Police Chief Embarrasses Lindsey Graham At Gun Hearing

[Tx4obama]

Related article:

Police Chief Embarrasses Lindsey Graham At Gun Hearing
Here: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/27/1646411/police-chief-embarrasses-lindsey-graham-at-gun-hearing/

[Turbineguy]

1. Wow, that's really something.

Graham does such a good job of embarrassing himself, you're up against some real competition there.

[southernyankeebelle]

2. This idiot has no shame. He really doesn't

[BlueStreak]

22. Blithering idot or just monumentally disingenuous?

Failing a background check is not itself a violation of any law. If you fail a background check you DON'T purchase the weapon and therefore don't commit any act that could be prosecuted. What is so hard to understand about that?

In some fraction of the rejections a person might have lied on the application, and that would be a technical violation of the law. But what would be the point of prosecuting that. The person was denied the gun purchase, which was the desired result. Prosecution or not, if you scare people away from trying to pass a legitimate background check, that will only force more people to use the gun show loophole, so what is the point?

[southernyankeebelle]

23. Excellent point. You would have thought the idiot would have gotten that. Proves they can

only think one issue at a time.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Wrong.

It is illegal, and it is prosecutable.

Here's the form.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

It is a legal affidavit. Not just an 'application'.

[BlueStreak]

36. That's a really narrow technical argument. Total waste of resources to chase that.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. A waste of resources to interdict a felon seeking a firearm?

Who knew.

I guess when the BATFE does a sting ops to catch people seeking illegal conversion parts to make a semi-auto into a full auto weapon, they should just warn the buyer that it's illegal, and drop it at that, because after all, it's a really narrow technical argument.


Also a waste of resources to interdict a person with a mental health disqualification, rather than send them up for another evaluation. Wouldn't want to accidentally get in front of a person looking to commit suicide or anything, and get them help before they select a different means when the firearm purchase is denied.


This is incredibly low hanging fruit that is being thrown in the garbage for very little reason.

[BlueStreak]

44. What are you going to do with him when you catch him?

The issue is that it is too easy to bypass the background checks altogether. If you put a few billion dollars into prosecuting technical issues like this, the only real consequence will be that you have wasted a lot of money prosecuting, wasted a lot of valuable criminal justice time, and wasted a lot of money incarcerating people, while pushing everybody to use the gun show loophole. In other words, a big fat zero.

Fix the loopholes first. Then when people have no option other than trying the BG check, it would make more sense to prosecute.

As it stands, this is just another NRA red herring.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. As I said repeatedly up thread...

Fix BOTH.

Require background checks for all private transfers (the 'gun show loophole') AND follow-up on these denials.

You don't think it would be valuable to follow-up on and interview a person who was disqualified due to an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility for a period longer than 48 hours? Not a risk factor that the person is seeking a firearm? That could prevent some suicides. Rather than have the person fall back to another means, and maybe be successful.


Earlier, I said Graham was deflecting because, you notice, his position is 'don't do that, do this instead', when the two are not related really, and the best solution is to do BOTH.

[PDJane]

58. paper chases cost too much money and, in the end,

The party gets jailed for no more than six months. It's not useful.

[Plucketeer]

13. Graham's SO ignorant

He's too stupid to realize when someone's made him look that way!

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Graham is a piece of shit, and is not a good advocate for his position.

Because his position is ACTUALLY to stonewall and prevent any/all attempts to inhibit access to arms.

But the Police Chief's position is complete and utter horseshit. This is not a 'paper crime'. These are ineligible recipients committing perjury, seeking a firearm.

In all cases that aren't some sort of reporting snafu, like mistaken identity (which is rare), this is a person that KNOWS they are ineligible (felons/domestic violence conviction/adjudicated incompetent) committing perjury in an attempt to access a firearm.

It is CRITICAL to prosecute that person, because their next step is grey/black market solutions to obtain a firearm. That person is up to some shit, and I highly doubt they are going to stop with a NICS denial from a FFL. They are going to continue to seek a firearm by other means. Toss their asses in jail, and you change the game. If it's a mentally disqualified individual, you have a chance to have them evaluated, and possibly get them some treatment. If it's a felon, blammo, parole violation, probation violation, you name it. Get them off the street, because they are up to some bullshit.


Graham is an asshole because he's characterizing this as an either/or. We can ALSO do universal background checks, but it STILL remains critical that we prosecute these self-identifying ineligible recipients for perjury, and whatever else we can get them for. Otherwise it's a missed opportunity, like the state of Virginia failing to report the mental health disqualification for Cho, at the VT massacre. Or failure to report Loughner, that fuck bought his gun from a store, passed a background check.

Every opportunity to exclude dangerous people MUST be pursued, in ADDITION to universal background checks. I am extremely disappointed this police chief would outright dismiss this opportunity. It's a rare, and done-deal packaged up with a ribbon on it opportunity to do something about people pursuing access to firearms that have no lawful business doing so.

[drmeow]

6. Please clarify for me

I don't know what causes people to fail a background check. Is it the same in all states? Would someone always know that they are going to fail a background check?

Also - how is it perjury? Don't you have to be under oath to commit perjury?

I've never tried to buy a gun so I have no idea what a background check involves so I have no way of knowing whether this really is a serious offense or if the police chief is right.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. When you purchase a firearm from a dealer (FFL) you sign a form 4473 from the BATFE

This form includes an affidavit you must sign that swears to you not being an illegal drug user, felon, misc and sundry ineligible recipient.

Lying on this form and getting caught is up to a five year felony.

The form is federal, so state laws don't apply. (States may be MORE restrictive, separate to or in addition to, but the 4473 is nation-wide)

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Ah, you also asked 'how would you know'.

Sorry, didn't address that question.

I (and law enforcement) generally would assume that if a person was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for more than 48 hours observation, convicted of a felony, or served with a domestic violence related restraining order, they would know.

All of those are disqualifiers. (Lautenberg Amendment for the Domestic Violence disqualification)

Edit: Here's the form if you want to review it:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

[drmeow]

37. Thank you for the clarification eom

[DWinNJ]

4. Pure BS

I don’t know the details of the law, but I would think there is a difference between failing a background check and committing a prosecutable offense.

The purpose of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or crazy people which apparently happened about 80,000 times. That sounds like a success.

I would bet that 44 people is a low number for people violating the law however, there is no correlation between that and number of people who failed except in the minds of politicians who do not want to rile the NRA

[DWinNJ]

5. just to clarify

My comments refer to Grahm

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Also pure BS.

Form 4473 is an affidavit to which you are swearing you are not ineligible (felon, adjudicated mentally incompetent, domestic violence conviction/restraining order, or an illegal drug user.)

Lying on this form is a felony all by itself.

Edit: form 4473
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

[DLnyc]

11. I agree!

We should also lock up all those old ladies who fail their driving tests! Criminal god-damned old coots!

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Yeah, because, you know, that's totally the same thing, right?

[SCVDem]

17. Smoke weed, No gun!

Being a stoned drunk alcoholic is perfectly fine though.

Ya gotta love this crap!

[MNBrewer]

18. Does failing the background check prevent them from purchasing that gun they're applying to purchase

? If so, i'd say the system works beautifully and Graham should shove his microphone up his ass.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Yeah, at that place and at that time.

Meaning they then turn around and seek a firearm from another source. Including sources that cannot be background checked, as they are not lawful sources.

This is an opportunity to catch, for instance, a felon that is seeking a firearm, and do something about that, before that felon acquires a firearm and does, whatever it was they were going to do with it. (Probably unlawful as well)

It takes practically no effort to prosecute these. You essentially have the confession, signed by the person that did it, right there in your hand.

[MNBrewer]

20. We're going to prosecute and convict and house these 88 thousand people

really? Saying that they're GOING TO get the gun is pure speculation.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. So, what do you think federal agents do when they catch people trying to buy

a 'conversion kit' to make a semi-auto weapon into a fully automatic weapon?


I don't think it's unreasonable that unfettered ineligible recipients might go about trying to get a gun by other means when they are rejected, and there is no follow-up. Remember, we have a lot more than ~30,000 people shot every year, that's just the number that die. There's close to a HUNDRED thousand people shot every year that survive. That's a lot of guns 'in play', and a lot of them are held by people who had no legal right to possess the firearm in the first place.

(Hint, they don't tell the person 'no you can't have one' and drop it. And they don't even have a signed confession to the crime in hand)

[mucifer]

41. But, if the gun show loophole is closed it wouldn't be so easy to do that.

graham doesn't want to close the gun show loophole.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I agree with both your points.

Graham is deflecting to take the issue of private transfers off the table.
I also agree that it would be somewhat harder to acquire a gun in that case.

However. Consider another scenario: Someone adjudicated mentally incompetent tries to buy a gun, and is denied. If there is no follow-up, there is no opportunity to question that person's motives. That might be a red flag and an opportunity for an intervention, to get someone with suicidal thoughts treatment. Let's say the person isn't a danger to anyone else, just themselves AND that person cannot acquire a gun from any source.

Lack of follow-up can still result in that person seeking a different implement for suicide. Hanging is only about 20% less effective than a firearm. (Pills are like 98% less effective than a firearm.)


The US Department of Justice has studied how felons get their guns. Gun shows make up about 3% max. Friends/family make up about 39%, and theft/black market makes up about 36%. Given that reality, I do not know that universal background checks would be MORE impactful than following up when a felon self-identifies as seeking a firearm.

Illicit manufacture, illicit importation, theft, and some 300 million firearms out there, now, unregister and unchecked is going to be problematic in this department for many, many moons to come.

(I am strongly in favor of background checks for private transfers ('gun show loophole') and national registration.)

[MNBrewer]

35. Where on the form does it say that if you fill out the form truthfully but are ineligible

that you're committing a felony? I don't see it.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. It doesn't specify.

They have never, to my knowledge, prosecuted this for people who genuinely made a mistake. I have seen stories of people in a particular state with a very low class D felony threshold for writing a bad check, plead guilty thinking it was a misdemeanor, and ended up with a felony instead, not understanding. They fail the NICS check, are denied, and potentially open to prosecution. Since they didn't knowingly do so, well, to date, none have been prosecuted. I suppose the potential is there.

It's like the similar law for transferring a firearm to a person privately without a background check, just one person to person, not a gun dealer. You can't *knowingly* transfer that firearm to an ineligible recipient, but the seller has no tools to verify that. So the potential exists to accidentally sell to a felon, but unless the court can prove it was knowingly, they don't get a conviction.

On the buyer though... the bar is much lower. Same with voting rights, and other issues that come into play for felons.

The relevant bit is the first paragraph on the second page of the form.

[MNBrewer]

43. So is filling out the form truthfully, then failing the background check a felony in itself or not?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I can cite no instance where that has happened. I looked.

You raise a good point. So I dug for it. I didn't find any instance where that happened.

[MNBrewer]

48. So what does that do to Sen. Lindsey's point?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Nothing.

Until those 80k disqualifications are followed up on, we have no way to know or currently estimate how many are erroneous disqualifications on the reporting side, how many are a mistake on the part of the buyer, and how many are genuine bad actors prevented from purchasing a firearm.

Following up doesn't necessarily require a prosecution. As I mentioned upthread, some of these could even be suicide interventions.

[MNBrewer]

50. Is such a follow up required by law

and who is supposed to do it? It seemed to me that Sen. Lindsey was saying that those people should be prosecuted in court. I don't quite understand what's going on here. Maybe I'm the one who is ill-informed, but could it be that Sen. Lindsey is the one?

It also seemed to me that the only felony mentioned on that form was in stating that you are the person purchasing the gun, while actually buying it for someone else.

If Sen. Lindsey wants "someone" to follow up with these tens of thousands of rejected forms, then he should introduce a bill to fund it.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. This is the relevant section.

"I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law (See Instructions for Question 16)."

There are multiple potential felony charges linked to certain answers on this affidavit. One of which is the 'straw purchase' provision you noted. Another is this section.

I also agree with you on the funding part. Another reason this is a deflection on Graham's part, and not a genuine argument. I only objected because people dismissed this data as worthless upthread, and it is actually incredibly valuable, and should be used IN ADDITION to universal background checks.

[MNBrewer]

54. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Sen. Lindsey's objection to those 88thousand forms was

Were those people who truthfully filled out the forms but were disqualified for various reasons, whom he thinks should be prosecuted, even though no felony was committed?

If so, his argument is bullshit.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. No one knows because no one has followed up on those forms.

They likely contain a mix of genuine errors by the background check system (mistaken identity on the records side), genuine lack of knowledge by people applying (pled down an old case of some sort that turned out to be a class D felony). Probably low risk.

People who didn't understand the ramifications of, or forgot about an old mental health evaluation they failed. These people should certainly be investigated. At the very least, they might be contemplating suicide. (2/3 of all gun-related deaths in the US are suicide)

And then there's people who were convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. This is probably a large chunk, given the predisposition for DV this nation seems to have. Someone should definitely be following up with these assholes to find out why they wanted a gun. DV convictions, even non-felony convictions, are lifetime disqualifications for firearms possession.

And last but not least, there's felons that just try to buy guns anyway, why they do it, I don't know, you'd think they would know better, but as my parole officer co-worker used to say 'we don't catch them because they're smart'.



Until you AT LEAST interview the person, you can't really know which of these it is, and only the first group can probably be safely ignored. It's a good idea to find out why some domestic violence asshole wants a gun. It's a good idea to find out why someone with a mental health disqualification wants a gun. It's a good idea for very different reasons, but still a good idea.

All that said, Graham's argument is bullshit anyway, because he's using this issue to deflect and distract from universal background checks, which are ALSO a good idea for entirely separate reasons, EVEN IF no one follows up on the disqualifications. It's a substitution game, 'look over here, not over there'.

I absolutely support registration even, to say nothing of universal background checks. I just disagree with the idea that these disqualified purchase attempts aren't worth following up on. Fund it, do it. It's an incredibly valuable opportunity to address a planned behavior before anything irrevocable, like a suicide, happens.

[MNBrewer]

56. That's like Sen. Ted Cruz's question about "Friends of Hamas"

I'm just asking the question...

If it's not a requirement of the law, they why would any law enforcement agency do it?

[AtheistCrusader]

57. That raises a question.

If a law enforcement agency is presented evidence of a felony, are they allowed to ignore it? There are penalties if I witness a felony, and do not report it to law enforcement. (Misprision of felony)

I don't recall Cruz's question, but I can suspect it was a false dilemma?

[MNBrewer]

60. WHAT FELONY????

There is absolutely NOTHING on that form that indicates that if a person fills it out properly and truthfully and gets rejected for the gun purchase that they have committed any crime whatsoever.

NO FELONY, NO PROSECUTION, NO INVESTIGATION!

What the HELL are you talking about when you mention "evidence of a felony"?

[AtheistCrusader]

61. The law doesn't specify 'knowingly'.

An example.

If you attest on the form 4473 that you are not an illegal drug user, and the NICS check fails because you have a medical marijuana card and the state in which you hold it reported it to NICS, you have just committed a felony. You lied on the form 4473. (I am pro legalization, but that is the law as it stands today.)

If you attest on the form 4473 that you are a non-felon eligible recipient of a firearm, and the NICS check fails because you have a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction in your past, you have just committed a felony. You lied on the form 4473.

If you attest on the form 4473 that you are not disqualified for mental health reasons, and the NICS check fails because you have a >48h involuntary committal for mental health evaluation in your past, you have just committed a felony. You lied on the form 4473.

If you attest on the form 4473 that you are not a felon, and the NICS check fails because you have a class D felony for check fraud due to a bounced check over $120 in the state of Virginia, you have just committed a felony. You lied on the form 4473.

Etcetera.

An existing appealed, denied case to review: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/558/893/165308/

[MNBrewer]

62. Yes it does.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/924

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Fair enough.

Now it's the applicant's word against the prosecution.

Did you review the appeals court case I cited? He claimed he didn't know. Jury, and two judges didn't believe him.

Edit: Well, more than two judges, actually

[MNBrewer]

64. I saw that, yes

And agree that he did provide false information on that document.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Graham probably wants to see people thrown into a stockade over it, but

(Well, actually no, I'm sure he's just throwing up a roadblock, any roadblock against universal checks to be obstructionist)


I'm 'easier'. I understand budget shortfall realities, but what I would like to see out of this is, less than an automatic prosecution. Something like a welfare check that the police do when something unusual is reported. They come, knock, interview the person. Are you suicidal, are you in danger, etc. That sort of interview. If the person is a felon, and there is reason to suspect the person was knowingly trying to access a gun, by all means, refer for prosecution. If the person needs it, referred to mental health eval. That sort of thing.

It only needs to be a prosecution for some people. (I would like to know for certain, what percentage of the 80k rejections would fall within that)

[MNBrewer]

66. Frankly i'm annoyed with Graham because he seemed to think it was the police officer's call

and it's not. It's the DA's call.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I bet he knows.

That's why I give him no credit at all for something that might be incidentally beneficial. He doesn't want to actually DO it. It's a smokescreen to him. He's a professional smoke generator machine. It's what he does.

I'm sure he's paid very well for it too.

[PatSeg]

8. This Police Chief was on Al Sharpton's show this evening

And he was very impressive.

[FailureToCommunicate]

14. Yes! He was excellent! Hope someone can post his comments.

[midnight]

15. NRA talking points: background checks... Why does the NRA push this line...

And why are Republicans saying that there isn't enough police protection, so get a gun....

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It's deflection.

They are making it an either/or proposition, when it should be an AND proposition.

Yeah, we should follow up on the denials, because the denial is a confession, signed in the prospective felon's own handwriting, that they are seeking a firearm. That is actionable. That's an opportunity to do something about a person that has self-identified as being up to something.


But that same 80,000 number represents attempts denied. Strong argument in favor of universal checks across the board.

By making it an either-or, the NRA/friends are corking the expansion of background checks. When the best answer is: do more of BOTH.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. I wish people would summarize embedded video like Huffington Post does. I don't have time to

I don't have time to watch a minute of video to see if I can guess if the remaining five minutes (or whatever) is going to be useful or interesting.

I can read faster than I can watch.

[PatSeg]

25. I understand how you feel

and I often feel the same way, but in this video, it more than WHAT they say. It is also how they say it and the the reaction from the spectators. This Police Chief was not about to let Lindsay Graham bully or talk over him. Well worth watching.

[pacalo]

28. This is one of those videos where the transcription isn't enough to describe what happened

in that video.

Graham's arrogance & his Fixed News tactics of talking over an opposing view (of a hands-on expert on the subject, mind you) is something to see.

I love that police chief.

[PatSeg]

33. It really was something to see

I've never seen anyone come back at Lindsay Graham so forcefully and effectively. They usually let him intimidate them.

I love that police chief as well. This is such an important issue, not something to play politics with.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. If that is true, the poster can put that point in the summary. Sell the video! . nt

On edit: it --> that point

[pacalo]

26. The link in the OP summarized it.

There are also people with hearing limitations who appreciate summaries accompanying the videos. Good point.

During a heated exchange at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed assault weapons ban on Wednesday, Edward Flynn pointedly interrupted Graham’s claims that the federal government is failing to deter individuals from misrepresenting themselves in the background check process by failing to prosecute people who were rejected from purchasing a weapon as a result of their false claims.

Flynn argued that rather than embark on a “paper chase,” law enforcement officials are focused on preventing people from purchasing guns illegally, eliciting loud applause from the audience:


GRAHAM: When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important…. We absolutely do nothing to enforce the laws on the books…

FLYNN: Just for the record, from my point of view, the point of a background check…

GRAHAM: How many cases have you made? How many cases have you made?

FLYNN: It doesn’t matter, it’s a paper thing. I want to stop 76,000 people from getting guns illegally. That’s what a background check does. If you think we’re going to do paperwork prosecutions, you’re wrong. [...] We don’t make those cases. We have priorities. We make gun cases. We make 2,000 gun cases a year, senator, that’s our priority. We’re not in a paper chase. We’re trying to prevent the wrong people from buying guns. That’s why we do background checks. If you think I’m going to do a paper chase, then you think I’m going to misuse my resources.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Thanks!

[pacalo]

31. You're most welcome.

[Tx4obama]

32. There is a link up in the OP to the full article that goes with the video. n/t

[Island Deac]

34. Some people are way, way to ignorant to be embarassed.

Lindsey Graham is one of those people.

[Jefferson23]

45. I thoroughly enjoyed that, Graham should be ashamed of himself. n/t

K&R

[Kalidurga]

51. Most people are embarrassed by incidences of stupidity.

Not Graham though. He is so proud of himself. He thinks he made some kind of point. But, really what he did is make the argument for background checks much stronger.

[PDJane]

59. Graham feels he's made his point and, by asking the same question over and over, proved it.

It's a tactic we've seen all those old, white men use when they think they can make some kind of point by doing so. McCain used it, too, at the Hagel hearings. "Let the record show he refuses to answer the question."

Sitting outside of the US and watching, I looks as though the idiots have taken over the asylum. The fact is that there are prosecutions that don't serve a point; there are reasons for not going through the legal process for some actions. This is one of them, since it doesn't do anything but spend a lot of money and put someone in jail for a few months; just long enough for him or her to lose a job, or kids or a home. What then?

it's all nonsense.