Report: Background Checks Have Blocked More Than 2 Million Gun Sales

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

ERIC LACH – FEBRUARY 28, 2014, 2:39 PM EST

Federal background checks have blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect on Feb. 28, 1994, according to numbers released Friday by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The organization, which advocates for stronger gun-control measures, released a report looking at the impact of the Brady law on its 20th anniversary. According to the report, the law has blocked more than one million purchases by felons, 291,000 by domestic abusers, and 118,000 by fugitives.

The Brady Campaign took the occasion of the law's anniversary to reiterate its call for stricter background check legislation.

“Lives have been saved by the Brady law as we have seen the undeniable evidence showing gun homicides have decreased since the law took effect 20 years ago,” Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign, said in a statement. “We need Congress to expand Brady background checks to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get guns online, in classified advertisements or at gun shows.”

The full report is available online here.



Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/background-checks-statistics

---

Brady Campaign releases a report analyzing 20 years of effective background checks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 28, 2014 Jennifer Fuson 202-370-8128 [e-mail]

Washington, D.C. – The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today released a report chronicling the impact of the Brady law and revealed that felons, domestic abusers, and fugitives are the top categories of prohibited purchasers who have been denied gun purchases since the law went into effect 20 years ago.

Since February 28, 1994, the Brady law has blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons. Another 291,000 denials were to domestic abusers. And, 118,000 gun sales to fugitives were blocked thanks to background checks.

“It is clear Brady background checks work. Lives have been saved by the Brady law as we have seen the undeniable evidence showing gun homicides have decreased since the law took effect 20 years ago,” said Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “We need Congress to expand Brady background checks to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get guns online, in classified advertisements or at gun shows.”

Joined by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Brady Campaign Chair Sarah Brady, Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA), Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Congressional leaders, and families of shooting victims, Gross released the report, 20 Years of Brady Background Checks: The Case for Finishing the Job to Keep America Safer, Friday at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“This report reflects the challenges we faced in passing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 20 years ago and the results prove our efforts were worth it,” said Sarah Brady. Her husband, Jim, was the inspiration for the Brady law after he was shot and severely injured during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Among the report’s findings:

Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and domestic abusers made up nearly 70% of firearm purchase applications denied from 1994 to 2010, according to the most recent data available.
On average, felons are blocked 171 times a day.
On average, domestic abusers are blocked 48 times a day.
On average, fugitives are blocked 19 times a day.
Currently, roughly 40 percent of gun purchases are not subject to a Brady background check. This includes guns sold online and at gun shows when sold through unlicensed sellers. Nine in ten Americans support expanding background checks to online and gun shows sales, but despite public support, Congress failed to pass meaningful legislation to expand background checks last year. However, states still acted; 21 states passed new gun laws to curb gun violence, including eight states that passed major gun reforms in 2013. Four of those states – Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Delaware – passed new laws expanding background checks on all gun sales.

“For 20 years, Brady background checks have prevented violence, protected communities, and saved lives. But we must do more,” Leader Pelosi said. “It’s long past time to expand and strengthen the background checks with the bipartisan King-Thompson bill -- and we’ve come together today with a clear, simple, and firm message: let’s finish the job to protect and defend the American people.”

“For 20 years, the Brady Act has helped prevent guns from falling into dangerous hands. Now it is time to finish the job by passing my bipartisan bill that makes sure people can’t bypass a background check by simply going online or to a gun show,” said Rep. Mike Thompson. “We know background checks work. They keep guns away from criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill, and they respect people’s Second Amendment Rights. People on both sides of the aisle came together 20 years ago and passed the original Brady Act. In two decades it has saved countless lives. It’s time to come together again and finish the job.”

“Jim and I are optimistic about the future,” said Sarah Brady. “It took six years and seven votes to pass the Brady bill, but we stayed the course until we passed the legislation. We are not going away and we’ll continue the fight until we finish the job and get expand background checks to all gun sales.”

To read the report in its entirety visit: http://www.bradycampaign.org/programs/finish-the-job/20th-anniversary-report

# # #

http://www.bradycampaign.org/brady-campaign-releases-a-report-analyzing-20-years-of-effective-background-checks

[groundloop]

1. That's 2.1 million people who can't exercise their 2nd amendment rights !!!!!

I'm sure the NRA and all their usual compatriots will be bitching about this though.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Actually the NRA worked WITH the Brady Campaign to pass that bill.

They encouraged some changes to it, but ultimately supported it's passage.

In fact, you'll find a sizeable demographic of gun owners that will never forgive the NRA for supporting the 1934 NFA, the Brady Background Checks, and other gun control measures.

[DanTex]

12. Umm, they are against it before they were for it.

They saw that it would pass, so instead of blocking it they tried to weaken it.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Debateable.

However, one possible interpretation.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. They can still purchase them through other channels

that are big enough to drive a truck through.

I wonder how many of them ended up getting firearms through other means of purchase that don't require backround checks, legally purchased from other, responsible, law abiding gun owners.

[bossy22]

21. technically it would still be illegal for them to acquire weapons that way

[Crunchy Frog]

29. But perfectly legal for the responsible, law abiding, gun owners

to transfer ownership to them.

As far as I know, there are no rules governing private gun transactions.

[Shamash]

32. Actually, there are

The 1968 Gun Control Act specifically allows private sales, but there are written guidelines and the seller can go to jail for selling to someone they know or suspect is ineligible to own a firearm. Plus of course the whole civil liability issue if such can be shown in a way that a jury would vote against the seller on. So, while I'm sure there are illegal private sales and there would continue to be private illegal sales even with a universal background check law (they're illegal sales, after all), most private sellers are concerned about that sort of thing.

FAQ for private sales from the ATF page. The USC 922 laws quoted are the parts that list the penalties and you would have to look them up separately.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I'd be curious to know how often this actually gets enforced in any way. n/t

[hack89]

36. It is illegal to sell a gun in any fashion if you know they cannot legally own a gun. Nt

[Crunchy Frog]

39. So, perfectly legal as long as you don't ask and they don't tell?

[hack89]

40. First off, I support UBCs

my state has had them for years and they work fine.

As for your question, you can ask but you have no way of determining if they are lying to you. Hence the need for UBCs.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. This is why we need to get rid of this harmful socialist regulation. MOAH GUNZ!

[Dawson Leery]

3. The NRA opposes background checks as they have denied

an additional 2 million firearm sales.

[HereSince1628]

4. And ~1.% of the denials were due being on the NICS for mental health reasons.

The FBI NICS data base says 1.08 million denials from Nov 1998 til January 31, 2014 with 13,316 denied for reasons of mental illness.

Makes one wonder why La Pierre and the conservative media -really- pitched the mentally ill 'monsters among us' stuff.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/denials-013114.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Because it's a useful meme that demonizes and shifts blame onto a minority.

Actual statistical analysis of crime reports shows that people with mental health issues are far more likely to be victims of violence, than perpetrators. FAR more likely.

[HereSince1628]

10. Absolutely. Annually, the "monsters among us" only commit ~4% of homicides, cops commit 2%

Makes me wonder if it's ok to consider cops as half-monsters?

[hack89]

5. Background checks are a no brainer

now we need UBCs.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

13. MOAH GUNZ => LESS BRAINZ

[hack89]

14. But better spelling skills it would appear. nt

[onehandle]

7. No worries. Facebook will take up the slack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024573647

[Tikki]

11. I wonder how many of those blocked from obtaining a gun have gone on to use a gun in a crime!!!

I would like to see some kind of registry of those who have committed crimes with an illegally obtained
weapon or who have been arrested and found with illegally obtained weapons in their possession.

Kind of like a Megan's Law, but for those who have possessed illegally obtained weapons in the past.


Tikki

[AtheistCrusader]

16. The USDoJ has worked to identify where criminals got their guns.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[Tikki]

18. You can look up in available court records the stats on anyone you might be interested in…

but a registry of this particular crime would be a relief to many who are concerned about past activities
of neighbors or new acquaintances.

My neighbor may not have committed a dangerous gun crime, but I would like to know
if he/she was ever convicted for the possession of an illegally obtained weapon.

A registry beats going through all the court records just to know if he/she has a gun history.


Tikki

[mopinko]

19. i'd like to see people prosecuted for trying to buy weapons when they know the are forbidden.

iirc, trying to buy a weapon as a felon is a crime in some places.
i would at least like to see these guys get a visit from the locals asking just what they were planning to do with those guns.

[Tikki]

20. Yes, that would be an excellent idea...

I wonder if it is ever prosecuted? Add them to the registry, also.


Tikki

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Careful, someone will yell at you

for repeating NRA talking points...

[mopinko]

23. in chicago the sheriff

has been actually disarming domestic abusers. he says it has never been done.

[Tikki]

24. Many will just go out and obtain another gun illegally. If a person knew another had a history...

of illegal gun possession they might think twice before entering into a relationship with that person.

Some kind of easy way to get the info could be vital.

Tikki
ps that sheriff is doing an amazing service to his community.

[mopinko]

25. he's the same guy that stopped doing evictions.

a good progressive trying to make a difference.

[Tikki]

26. I love him…Has he any further political aspirations?…Let us know. This is kind of person I can...

support with a financial contribution.


Tikki

[mopinko]

27. he is running right now.

our primary is march 18th. coincidence? i think not.
eta-sorry, wrong thread. dart is being charged in a somewhat improbable law suit about jail conditions.


he is a good man, doing his best. he has dragged in every sort of resource he can to help inmates get their lives back together. especially working for the treatment of mental illness among the population, but also continuing those services once they get out of the jail. so many "frequent flyers" that just need a little coordinated help.

http://www.sherifftomdart.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/cook-county-sheriff-tom-dart

board president toni preckwinkle is a really good one, too. she's got that twinkle in the eye. i think she would like to come to washington.

[Tikki]

28. Oh, thank you…the more I learn about this man the more I like...

Sending him a contribution.


Tikki

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I'd like to see people prosecuted for SELLING, or otherwise transferring

guns to people who can't legally own them, in private transactions.

My guess is that this is what would really get the NRA and the gun humpers howling.

[Sgent]

34. Need a law first (Federal)

its not illegal for the seller to transfer a weapon to an illegal purchaser, unless he has specific knowledge about the situation.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Exactly.

That's why there are so damned many illegally owned guns in this country. Pass any laws like that, and the gun humpers will be screeching. Not that our lawmakers have the gonads to pass such a law.

[mopinko]

35. i am fine with making assholes sit in jail instead

of waving that gun around at someone they don't even need a gun to obliterate.

[Auntie Bush]

30. I wonder how many lives were saved?

[Shamash]

33. And this is why liberal gun owners are opposed to universal background checks

On average, felons are blocked 171 times a day.
On average, domestic abusers are blocked 48 times a day.
On average, fugitives are blocked 19 times a day.

Everyone in the above quote has:

1) committed a crime by attempting to make a firearm purchase when they are ineligible to do so
2) has just filled out a form with their verified name and address
3) the feds have been notified that they have just committed a crime by virtue of the background check

It seems to be pretty low-hanging fruit to have local law enforcement pick these people up until the feds can file charges, yet this is not being done. That means that someone (like say a Democratic Attorney General) has decided it is not worth being done. These people just walk out of the gun store and are free to pursue any other option they want about acquiring a gun illegally.

You get back to me after we enforce the existing law and see what kind of effect this has on the crime rate, and then we can talk about expanding it. Throwing new laws at a problem or expanding existing ones when you have not bothered to enforce the existing ones does not make any sense.

[Paladin]

41. Liberal gun owners favor UBC's, along with 90% of the country. Get real. (nt)

[Shamash]

42. Ah, I see

So, you are in favor of a universal background check law that will be as rigorously enforced by a Democratic administration as the current partial background check law is enforced. Got it. Can you give me a statistical breakdown of how current levels of enforcement applied to an expanded law will be more effective than my suggestion of simply enforcing the law we have now? And how legislatively speaking, it will be faster and easier to pass an expanded law through a Republican-controlled House than simply increasing enforcement of existing laws (which does not require their consent at all)? Either one of those would go a long way towards demonstrating that your idea would yield superior results to mine.

Or if you are unable to do either of those, you could just pass me some of what you're smoking.

[Paladin]

43. That "Just enforce existing laws" thing is an old NRA talking point.

Enjoy your stay.

[Shamash]

45. Well that makes it easy for you, doesn't it?

If it is just "an old NRA talking point" rather than a fact-based argument, you should be easily able to rebut it by quoting the percentage of prosecution figures for the those hundreds of thousands of felons, domestic abusers and outright fugitives who made verifiably illegal attempts to purchase guns. I mean, you wouldn't have actually denied I had a rational, fact-based argument unless you already knew the information to dispute it with, because that would have meant your snarky comment was a knee-jerk ideological response rather than a rational one. So, I'm sure you have the information already at your fingertips.

Just imagine the abject humiliation I will feel when you provide government figures showing that I'm wrong. I eagerly await your substantive response.

And yes, I will enjoy my stay. Based purely on statistical odds, I've been voting liberal longer than most people have been alive. And I do plan on sticking around a bit longer.

[sarisataka]

44. Except that nearly every man/woman

Who is a liberal gun owner is in favor of UBC. We have pointed out the 'gun show loophole' is not actually unique to gun shows but to all private sales. It is not an error of omission but was consciously included in the law. From long before Sandy Hook the majority of us have supported the changes to eliminate this problem.

No it will not be a panacea ending every illegal sale but it will put all firearm transactions under the same standard.

Enforcement is a separate issue but right now the cart is before the horse. Once all sales are legislated to the same scrutiny we can start figuring the logistics of a decent level of enforcement which will encourage private sellers to follow the improved law.

[Shamash]

46. Say what?

Enforcement is a separate issue but right now the cart is before the horse. Once all sales are legislated to the same scrutiny we can start figuring the logistics of a decent level of enforcement which will encourage private sellers to follow the improved law.

Right now we have as liberal an administration as we are likely to get for a long time. If Obama's hand-picked AG has decided that enforcing existing background check violations is not a priority, please describe in detail the "then a miracle occurs" step that causes things to magically change upon passage of a new law. It is not a matter of logistics, it is a matter of political will.

It's like liberals are more focused on the chrome rather than the engine. If all the hoopla about UBCs had been directed at Obama and Holder to enforce existing law, or a few hundred thousand or a few million of those people in favor of UBCs had signed one of those online White House petitions asking why existing laws were not being enforced, which the administration would then be obligated to make a public reply to? Think that might put a few toes in the fire and get people moving?

The original story said 171 felons and 19 fugitives per day fail the check. That's 190 per day, 69,000 per year, 350,000 missed chances to get an illegal gun buyer off the street before they can try again, in the first five years of this administration alone. And that's not even counting the domestic abusers.

So yeah, I do think that working to better enforce the existing law will generate results. And it does not require the support of a single Republican to make it happen. And think about this: If it did generate results, it would be something everyone could point to for expanding it further.

But so far, there is not a single person in this set of comments who thinks that "what we can do right now" is better than "what we might be able to do someday".

[NickB79]

47. So, 2 million felons were allowed to walk free. Great.

You are asked a series of questions on the 4473 background check form to determine if you are legally able to own a firearm. Lying on a background check form is in itself a FELONY, and the phone call to the BATF line when the form is processed will catch this and deny you the gun.

So, how many of these 2 million attempts resulted in charges filed, much less convictions?