Showing posts with label NICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NICS. Show all posts

Latest NICS data

Source available here.  Note that between 2008 and 2011, while NICS checks rose 29.4 percent, violent crime rates have dropped significantly.

Violent Crime 457.5 to 387.5 per 100,000 people, a 15% drop
Murder 5.4 to 4.7 per 100,000 people, a 13% drop
Rape 29.7 to 26.4 per 100,000 people, an 11% drop
Robbery 145.7 to 114.3 per 100,000 people, a 22% drop
Aggravated Assault 276.7 to 242.2 per 100,000 people, a 14% drop

Some data on how NICS checks have changed over time before and after Obama became president.



More Problems with Brady Background checks

More Problems with Brady Background checks

Previously I wrote about how virtually all those stopped by background checks were false positives. Now we find that they are letting criminals buy guns who shouldn't have been allowed to. From Fox News:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won't say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun.
Under current federal law, people with felony convictions are not permitted to buy weapons, and those with felony arrests are typically flagged while the FBI conducts a thorough background check.
However, according to court records reviewed by Fox News, two of the 20 defendants indicted in the Fast and Furious investigation have felony convictions and criminal backgrounds that experts say, at the very least, should have delayed them buying a single firearm. Instead, the duo bought dozens of guns on multiple occasions while federal officials watched on closed-circuit cameras.
Congressional and law-enforcement sources say the situation suggests the FBI, which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, knowingly allowed the purchases to go forward after consulting with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which initiated Operation Fast and Furious. . . .
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 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.” To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.

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?

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.
What to make of the claim that 247 people on the terror watch list bought guns last year

What to make of the claim that 247 people on the terror watch list bought guns last year

Part of what I will be discussing on Coast-to-Coast AM tonight.

Here is the claim in the left-wing Huffington Post.

More than 200 people suspected of ties to terrorism bought guns in the U.S. last year legally, FBI figures show.

The 247 people who were allowed to buy weapons did so after going through required background checks as required by federal law. . . .

The secret, fluid nature of the terror watch list has made closing what Lautenberg calls a "terror gap" in the nation's gun laws a challenge. About the same number of people suspected of ties to terrorism also successfully purchased guns in the U.S. in 2009. The FBI provided the new numbers to the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, and the figures were obtained by The Associated Press.

The government can only prevent people from buying guns for any of 11 reasons. Convicted felons and illegal immigrants, for example, cannot buy weapons. But the terrorist watch list is different. People become convicted felons only after a court process and an opportunity to defend themselves. The watch list is secret and generated at the government's discretion. It is not a list of people convicted of terrorism crimes.

The list of about 450,000 people includes suspected members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, terror financiers, terror recruiters and people who attended training camps. People's names are added to and removed from the watch list every day, and most people never know whether they're on it. . . .


As the late Senator Ted Kennedy learned the hard way, getting flagged by the secret terror list simply means that you have the same name as someone else on the list. There are several big problems with background checks and the terror list. 1) That background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns. 2) That the people denied buying guns by the NICS checks are virtually all false positives. And these false positives will stop some people who are being stalked and threatened from getting a gun quickly. 3) That people get on this "secret" terror list without any court decision that would cause people to lose their right to own a gun. Here is something that I wrote up recently at BigGovernment.com.

The same problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he 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 2008, the latest year with data available. There were 78,906 initial denials. Of those, only 5,573, or 7 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (73,333 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.
Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 5,573 referrals, over 44 percent, or 2,472 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved “no potential or unfounded” violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%. 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?
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 4,400 cases, only 147 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors. Of those 147 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 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 2009, prosecutors had only 43 convictions, and only 22 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.03% of the 78,906 initial denials. . . .
Supposedly 2,000 guns a day crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico

Supposedly 2,000 guns a day crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico

This claim seems no more believable than the 90 percent of Mexican crime guns coming from the US.

A November 2008 study by The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, stated that 2,000 American guns are smuggled into Mexico each day. Compiled by a commission including ex-Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia and a senior State Department official during the administration of President Bill Clinton, the report was the last comprehensive estimate on the subject, though it did not include information on how that figure was reached. . . .


That figure comes to 730,000 guns per year. If 14 million guns a year are sold in the US (the number of NICS checks in 2009 so this is obviously an underestimate, but it also includes background checks for concealed carry permits and sales of used guns), that means that roughly 5% of all U.S. guns manufactured each year were being smuggled illegally across the border.
Phantom gun control claims over the holes in the NICS background check system

Phantom gun control claims over the holes in the NICS background check system

The claims that states aren't providing information to Federal government for some who are denied buying guns might just be made up claims.

Washington is one of 11 states that have energetically complied with a three-year-old federal statute requiring states to provide the National Instant Check System (NICS) with the names of people who are mentally ill and thus disqualified from purchasing firearms.

Several other states have at least partly complied with the requirement, according to a review by the Associated Press, but more than half of the states – and there are some surprises on the list – have not complied and nine of those states have provided no information at all.

Buried in the text of the Associated Press story is this notation: “gun control groups have estimated more than 1 million files are missing nationwide.” There is no attribution, and no elaboration. The story does not say which groups believe this, or why. There is no reference at all.

This is how myths are created, much like the demonstrably false assertion that 80 percent of the guns (or whatever figure someone decides to use) recovered in Mexico’s drug war are being traced back to the United States. . . .

NICS checks by state by month by year from 1998 to December 2010



Click on figures to make them readable. The entire data set is available here. One interesting part of the data is the huge increase in the number of people buying guns in some states. Take Kentucky. Up through 2005, around 220,000 to 240,000 transactions for guns occurred in Kentucky (multiple guns could be purchased in any one transaction). Then in 2006 that increased to 791,599, then in 2007 to 1,587,850, then 1,881,101 in 2008, and by 2010 it was 2,385,579. After 2005 the yearly increases were sometimes twice as large as the total who had been buying guns during earlier years.

What happened starting in 2006 and kept on changing after that? One change I know of is that after July 12, 2006 those with concealed handgun permits no longer had to go through the NICS checks. That change would cause a drop in NICS checks not the massive increase. Indeed, the importance of this exemption has been increasing nationwide as more people have concealed handgun permits and this implies that the increase in gun sales shown by the NICS data actually underreports gun sales by an increasing margin over time.

But there is a solution to this mystery.

At least one state, Kentucky, appears to have recently started doing monthly NICS checks on its concealed carry permits in the summer of 2006. These monthly checks have dramatically inflated Kentucky’s NICS check numbers. Also, there are some states that that use the NICS system for background checks on gun purchases in the secondary market, such as at gun shows. In short, there are some inconsistencies in how NICS checks are used by states. For all these reasons, NICS data serves as only a rough proxy for the gun sales occurring in each state.


But on the other hand, it looks like Kentucky is not allowed to make these monthly checks.

Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks required by the Brady Act. Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be limited to uses for the purpose of:

(1) Providing information to Federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or explosives-related permit or license, including permits or licenses to possess, acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry a concealed firearm, or to import, manufacture, deal in, or purchase explosives; or

(2) Responding to an inquiry from the ATF in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement activity relating to the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53).


Something more to think about. An additional point is the 8 percent of NICS checks are "not resolved immediately" (with 5 percent presumably up to 3 days) and 3 percent take longer than three-business days. In addition, 99.9+% of those denied (about 0.8%) are false positives. At some point these costs imposed on gun transactions should be counted up. For example, a gun show may only take place over three day weekends. To have 8 percent of the NICS checks "not resolved immediately" could prevent those sales from occurring. That could be a significant effect on the cost of doing business for gun shows.