The Brady Law, By The Numbers

The U.S. Department of Justice just released Brady background check figures for 2006, and they show continued success for this life-saving law:

Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone.

Nearly 40% of the denials in 2006 involved individuals with felony records attempting to purchase firearms. (In fact, 6 out of every 1,000 applications in 2006 were made by felons.)

From 1999-2006, 183,714 NICS denials were appealed, or 15.5% of total denials during that period (almost 1.2 million), and of those appeals, only 65,695, or about 5.5% of total denials, were reversed.

Even in 2006 - 12 years after enactment of the Brady Law - over 125,000 people prohibited under Federal law from buying guns tried to buy weapons from licensed gun dealers. That includes felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others.

Despite arguments from the NRA that gun control laws only affect "law-abiding Americans," the statistics above show that criminals and other dangerous people often do try to buy guns from licensed gun dealers, and background checks instituted as part of the Brady "Gun Control" Law do stop these sales and do lead to arrests.

At present, however, the Brady Law requires only Federally licensed firearms dealers (FFL's) to run background checks for the firearms they sell. Unlicensed sellers don't have to run any checks at all, and gun shows, with their built-in customer base and changing venues, provide some of the best opportunities for prohibited purchasers to buy guns. (Watch this investigative news video to see how it works.)

One issue that comes up when I discuss our efforts to extend background checks to all sales - including at gun shows - is who should have access to the NICS database, and exactly how unlicensed sellers should be expected to run background checks on gun buyers.

As the state of California has shown, the process is simple. In that state, a background check is required for every sale, with no exceptions. For every unlicensed sale, buyers and sellers find an FFL to run the background check for them. At gun shows, usually there's one at a nearby booth. Sometimes the FFL charges a nominal fee for running the check. After the background check comes back as approved, the sale can be completed.

Have gun shows been harmed by this law? The answer is clearly "no." In fact, one recent study shows "that gun shows can be regulated ... without greatly diminishing attendance or commercial activity." In fact, when compared to shows in nearby states, "the number of attendees per gun vendor was higher in California," even though comparison states had larger shows.

The same process, by the way, would work for any unlicensed sale. If somebody wants to sell one of their guns to a neighbor, all they both would have to do is find the nearest FFL - usually a gun store - to get the background check run and finish their transaction. Obviously, Federal law enforcement authorities do not want just anyone accessing and possibly corrupting the Federal database.

We go through required governmental filings and approvals when we buy a house or a car - even with private sales. All gun sales have important public safety implications which should justify the minimal intrusion of a background check.

This should not be controversial. Nobody wants dangerous people to get their hands on dangerous weapons, and one of the ways we prevent this is to require background checks for all gun purchases.

As Senator John McCain said in 2000 in endorsing efforts to close this loophole: "Convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows because of a loophole in the law. Many were later used in crimes. That's wrong."

The real question our lawmakers should be asking is, with about 40% of all guns sold in America coming from unlicensed sellers, how many more prohibited purchasers would a stronger Brady Law be catching?

A little "red tape" at the time of a gun sale should help us see less police "yellow tape" at crime scenes in the future.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[molonlabe]

During the Heller arguments, the anti's argued that there was no evidence suggesting that a handgun is a better self defense weapon than a rifle/shotgun. Now, even though the Heller case specifically deals with home protection, this story made me think about the issue in every day situations where law-abiding citizens could encounter a self-defense scenario:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/driver-found-shot-in-freeway-wreck/20080331075509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Now, aside from the issue of this happending in the Brady's utopian A-rated state of Kalifornia (how does gun violence continue in a state with such draconian gun control laws?), could you imagine trying to defend yourself from within your vehicle with a rifle or a shotgun?

[mike101]

"During the Heller arguments, the anti's argued that there was no evidence suggesting that a handgun is a better self defense weapon than a rifle/shotgun."


People who nothing about guns, should not be trying to make gun-laws. It's dangerous.

Generally speaking, a rifle is not an ideal choice for a home-defense gun. Ever hear of 'over-penetration', anti-gunners? That's when the bullet goes through the bad guy, through the wall behind him, through poor Uncle Ned reading the paper in the next room, through the wall behind him, through the cat, and into the brand new flat-screen. That's pretty much guaranteed to happen with most rifles.

Of course, after one or two cases of this happening, they would be trying to ban rifles.

[Sneaky]

I could make a strong case for a rifle as an ideal home-defense gun, especially in calibers 5.45 and 5.56, and especially out of an AR platform. I see what you're saying, but you should probably specify things like "in terms of cost" and "in terms of manual of arms" and things like that. A rifle's no good out of a car (usually), but at home it's king.

[shedances]

There's still anger against background checks by those progunners who feel the system takes too long, and is accordingly unjust. I checked into this. The time period for determination is actually pretty quick.

"According to GAO, about 72% of the NICS checks handled by the FBI resulted in immediate determinations of eligibility. Of the remaining 28% that resulted in a non-definitive response, neither a "proceed" nor a denial, 80% were turned around in two hours. The remaining 29% of delayed transactions took hours or days for the NICS examiners to reach a final determination ... In many cases, firearm transfers were delayed because there was an outstanding charge without a final disposition against the person seeking to purchase a firearm (Source: GAO Report GGD/AIMD-00-64, Gun Control: Implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

And, good stats from the early years of the Brady Act:

From the inception of the Brady Act in March 1994 - Nov. 1998 ~ "approximately 312,000 handgun applications were rejected as a result of conventional background checks ... During its first 7 months ... the NICS processed over 4.7 million background checks. Due to NICS checks, transfers of firearms were denied to over 100,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons. In addition, NICS background checks conducted by the FBI and the State POCs (point of contact) have led to the apprehension and arrest of several wanted felons," (USDOJ, Office of Justice Statistics, June 1999, revised 2000).

[Sneaky]

Maybe it's seen as unjust because 36% of those denied are repealed because they were wrong? Maybe? Or maybe it's because of those 1.5 million denied only .7% of them have actually been arrested, and no numbers offered on how many have been prosecuted/convicted?

Nobody cares about how long the NICS takes, and nobody is judging it unfair because of that specifically. Focus, Kelli, focus.

[shedances]

Are you an optician, sneaky ... or an illusionist with a dangling watch? LOL. I'd recommend you turn around, and read/listen to what your gunpeers have said & written. Then you'll (probably) understand my prior post. Until then, enjoy your tricks.

Kelli

[fishyjay]

Shedances: "There's still anger against background checks by those progunners who feel the system takes too long, and is accordingly unjust."

But not at much anger as from those otherwise moderate gunowners such as myself, who know that gun control advocates such as the Brady group have RENEGED on the Brady Law compromise establishing NICS by pushing for reinstatement of a mandatory waiting period. Shedances, your trying to reassure us that "the time period for determination is actually pretty quick" is meaningless unless you first REJECT the position of the Brady group, which is replacement of NICS with a mandatory waiting period. Well?

[edutilos]

Seriously...?

So you mean to say that we've found "a" reasonable measure, that works most of the time, but to try and improve upon said system, is...what? Wrong? To TRY and make it better is in itself, "meaningless"?

Glad we didn't use your silly logic when someone devised the abacus, or the computer (as we know it) would've never been developed. "Ahhh...it's good enough!?"

[ladyshooter]

Kelli has not dealt with identity theft, a growing crime problem. Criminals may resort to stealing the identity of a law-abiding citizen, as a means of fooling the system. Furthermore, because of identity theft, law enforcement officials may reject the purchase by a law-abiding citizen. Why? Criminals have been known to assume the names of honest citizens, to cover their depredations. When they are caught, the criminal's use, of an assumed name, will tend to besmirch the reputation of honest citizen.

Kelli does not like this, but the easiest way, to identify habitual violent offenders, is to tatoo their foreheads with "VIOLENT FELON".

[Mark0]

"There's still anger against background checks by those progunners who feel the system takes too long, and is accordingly unjust. I checked into this. The time period for determination is actually pretty quick. "

I just went through the process yesterday. It took less than five minutes.

Many "progunners" espouse no "anger" regarding background checks.
Kelli is simply attempting to paint people who own guns in the least positive light.

What many "progunners" do not like is the continuous cries from certain groups and individuals for more laws that incrementally encroach upon the rights of only certain groups of people; laws that in truth are ineffective at diminishing violence, and sought largely as punishment against those who have committed no crime but do not hold the same beliefs as the criers. It is a mild form of discrimination.

It seems that many of the loudest criers do not even abide by the standards they beset as necessary for others.

[mike101]

A blog or two back someone posted the figure for gun show guns actually used in crime. It was something like 1%. Stop trying to make a big deal out of it Paul. It isn't.

[mike101]

Well, what if I want to present a gun as a gift to a friend or relative?

It depends on what state you live in.

[fishyjay]

Paul Helmke: As the state of California has shown, the process is simple. Have gun shows been harmed by this law? The answer is clearly "no."

Helmke fails to mention that California gun control advocates CONTINUE to harrass and attempt to ban gun shows in California, despite having no "gun show loophole." Thus the first step in attempting to close the "gun show loophole" elsewhere needs to be Paul Helmke and the Brady group OPPOSING all attempts to harrass and ban gun shows in states that have already closed the "gun show loophole."

[fishyjay]

I was a supporter of the original Brady Law since I was all about compromise and the Brady Law was a good example of compromise. The waiting period was temporary, to be replaced by Instant Check, and Instant Check records were to be destroyed after use and not kept longer for registration purposes. However, since then gun control advocates such as the Brady group have RENEGED on the Brady Law compromise by pushing for reinstatement of a mandatory waiting period and by pushing for longer retention of Instant Check records for registration purposes. While I still support the Brady Law, I would be reluctant to support any expansion to other types of sales due to the demonstrated UNTRUSTWORTHINESS of gun control advocates such as the Brady group.

[jrockbg]

Guns and gun laws are an odd issue in this country. There are card carrying NRA members like me who...in theory...are open to sensible gun legislation. But our problem is that we feel the ultimate agenda of gun legislation zealots is to eradicate ALL guns.

I don''t know how to solve the issue. I guess if I had assurances that certain gun rights would never be infringed, I would cease my resistance to ALL gun legislation. Its hard to explain, but the concept that ordinary Americans would not be allowed to own a gun is not acceptable by any means.

[edutilos]

"...are open to sensible gun legislation"

Alright then, please by all means, answer the challenge proposed prior...

Given the "reasonable" clause, what would YOU do, given the authority, to further legislate/regulate/control (or whatever your term may be) and/or temper the swelling issue of gun violence? Please, enlighten us...

I'll admit the Brady Law might have some flaws, but short of quitting outright, what would you suggest be done that either has not been tried or is not already on the books? (Of note, anything that includes "leave us alone. We have the right to own Stingers" shall be dismissed as foolish and naive!)

[SnowflakesInHell]

The fact that 36% of appeals had the denial reversed doesn't raise concerns about how accurate some of the data in the system is? A lot of people who are prohibited from owning a firearm aren't always hardened criminals. I recall the case of a young man who was denied by NICS for a felony conviction. His crime? He swapped dash boards on a car, and didn't switch the VIN plates. Got charged with VIN/Odometer fraud, was offered a plea in exchange for no jail time. He was unaware he had plead to a felony. Most attorneys who practice gun law can go on for hours with stories like this. People convicted of violent crimes can and should be barred from owning guns, but the truth is we have no idea how many of the 1.5 million NICS denials represent people with truly violent criminal backgrounds.

Pennsylvania outlaws private sales for handguns, much like you mentioned in California, but I would note that hasn't stopped gun control advocates from calling for even further restrictions on the lawful sale of firearms in Pennsylvania, despite the fact that the existing laws are doing nothing to reduce violence in Philadelphia. Even California, touted as the state with the best gun laws by the Brady Campaign, ranks #11 in terms of per-capita violent crime.

[shedances]

This issue of background checks isn't about being a "hardened criminal," snowetc. But I suspect you already knew that, as you put together your comment. I too have empathy for those who get into trouble with the law (at least, certain groups of offenders...); however, there's a valid reason why convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing guns. If you think it should be different, then what is your proposal ... what is your measure of 'responsible gun ownership' when it comes to ex-convicts who served time for a felony?

I'm all ears.

[SnowflakesInHell]

I'm not questioning that people can't or shouldn't be denied fundamental constitutional rights through due process of law. But I question whether it serves any reasonable public safety purpose to prohibit people who were found guilty of non-violent crimes.

Like the the example I mentioned above, or in the fact that, say, importing lobsters in the wrong kind of bag is considered a felony. I don't question that violent criminals should lose all their second amendment protections, and that if the Brady Act is preventing those people from getting guns that's a good thing. But how many of the denials were for non-violent criminals? You need to know that information before you can determine whether the Brady Act is preventing criminals from obtaining guns to use in the commission of crimes. Paul would love people to imagine that all those 1.5 million denials were to hardened robbers, gang members, rapists, thugs and murderers, but we don't know that is the case. There's a lot of people with non-violent stuff in their past that are prohibited from possessing firearms, not just felons, but people with misdemeanor convictions too, that don't realize that they are when they go to purchase.

[texpine]

Paul, I guess you will have to call me a "Barbarian"...I firmly believe ALL Gun Laws should be enforced to the max. When I say max I mean upon coviction the Judge has no leeway in what the penalty is. Yes, there are people who should not be able to own a firearm of any type. It really sets me off when some Drug Crazed Sleezoid does something stupid with a Gun and a whinning little Wanker someplace wants to punish me for it by making it harder to own a Gun leagally but doesn't want a harsh penalty for the perpetrator. In fact let's not limit new Legislation to Gun Crime but to "Crimes of Violence", be it a Gun, Baseball Bat, Screwdriver, Fist & Feet etc.! If you violate someone's Civil Rights by an act of Violence, upon conviction you should forfit all your own rights. Let's face it, the Police as much as I respect them, can't protect you. If you think they can, ask yourself why you have Locks on all your Doors & Windows and mabey other security devices in your home. In a word, Yes, let's expand the Brady bill to also include a Nation Right to Carry Concealed in all 50 states. If you check out as a Law Abiding citizen under the Brady Bill then there is no reason to prohibit you from carrying a gun anywhere in the United States!....If you gonna do it, do it right!

[SnowflakesInHell]

What about gun laws that make it a felony to add one too many foreign parts into your US made rifle. What's the count of foreign parts in your rifles? Do you know? Will putting in a smoother trigger group make the count go too high? Should these laws be enforced "to the max"?

[texpine]

Excellent point! If it makes you THINK, then my comment was "On Target" (pun intended) First thing I said was that I was Barbaric!.....
Outstanding! Far too many people out there don't know the difference between a Semi-Auto and a Full-Auto any more than they know the difference between a Carpenter's Hammer and a Framing Hammer. The penalty is set by Legislation. Yes, there is such a thing as Bad Legislation!

[ladyshooter]

Presently, many jurisdictions have laws requiring the imposition of mandatory additional minimum sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in a crime of violence. That means the judge has no choice, the mandatory sentence must be imposed.

[kaveman]

Let's do some math, OK

"Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone."

The numbers were dealing with are from 1994-2006, a 12 year period.

Let's assume that the number of denials are evenly distributed during the time frame listed.

1.5 million divided by 12 is 125,000 denials per year.

The time frame of 1999-2006 is 7 years.

7 times 125,000 is 875,000.

Of those 875,000 denials, 11,058 were arrested. NOTE: You failed to provide any stats on how many convictions resulted from those arrests.

11,058 divided by 875,000 and multiplied by 100 gives us the percentage of people who were arrested for the felony committed.

1.26%

Think about this for a sec. The dealer has in his possesion the name, address, social security #, height, weight, drivers license, left and right thumb prints and the signature of the prohibited person on the form 4473.

How hard would this case be to presecute. This is a cake walk for any District Attorney. Signed confession with prints.

Yet only 1.26 of denials lead to even an arrest, let alone actual conviction, as stated before.

This is pathetic and this is the truth.

[Sneaky]

Kaveman... Paul really just said that only .7372% (yes, that's seven tenths of a percent) of those turned down by the NICS were arrested. I wonder how many of that less than one percent of people arrested were actually convicted...

[Republicnotademocracy]

Well, what if I want to present a gun as a gift to a friend or relative?