FBI Data Show Gun Background Checks Still Undermined

[Meiko]

Not sharing information, imagine that.Good read.

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, May 25, 2012

National "Do Not Sell" Database Still Missing Millions of State and Federal Records On Seriously Mentally Ill Individuals, Drug Abusers

States That Receive Federal Grants Share Records at Sharply Higher Rate

NEW YORK, May 25, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Many states and federal agencies are still failing to share records about dangerous individuals with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), leaving dangerous gaps in a database designed to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands, according to new information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The update comes six months after gun violence survivors urged a Senate committee to improve the system at a congressional hearing on the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona. The shooter had a history of disturbing behavior and a drug arrest record, but passed a background check before buying the guns he used to kill six people and wound 13 others, including then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ).

At that hearing in November, a coalition of 650 U.S. mayors released a 50-state analysis showing that millions of records barring dangerous individuals from buying guns are missing from the do-not-sell database. The report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns – "Fatal Gaps: How Missing Records in the Federal Background Check System Put Guns in the Hands of Killers" – also identified factors that have helped some states successfully share their records with the federal database, including federal grants and laws that mandate reporting in some states.

Documents describing the contents of the database on April 30, 2012 show that the system remains dangerously incomplete. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have reported fewer than 100 mental health records, with 16 of those states reporting fewer than ten and three states reporting none at all.

Of the 61 federal agencies for which the FBI keeps data, 52 have not submitted mental health records to the NICS database. In the last six months, only three federal agencies reported new mental health records: The Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service. The VA was responsible for nearly 100 percent of federal records submitted in the past six months.

Leaders of the bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition urged Congress to pass the Fix Gun Checks Act (H.R.1781/S.436), which would increase incentives for states to comply with federal record reporting targets and require background checks for all gun sales. They also applauded a House vote earlier this month approving $12 million in funding for NICS Act Record Improvement (NARIP) grants to help states improve their reporting.

"Around thirty-four Americans were killed with guns yesterday, and if our background check system were complete, many of them would be alive today," said New York City mayor and coalition co-chair Michael Bloomberg. "But some states are doing better, and with bipartisan support in Congress for giving states more resources, here's also reason for hope."

"The gun background check system remains dangerously incomplete and allows guns to be sold to the wrong people," said Boston mayor and coalition co-chair Thomas M. Menino. "Our country cannot risk another tragic shooting due to incomplete reporting. That's exactly why every state and federal agency should be doing everything they can to submit records to the system. We have a collective responsibility to fill the massive gaps in information and make sure that guns don't end up in the hands of killers – our public safety depends on it."

*****MORE AT LINK*****

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/726851

[Hoyt]

1. Good post. And a good reason to restrict gun sales. The system is broken and dangerous people are

buying, and toting guns in public. We've been told that background checks weed these people out, but this and other reports prove otherwise. Then, when you consider how private sales circumvent background checks, we clearly have a problem. Gunsters won't admit it, because more than anything they fear losing access to more guns (and many, are afraid of losing the profit they make from gun trafficking).

[spin]

3. It would be wise to update the background check system as was supposed to happen ...

because of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This law was signed by the President on Jan 08, 2008.

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

***snip***

Questions and Answers

What is the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007?

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), Pub. L. 110-180, was signed into law by the President on January 8, 2008. The NIAA amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady Act&quot (Pub. L. 103-159), under which the Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact the NICS before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person for information on whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The NIAA was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records accessible to the system.

Why was the NIAA enacted?

The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NICS is a critical tool in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, but it is only as effective as the information entered into the databases upon which it relies. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.emphasis added
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49#2007

You appear to believe that the solution to the fact that the improvement to the NICS background check hasn't been successfully implemented is simply to "to restrict gun sales." Surely you do not mean that all sales of guns should immediately end?

President Obama mentioned this very problem in an op-ed to the Arizona Post.

First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/13/op-ed-president-obama-arizona-daily-star-we-must-seek-agreement-gun-refo

Obama didn't mention suspending gun sales or even imposing further restrictions on them. He was in favor of enforcing existing law and making sure that the states did a better job of living up to their responsibility to better input the data as required by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

That sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[hack89]

6. So because the states don't obey the law I have to lose a civil liberty?

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

that's pretty fucked up logic. Why not have the states do their jobs?

[Hoyt]

7. Cry us a river. Adequate background checks and registries are all but impossible.

[PavePusher]

10. Your river is a bed of sand and you have no paddle.

And your boat is more holes than hull.

[sarisataka]

14. Could you repeat that please?

A little louder? Did you just admit that the "Holy Grail" of registry is all but impossible to do adequately i.e. would serve no real purpose?

[Hoyt]

15. Registries of people who should not be allowed around guns.

[sarisataka]

18. So the correct answer is to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I think we can try a bit harder

[hack89]

23. So you admit gun control is failure? You are finally getting it. nt

[PavePusher]

12. "Gunsters"? Is that like "punsters", but of a different caliber? n/t

[Hoyt]

16. No, another poster used it and I like it.

[PavePusher]

29. Hoyt, you seem to like a lot of things....

that decent people are ashamed to brag about.

[rl6214]

20. Cry us a river

[slackmaster]

24. Does the concept of FIXING features of our government that are broken have any meaning for you?

[Clames]

30. That would require actual effort...

...and thinking. Maybe even spending some money. All things the keyboard commandos on the anti-2A side don't like to do it seems. MUCH easier and cheaper to just complain and insult their way through the issue.

[krispos42]

34. Fabulous system you propose

Require NICS checks on gun buyers working through a gun dealer. Under-fund the system, so it doesn't work all the time, then use that as excuse to ratchet up gun restrictions.

I bet you think that foxes should design henhouses, too.

[sarisataka]

2. It is a rare day

when I find myself in agreement with MR. Bloomberg.

This system such be brought up to be as accurate as it can possibly be so sales through dealers can be properly approved or denied.

The NCIS system should also be made available for private sales so those sellers can verify a sale they are making is not going to a prohibited person.

To limit sales because of this failure is ridiculous. Gun owners, and the NRA, have promoted the NCIS for a long time. Unfortunately they have no power to make the system better. Give the states and agencies, the ones who can fix this problem, incentives for complying and sanctions for failing to participate. That is what will close this alleged "loophole".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Updates and improvements...

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

...are definitely in order.

[Tejas]

5. So where is all of this blood running in the streets?

Since the FBI doesn't have records of them, the droves of seriously mentally ill people roaming the streets and alleys with guns should be making the news nightly. Am I watching the wrong channel?

[Hoyt]

8. Where are all those supposed threats that cause you guys to carry?

[DanM]

9. But you've said elsewhere the world is full of problems.

"With all the problems in the world, who needs such a rifle?"--Hoyt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=40244

Are you claiming that the world is full of problems, but there are very few threats? I'm having a hard time understanding how that is logically cohesive thinking.

[PavePusher]

11. Hoyt doesn't really do "logic".

They were introduced once at a party, but never hit it off...

[Hoyt]

17. You are 0 for 3 on this thread.

[Clames]

31. You are 0 for 950 in this Group.

And that's just the last few months...

[DanM]

22. But has Hoyt ever indicated that he understands that in order to influence...

society and legislators to their position, gun-control advocates must make logically cohesive arguments and be able to soundly respond to logical criticism?

[Hoyt]

32. Logic doesn't work with the right wing panderers to the gun lobby and supporters.

It takes cash - that you guys help generate for the greedy, war mongering, bigoted, callous SOBs

[DanM]

37. Don't you realize your target of persuasion isn't the right wing?

It's independents. We know what the left wing and right wing are going to do. Persuasion from the other side doesn't work on them.

The battle is over independent voters. That's what presidential elections are about, but it's also what public policy legislation is about. Thus far, the evidence that gun-rights folks are more persuasive and logical with their arguments is the fact of the overall liberalization of gun laws in each state and at the federal level. That liberalization could not happen, and be sustained, without gun-rights folks getting independents on board. And also getting independents to reject gun-control arguments.

Are gun-control advocates, and yourself, not realizing all that above? The persuasiveness of logical and rational argument is undeniable.

[Hoyt]

38. The NRA, TParty and the gun culture segment that uses guns to intimidate are right wingers.

To make a few Independents and "liberals" happy about their access to guns, we have to let all the millions of right wingers continue using guns to intimidate.

90+% of legislators who back/promote more guns are right wing, and very callous people too. The NRA -- under the guise of "protecting guns" -- funds mostly right wing legislators and a few others who are willing to pander to the gun culture.

Lots of Independents will vote for Republicans on election day, they are just a bit ashamed of their political leaning. Hence, they call themselves Independents.

[DanM]

42. What are the gun-rights people doing politically that gun-control folks can't do?

It really boils down to core things: mobilizing supporters to vote, give money, call representatives, persuade friends and family, write letters to editors, etc.

None of those are closed off as tools to gun-control advocates. There are millions of people who are gun-control advocates or supporters. Why aren't they doing enough of the core activities?

[Hoyt]

43. Exactly, right wingers have mobilized TBaggers, NRA types, etc., to pass right wing legislation that

not only promotes guns -- but harms the poor, enables corporate greed, etc. Yet, you have your guns so little else really matters.

[hack89]

52. So why is it impossible to mobilize Democrats to pass progressive gun control?

is the gun control movement really that weak?

[Tejas]

75. You sure talk a lot about being intimidated by people with guns.

Your fears are unfounded, the big bad NRA is not the droid you think it is.

[ileus]

39. You of course meant lies don't work...

The public has mostly rejected the lies of the grabbers.

True progressives have started to embrace the 2A, and realize what a unique right we have here in America, and we're willing to preserve that right.

We're tired of people being rude and impolite and endangering society, we now have CC and SYG laws (in some states) protecting the good citizen. We fully intend on retaining and expanding the rights to protect ourselves and families.

[Tejas]

21. If you don't know, just say "as usual, I have no clue".

Do you mean the same threats that cause LEO's to carry?


edit: reversed sentences

[Hoyt]

33. They are chasing down criminals. News Flash - you gun toters are not.

If I had to go serve warrants, etc. I'd carry a gun. Hell , I might strap two on.

But none of us are doing that as a regular citizen.

[SGMRTDARMY]

40. You are right

We are not chasing down criminals or serving warrants, thats not the purpose of a CCW.

News Flash, we carry so that we have the means to defend ourselves if needed.
I myself wouldn't chase down a criminal as a regular citizen.

[Hoyt]

45. You can actually defend yourself without a gun, as the 96+% who do not carry prove every day.

[SGMRTDARMY]

46. Your right

I probably could but I choose to carry a gun so this old man doesn't have to mix it up with some young punk out to do me harm.

As for the 96%, I guess that makes me a 4%er.

[Hoyt]

58. So you leave home prepared to shoot some "young punk." How many times has that happened?

If you are having issues with "young punks," maybe you should re-evaluate what you do when you go out, or seek professional help for some irrational fear of "young punks."

[SGMRTDARMY]

61. If a young punk physically assaults me or one of my family members

your darned tootin I'll be prepared to defend myself. As far as how many times has it happened, as of today, zero times, although it doesn't mean it won't happen.

I have no issues or irrational fear with "young punks" if they leave me and mine alone, so, no, I don't need professional help.

The same could be said of you with your irrational fear of CCW holders, but I think you just don't like us.

You must really think that I'm going to get nasty and hateful with you so you can do what a now PPR'd female canadian used to do.
Sorry, not going to work, I am a very level headed person.
So, keep up disparaging gun owners, it's seems to be what you do best.
Peace

[Hoyt]

62. "Level headed?" How is that when you are worried about "young punks?"

As to you suggestion I will "alert" on you (or whatever they call it), I have never done alerted on anyone. If someone posts some crazy gun love BS, I would like it to remain so people can see what kind of folks are carrying guns in our society.

[SGMRTDARMY]

63. Yep

Level headed, I don't worry about young punks unless they are a definite threat and even then I will try like hell to defuse the situation without the use of violence. Despite what you think, CCW holders DO NOT WANT TO SHOOT ANYONE AT ALL.

I also don't alert as I want everyone to see just how ridiculous people in your catagory are.
I'll give you this, your posts are entertaining, distorted, but entertaining.

[Hugabear]

69. How would you know about a "PPR'd female canadian"?

You've only been registered on DU for a few days...so how would you know about someone who had been previously PPR'd?

[gejohnston]

70. reading posts without registering.

I read DU for a couple of years before registering. I miss "top ten conservative idiots"

[Electric Monk]

71. Sure, but it's hilarious how common that explanation is here in the Gungeon

nt

[gejohnston]

72. Can't speak for anyone else

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 05:10 AM - Edit history (1)

but it is true in my case. It is reasonable to assume in other cases as well. Now if someone shows up with a name like Lazarus..............

I don't know how common it is on my side, but there were a couple of antis that were not very good at changing their writing styles. For example, Loudly was in all likelihood a reincarnation of Sharesunited.

[SGMRTDARMY]

77. I've only been registered for a few days

but I can still read. I've lurked here for months before I decided to sign up.
What business is it of yours anyway?

[trumad]

73. Whhhaaa ---young punks-----whhhaaaa

How old are you...like 90?

[SGMRTDARMY]

78. I'm in my 60's and not in the best of health.

[Tejas]

53. Hey, if it makes you feeeel better, then

go right ahead, I won't try and stop you from doing what you want. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

[Hoyt]

59. Unfortunately, your thing pollutes society with guns.

[Tejas]

64. How odd, that's the same thing Joseph Stalin said.

[SGMRTDARMY]

65. And don't forget Hitler.

Not comparing Hoyt to Hitler Mods.

[krispos42]

35. I thought every gun owner was a threat?

Hmmmm.... so then gun owners aren't threats!

[Hoyt]

36. Potentially they are. Non-toters are obviously much less likely to shoot innocents.

[SGMRTDARMY]

41. Again your right

Non-toters are obviously much less likely to shoot innocents, so are CCW citizens much less likely to shoot innocents as you well know as the stats have been posted here many, many times before.

BTW, police shoot innocents many more times than CCW citizens.

[Hoyt]

44. Hopefully police are doing things that you aren't -- hopefully you are not police wannabe.

CCW are not less likely to shoot people than those who do not carry guns. Nor, are they more law-abiding than those who could qualify for a permit but know they don't need one and that society is better off without a bunch of yahoos walking around with guns.

[SGMRTDARMY]

47. I am no police wannabe

seen my share of violence in my lifetime.

So according to you I am, as you say, a yahoo because I chose to get the training, pay the fees, to CCW even though I have never been arrested in my life.

Why do you disparage legal citizens so much?

[Hoyt]

48. Neither Zimmerman or Loughner had been arrested in their life. Doesn't mean much.

And, you still don't consider the indirect effects of your "need" to be armed wherever you go.

[SGMRTDARMY]

49. It's not a need, it's a choice that I consciously made many years ago.

I carry concealed whenever I go out so how does that effect anyone? No one knows that I am carrying except those that know me well and they don't really care one way or the other.

[Hoyt]

50. More guns affect everyone -- but you don't seem to care about that.

[SGMRTDARMY]

51. How does more guns in the hands of honest citizens affect everyone?

And again, your right, I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me carrying concealed, why should I?
You could walk right by me and you would never know if I was armed or not.

[WingDinger]

68. YOU, and EVERY CCW, BETTER care what others think. That insular militant attitude, SHOULD disqualify

you from retainiing one. Every Gun owner SHOULD be responsible enough to cringe when anyone abuses a gun, or their carry, to include concealed.

[hack89]

76. So you want the power to take my CCW

because you don't feel I pay you the proper respect? That I don't think just like you? How authoritarian - are you sure you are on the right board?

[SGMRTDARMY]

79. What I better do is none of your business.

Disqualify me from retaining one because I don't care what an GCA thinks? Here's one just for you, I don't care what you think eithe
You can shout at me all you want but in the end, who, besides you, gives a darn?

[WingDinger]

80. Who? Every damn person that sees themselves as Trayvon.

If we dont feel safe walking down the street, YOU will LOSE.

[SGMRTDARMY]

81. How will you know if I am armed?

I carry concealed. You have no reason to fear me at all. How will I lose? I'm not getting the reason for your anger towards CCW'ers.

[Tejas]

74. YUP, just like on TV!

Oh, and - "yahoos walking around with guns" - do you mean LEO's that shoot their spouses in cold blood?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. re: "BTW, police shoot innocents many more times than CCW citizens."

LEOs shoot the wrong person significantly more often than the average joe.

[Tejas]

54. Non-drivers are less likely to

http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6853.shtml





Hoyt, maybe you should be the Pre-Crime Czar.

[PavePusher]

13. What a crock of shit.

"The shooter had a history of disturbing behavior and a drug arrest record, but passed a background check..."

As I recall, he had not commited any acts that required reporting, so what we have here is baseless pearl-clutching. Fuck that.

[safeinOhio]

28. Swearing and personal insults in all most every post

may indicate a person with anger management problems. Perhaps you might want to check your guns while you have these problems evaluated.

[Callisto32]

55. Making psychological diagnoses based on internet forum posts....

may indicate a greater than actual belief in one's ability to ascertain the nature of a person's personality.

Perhaps you should check your arm-chair diagnoses while you have these problems evaluated.

[safeinOhio]

56. thank you for your opinion.

[rl6214]

66. "Swearing and personal insults in all most every post may indicate a person with

anger management problems"

Kinda like our recently PPR'd canadian member?

[safeinOhio]

67. Perhaps it would be a good idea

for that person to hang up their guns until the problem is under control. Wouldn't you agree?

[rl6214]

19. Source: Mayors against illegal guns?

AAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. For the most part...

...the data in the Fatal Gaps report is accurate. This does not validate the MAIG group as correct in their views anymore than NRA membership would validate the views of Klan member.

I think the fact that California has shared 279,589 mental health records with the database and Oregon has shared 3 is indicative of "gap". Maybe CA is a bit too intrusive but I'd say it's clear that Oregon under reports.

[gejohnston]

26. how many people are

adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a judge? That is what we are talking about "mental health records" aren't we? Maybe that is all there is in Oregon. BTW, why would the VA submit records?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. "Maybe that is all there is in Oregon."

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe but unlikely. CA's rate for record submission is about double the national rate. In spite of CA's rep for attracting the "less conventional" among us that rate might be overly aggressive. Oregon's rate is almost 3800 times below the national rate. While that's not proof, it does indicate some review is in order.

ETA: "BTW, why would the VA submit records?" The law mandates it but I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. From the FBI site:

Two of the eleven points for which persons are prohibited under NICS:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.