Stop the presses.  Hell has frozen over!  Well, maybe not frozen over, but a cold front certainly moved through.  The New York Times published an op-ed by John Lott critical of the government's background check system for firearm purchases.  Lott notes the incredibly high numbers of false positives that hamstring law-abiding residents in their efforts to exercise their constitutional rights.


Background Checks Are Not the Answer to Gun Violence

With each mass shooting, calls rise from gun control advocates for tighter rules on firearms. The go-to policy prescription involves background checks. But a measure passed by the House and being considered in the Senate to expand the National Instant Criminal Background Check System would not only fail to fix major flaws in the system but would also probably introduce new ones.

Lawmakers from both parties acknowledge that errors in the background check system let felons obtain guns, as we saw when a deranged man, [Scumbag’s name redacted], killed 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., in November. The killer, while in the Air Force, had been convicted of domestic violence in 2012, involuntarily committed to a mental health care center and given a bad conduct discharge. Yet the Air Force failed to follow policies to ensure that his conviction was reported to federal law enforcement, which allowed the killer to pass the check. The military has failed to report other such cases.

The background check measures before Congress aim to improve enforcement of existing law and increase such reporting by imposing financial penalties on government officials whose agencies fail to provide required information. That’s a good goal, but any proposal should also fix another major problem with the background check system: false positives that stop law-abiding people from getting weapons that they might need to protect themselves and their families.

The background check system confuses the names of law-abiding individuals with those of criminals, resulting in thousands of “false positives” every year. Relying on phonetically similar names along with birth dates just doesn’t allow for much accuracy.

Ronnie Coleman, a Virginia resident, was not allowed to buy a gun in 2012 because another person from his hometown in Texas who had a felony conviction also had a name and birth date “close enough” to his to cause a denial. Mr. Coleman was advised to get a unique transaction number from the background system to prevent this confusion in the future, adding another bureaucratic step to the process.

Between 2006 to 2010, the last period for which more comprehensive annual data on the denial of firearm applications by the background check system are available, there were 377,283 denials. But the federal government prosecuted only 460 of those cases, leading to 209 convictions, mostly on charges of providing false information. There was a similarly small number of state prosecutions resulting from the gun purchase denials.

Why didn’t more of those denials lead to perjury prosecutions? According to my analysis, the reason is simple: a high percentage of cases are dropped because the applicant was wrongly denied clearance to buy a gun.

Many of those people are trying to buy guns to protect themselves. “This incredibly high rate of false positives imposes a real burden on the most vulnerable people,” said Reagan Dunn, the first national coordinator for Project Safe Neighborhoods, a Justice Department program started in 2001 to ensure gun laws are enforced.

The system also does a poor job of accounting for people who have had their rights to buy a firearm taken away and then restored. In the 1990s, Frank Wise of Jacksonville Beach, Fla., was convicted of check fraud after his employer went bankrupt. When his paycheck bounced, two checks he sent to his mortgage company also bounced. Nearly 20 years later, Mr. Wise was able to get his record cleared, but that information wasn’t entered into the background check system for three years. Getting this fixed cost him $3,600 in legal fees.

Even more people would face such problems if background checks were made “universal,” meaning to include the private sale or transfer of firearms, which are exempt from checks in most states. Many people consider this a common-sense policy, but there would be a cost: Background checks involve fees that drive up the price of guns in private sales and make it harder for poor people to defend themselves.

Read the rest at the NY Times

3 thoughts on “A ‘LOTT’ OF TRUTH: Background Checks Are Not the Answer to Gun Violence”
  1. I get infuriated when I see the phrase "gun violence"!  Guns do not cause violence, guns cannot cause violence, the proper phrase should be "CRIMINAL violence". The term "gun violence" is the anti-gun leftists term intended to focus violence upon gun ownership and use while diminishing the responsibility of the actual perpetrator, the criuminal, because of their desire to criminalize guns, gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

    Please, please, please, …. those who believe in our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, STOP parroting the leftists' phrase "gun violence"! When I watch a news program that uses this disgusting phrase, I yell at the TV  "CRIMINAL VIOLENCE" knowing no onne will hear me but it is my reaction to the fake news perps.

    1. Perhaps because the 15yo posing with the legally owned rifle did not have permission from the owner to "handle" the rifle? Perhaps because the 15yo posing with the rifle included a threat in the picture/video? Perhaps because the 15yo posing with the rifle already had negative interactions with law enforcment?

      If you have ever been to a gun shop or to a gun show in Ill-anoy you are required to show you current FOID card before you can hold and handle any firearm. You can't get a FOID card if you are under 18yo., maybe that is part of the reason he was charged?

      Law enforcement are finding more stupid criminals on fakebook and "social media" now because of the dimwit criminals "posting" their illegal antics for the world to see.

Comments are closed.