So far we have 68,000 gun laws that are not stopping criminals from getting guns. We have random and capricious enforcement of many of those laws in many areas. We have in excess of 300,000,000 guns in this nation with roughly 90 million law abiding gun owners. We already know the existing gun laws don't work. Chicago, Detroit, D.C., etc..... All of them have draconian gun laws. They all have high gun crime rates, much higher than most other places in the US. Where is gun ownership highest? That would be rural areas. Where is gun crime lowest? That would be rural areas.
Now lets look at actual prosecutions based in firearms background checks. From the FBI website there have been 100 million background checks with 700,000 denials. At first blush that looks like a decent track record. Unfortunately it isn't. That is a 0.7% denial rate. Now lets look at why the denials are occurring. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/r ... 100313.pdf
This will get you to the proper page for listed denials by the FBI.
I would like to note here that the number on this page does not match the 700,000 number from the FBI NICS check home page. There is a reason! What is that reason? One of the largest reasons for denials is based in someone having the same name. The fact they live across the country, etc.... doesn't change their denial. That is infringement of their rights the second it happens. Approximately 1 percent of all background checks are denied based on the information on federal denial.
Now looking deeper you see that in 2002, & 2003 the FBI forwarded 7,030 cases where a prohibited person recieved their firearm and 121,909 cases where the standard denial occurred.
Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Report Number I-2004-006
Since 1998, the ATF has made progress in screening standard denial cases referred by the FBI. However, we found that the Brady Operations Branch and the ATF division offices were still referring standard denial cases to the ATF field offices that lacked prosecutorial merit, thereby increasing the workload of already overburdened field investigators and delaying the investigation of prosecutable cases. Cases without prosecutorial merit were being referred due to the lack of sufficient USAO prosecutorial guidelines, inadequate screening by some ATF divisions, inadequate communication, and insufficient training and guidance.
The Brady Operations Branch was using broad guidelines synthesized from jurisdiction-specific guidelines prepared by multiple USAOs. As a result, ATF division office personnel were required to perform additional screening using more specific individual USAO guidelines in order to determine whether a case merited investigation. Further, we found that the ATF had not allocated sufficient resources to the Brady Operations Branch to enable it to fully execute its responsibilities. Insufficient staffing resulted in extensive NICS case backlogs, which delayed the referral process and affected the timeliness of investigations. Also, the ATF had not provided funds for technological modifications of its case tracking and referral system to improve the operational efficiency of the Brady Operations Branch.
Our review also found that few NICS cases are prosecuted. During CYs 2002 and 2003, only 154 (less than 1 percent) of the 120,000 persons who were denied during the NICS background check were prosecuted. Historically, USAOs have been unsuccessful in achieving convictions in many of these cases and consequently have been unwilling to expend their limited resources on prosecuting most NICS cases.
The ATF Does Not Always Make Timely Firearms Retrievals
We identified delays in retrieving firearms in 65 of the 188 cases (35 percent) we reviewed for which investigations were completed. In 28 of these 65 cases (43 percent), it took from four months to over a year to retrieve the firearm. We identified a number of reasons for these delays:
The Brady Operations Branch did not have the technological capability to transfer the delayed denials directly to the field and satellite offices, and instead routed the denials through the division NICS coordinators. Not all NICS coordinators were timely in forwarding these denials to the field offices.
Insufficient staffing at some ATF field and satellite offices made it difficult for special agents to investigate the large volume of labor-intensive NICS cases in addition to conducting other high-priority investigations, such as those involving firearms trafficking, explosives, and arsons. In addition, the large geographic territories some of the field offices cover make retrieving a firearm a time-consuming process.
ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly.
The ATF had not established timeliness standards for retrieving firearms and did not track the retrieval process.
These delays increase the risk that prohibited persons may use the illegally obtained firearm to harm others or to otherwise commit a crime. In one of our sampled cases, for instance, the prohibited person fired the weapon at another person's car and was subsequently charged by local law enforcement with aggravated assault.
ATF Field Offices Receive Too Many Standard Denial Cases That Are Unlikely to Be Prosecuted
The case management system used by the Brady Operations Branch does not identify cases by USAO jurisdiction. Therefore, the Brady Operations Branch applied broad guidelines rather than guidelines specific to particular USAOs when screening cases for prosecutorial merit. The result is that too many standard denial cases without prosecutorial merit are referred to the divisions and field offices. The case management system also cannot route referrals directly to the field investigators, thereby delaying retrievals. If the case management system was modified to identify cases by USAO jurisdiction and allow direct referrals to the field offices, the Brady Operations Branch could screen standard denials using specific USAO guidelines and then refer cases with prosecutorial merit directly to the field investigators, bypassing the NICS coordinators. This would eliminate the need for NICS coordinators to perform additional screening and therefore should improve the timeliness of the referrals to the field offices.
Our review identified other reasons why the field offices were receiving an excessive number of standard denial referrals that were not likely to be prosecuted:
The USAOs had not provided sufficient prosecutorial guidelines. We found that of the 25 USAOs included in our review, 8 had not provided written prosecutorial guidelines to the ATF. Of the 17 guidelines, 1 was not sufficiently specific to identify cases likely to result in successful prosecutions.
Not all ATF division offices screened NICS cases before forwarding them to a field office. We found that the NICS coordinators at 6 (35 percent) of the 17 division offices that receive referrals from the Brady Operations Branch were not screening referrals for prosecutorial merit.2 At these locations, the field offices had the burden of screening the cases.
The NICS coordinators lacked training and written guidance. The ATF had not held a NICS coordinator training conference since 2000. That conference was attended by only 6 of the 17 current coordinators who regularly receive NICS referrals. Further, the ATF had not provided the NICS coordinators with standardized written guidance on procedures for screening referrals.
The Brady Operations Branch was unnecessarily forwarding alien cases to the division offices. The GCA generally prohibits illegal and nonimmigrant aliens from possessing firearms. The Brady Operations Branch routinely refers NICS cases involving denials for aliens to the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, we found that the Brady Operations Branch also forwarded alien cases to the ATF division offices. The division and field offices often closed these cases without investigation because they did not involve other prohibiting factors. Our sample of 200 standard referrals included 22 alien cases, none of which contained any other prohibiting factors such as criminal records.
ATF field personnel did not provide feedback to the Brady Operations Branch or the NICS coordinators on referrals that did not meet USAO prosecutorial guidelines. We found that the division office NICS coordinators did not forward to the field offices 36 to 95 percent of the standard denial referrals they received from the Brady Operations Branch. In addition, several of the field office group supervisors told us that they did not investigate the majority of the referrals they received from their NICS coordinators. In both these of situations, the field office group supervisors failed to communicate to the NICS coordinators and the NICS coordinators failed to communicate to the Brady Operations Branch that these types of cases lacked prosecutorial merit. In the absence of specific prosecutorial guidelines, it is particularly important for the field investigators to provide feedback to the NICS coordinators or the Brady Operations Branch on the categories of referrals not being investigated. The information could have been used to reduce the number of cases without prosecutorial merit that they refer to the field offices.
Some Denied Persons Are Subsequently Determined by the ATF Not to Be Prohibited
We found that 69 (35 percent) of the 197 delayed denials and 16 (8 percent) of the 200 standard denials that we sampled were applicants who subsequently were found not to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. This situation occurred for several reasons: (1) the subject's firearm rights had been restored under state law, (2) the subject's prohibition for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence did not meet the federal criteria, or (3) a protective order had expired or was about to expire.
Erroneous denials in which a person is found not to be prohibited cannot always be prevented or detected easily. These denials are usually due to incomplete information in the states' automated criminal history records and require the ATF to review states' records to determine whether prohibiting factors exist.
What does all this mean? The FBI and ATF are not handling things according to the law. They are enforcing the exising laws in a sloppy and poorly managed way. Amazingly a country that is 17 trillion in debt can't afford to properly train or fund the very people we rely on to enforce the existing background check laws. Now you think we are going to do better with more laws? They will suddenly be enforced properly and completely? Are you kidding here? Criminals do not go to gun stores to buy guns. They get them on the street from other criminals who either stole them, or are illegally selling them to criminals knowingly. Which makes that person a criminal in and of itself.
My answer to your questions as to wether or not we need background checks is a simple no. There should be no background checks. Criminals will always get guns one way or another. Background checks are not stopping that from happening. You are inconveniencing and tramping the rights of every legal gun buyer for no good reason.
Insanity : When people or organizations repeat the same process over and over with failed results, yet keep expecting the results
Stupidity : When people see insanity at work and then think you should add more regulation to the failed process.
Sooner or later you have to step back and go wait a minute. This has failed we need to do something else. That something else is usually the opposite of what you have bee doing. For example 17 trillion in debt. Instead of borrowing more you would as an intelligent person choose to live within your means or better yet below them and pay off your debts. In that case of guns and background checks you would get rid of them. They are a billion dollar boondoggle that does nothing.