past, many dealers had to wait for an FBI agent to review records and make a final determination. Dealers are permitted to sell the gun if no answer is received in three days, sometimes requiring federal agents to attempt to retrieve the firearm if a denial later comes in.
In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the improvements "are helping make our country safer by barring access to firearms by felons, illegal aliens and others who cannot legally own guns."
Some critics say the laws are still inadequate to keep guns away from terrorists and criminals, and they cite a provision that allows unchecked sales at gun shows. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., recently released a Congressional Research Service study showing that U.S. lists of known terrorists are not included in the NICS databases.
"Speed should not be a barometer for success with this background check," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. "These statistics show the system is getting faster, not smarter."
Lautenberg said the system still allows too many guns into the hands of criminals and potential terrorists. He also said the Justice Department should back away from plans to destroy firearms records transactions after 24 hours, instead of three months.
"Today's Justice Department report is mere window dressing for a loophole-ridden system," Lautenberg said.
Justice Department officials say they are working with states to improve the accuracy of criminal history records. Also, more State Department and FBI terrorist databases are being integrated into the NICS system, they say.
The report shows that NICS, part of a 10-year-old gun control law, combined with state check systems has processed more than 36 million background checks, with about 563,000 denials.
The combined federal and state system processed 8.9 million background checks in 2001, with 125,000 denials of permission to purchase a gun. In 2002, the numbers were 8.4 million checks and 121,000 denials.
Other items in the report:
-The most frequent reason a person is denied a gun is a felony criminal history, covering 58 percent of all federal denials. Other reasons are criminal misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, drug abuse history, having a dishonorable military discharge, being an illegal alien or being a fugitive from justice.
-Almost 2,400 licensed gun dealers use a computer "E-Check" system to check purchaser backgrounds.
-About 37 percent of total gun transactions involve pawn shops, with 63 percent involving retail businesses.
-The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was asked to retrieve 3,429 weapons that should not have been sold, out of more than 4.2 million background checks done by NICS in 2002. That is down 736 from the 2001 number.
-The FBI handles all background checks for 31 states and does long gun checks for another 10 states. Fourteen states do entirely their own background checks, with 10 doing solely handgun checks.
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.wset.com/showstory.hrb?f=n&s=89198&f1=nat
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Washington (AP) - Nine out of 10 gun purchases are now subject to instant FBI criminal background checks, a marked improvement over the response rate from two years ago, the Justice Department reported Thursday.
Only about 9 percent of transactions now face delays, mainly due to technology improvements that have reduced the rate of false matches in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The immediate response rate rose from 71 percent average in early 2001 to 91 percent in 2002.
The improvement means that most gun dealers now can get information immediately over the phone or via computer about whether a prospective firearms purchaser is a convicted felon or is prohibited from buying a weapon.
In the past, many dealers had to wait for an FBI agent to review records and make a final determination. Dealers are permitted to sell the gun if no answer is received in three days, sometimes requiring federal agents to attempt to retrieve the firearm if a denial later comes in.
In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the improvements "are helping make our country safer by barring access to firearms by felons, illegal aliens and others who cannot legally own guns."
Some critics say the laws are still inadequate to keep guns away from terrorists and criminals, and they cite a provision that allows unchecked sales at gun shows. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., recently released a Congressional Research Service study showing that U.S. lists of known terrorists are not included in the NICS databases.
"Speed should not be a barometer for success with this background check," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. "These statistics show the system is getting faster, not smarter."
Lautenberg said the system still allows too many guns into the hands of criminals and potential terrorists. He also said the Justice Department should back away from plans to destroy firearms records transactions after 24 hours, instead of three months.
"Today's Justice Department report is mere window dressing for a loophole-ridden system," Lautenberg said.
Justice Department officials say they are working with states to improve the accuracy of criminal history records. Also, more State Department and FBI terrorist databases are being integrated into the NICS system, they say.
The report shows that NICS, part of a 10-year-old gun control law, combined with state check systems has processed more than 36 million background checks, with about 563,000 denials.
The combined federal and state system processed 8.9 million background checks in 2001, with 125,000 denials of permission to purchase a gun. In 2002, the numbers were 8.4 million checks and 121,000 denials.
Other items in the report:
-The most frequent reason a person is denied a gun is a felony criminal history, covering 58 percent of all federal denials. Other reasons are criminal misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, drug abuse history, having a dishonorable military discharge, being an illegal alien or being a fugitive from justice.
-Almost 2,400 licensed gun dealers use a computer "E-Check" system to check purchaser backgrounds.
-About 37 percent of total gun transactions involve pawn shops, with 63 percent involving retail businesses.
-The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was asked to retrieve 3,429 weapons that should not have been sold, out of more than 4.2 million background checks done by NICS in 2002. That is down 736 from the 2001 number.
-The FBI handles all background checks for 31 states and does long gun checks for another 10 states. Fourteen states do entirely their own background checks, with 10 doing solely handgun checks.
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.wset.com/showstory.hrb?f=n&s=89198&f1=nat
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Comments
by mrhain
Although liberty means different things to different people, most would agree that it is not something that is bestowed by government; rather, in a "free society" such as America , it is assumed that government exists to protect the inherent freedoms of its populace. The State often exploits this assumption by curtailing individual liberties in the name of "protecting everyone's freedom."
Misunderstandings with the State as to what one's rights actually are can (and often do) lead to unpleasantries such as incarceration, loss of property, personal injury, and death. For these reasons, it would be prudent for us to ascertain what exactly liberty means to our government. Given that the Supreme Court has upheld the concepts of judicial secrecy set forth by the USA PATRIOT Act, this is not the simple task one might imagine.
Fortunately, actions do indeed speak louder than words (or the lack thereof), and Operation Iraqi Liberation is now in its "reconstruction" phase. Thanks to OIL, we can take a firsthand look at how United States government defines liberty, and thus by extension what liberties we can expect to have here at home. According to the American regime:
Liberty means the right to be protected from the "poison pens" of foreign and independent media outlets. No outside information corrupting the thoughts of any people this country liberates! Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Colin Powell's son is helping to ensure that the evils of competitive media are stamped out here at home, too.
Liberty means the right to be protected from exposure to malcontents that don't support the State. Americans already enjoy this freedom here at home, as well.
Liberty means the right to corrective behavior modification should you succumb to the seditious notion of venturing outside your home after sundown. This is the State's way of helping to keep the hapless citizenry out of trouble.
Liberty means freedom from the responsibilities of owning a weapon for self-defense. Although some radical conspiracy wackos like to claim that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," the State assures us that Barney and Metallica will convince even the harshest of thugs (that aren't on the payroll) in Iraq to hand over their weapons.
Liberty means the right to an incarceration free from outside disturbances. I know if I were gagged, beaten, and had a hood thrown over my head, I'd get pretty annoyed at some bleeding-heart foreigner showing up and asking me how I was being treated. Here at home, the PATRIOT Act guarantees our right to be jailed incognito.
Although the United States government's liberation of the Iraqi people seems to demonstrate a different vision of liberty than most would expect, all is not lost. A devout anarchist, I have long held the belief that democracy is a "tyranny of the masses." Donald Rumsfeld's assertions that "we will not allow" the majority Shia Muslims in Iraq to form an Islamic government proves that the U.S. government agrees that democracy is a bad idea. And here you thought neocons couldn't be progressive.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/mrhain/mrhain4.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
BY STEPHEN HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A splintered Supreme Court took another swipe at the landmark Miranda ruling Tuesday, saying the right to remain silent doesn't apply when authorities aggressively - or even coercively - interrogate someone they're not prosecuting,
Oliverio Martinez thought he was dying in 1997 after an Oxnard, Calif., police officer shot him five times in the face, legs and back.
He begged another officer to stop questioning him as he waited for medical treatment.
A four-justice plurality said the officer's refusal to stop didn't violate Martinez's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, because he was never charged with a crime. But a majority of the court said the relentless questioning of Martinez under the circumstances could have violated his 14th Amendment rights to due process, because it could be compared to torturing him.
The case was sent back to lower courts to consider that question.
The ruling inspired both praise and criticism from lawyers for Martinez and the American Civil Liberties Union, who said the hope for a favorable outcome on the 14th Amendment issue in lower courts was a silver lining in the court's cloudy decision.
Martinez, who was left blind and paralyzed, is suing the Oxnard police for damages.
Alan Wisotsky, an attorney for Oxnard and the police officer who interrogated Martinez, said the court's ruling was a victory for persistent police work.
"If someone had kidnapped your child, wouldn't you want police doing everything they possibly could to get information from someone who had it?" he asked hypothetically.
Some constitutional scholars said the decision was a clear dilution of Miranda rights, under which law enforcement officers for years have warned suspects that they have the right to remain silent.
Miranda, said Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University, "has been scaled back to such an itty-bitty little protection that you begin to wonder whether it's worth it."
Cheh said that to prove a 14th Amendment violation, Martinez would have to show that his treatment was so cruel as to "shock the conscience" of the court. In Tuesday's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas denied that police conduct was egregious, saying it served a "justifiable government interest." He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia in that part of his opinion, but several others disagreed to varying degrees. Only Justice John Paul Stevens included strong language in his opinion denouncing police conduct.
"Unfortunately, courts have generally said the police have to go really, really far before they reach that level," Cheh said.
Tuesday's ruling came after a series of Supreme Court decisions narrowing Miranda rights and as the court prepares to undertake a more comprehensive review of Miranda requirements later this year. The justices will decide in the fall when - and even whether - Miranda violations by police require evidence to be tossed out.
Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the ACLU of Southern California, said those cases would have a bigger impact in determining Miranda's future.
"We need the Supreme Court to say if this is a constitutional right, it has to have some meaning," Wizner said. "The issue that really is of primary concern to the ACLU is deliberate noncompliance with Miranda by police."
Wizner said many police departments talked explicitly with their officers about ways to engage in questioning outside the purview of Miranda, and that lower courts increasingly were sanctioning that behavior.
---
c 2003, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>