Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
TxD
Senior Member
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: Friendswood Tx

Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby TxD » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:05 am

Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed background checks.

From the USA Today article:
WASHINGTON— Federal authorities sought to take back guns from thousands of people the background check system should have blocked from buying weapons because they had criminal records, mental health issues or other problems that would disqualify them. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... eakingnews
Black Rifles Matter

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5756
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby ELB » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:11 am

Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:52 am

ELB wrote:Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.


:iagree:

That or a mandatory gun registration scheme. "When people do something that lands them on the prohibited list, we need to have a way to ensure that we have properly confiscated all firearms they may have previously acquired. After all, no rational, sane person would ever want these dangerous lunatics to have any guns."
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22858
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby The Annoyed Man » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:13 pm

Unless they can prove that the buyer KNEW he was ineligible, the system might have failed, but he committed no crime that I’m aware of. The upshot is that, in my opinion, you can’t just seize something without compensation, when that thing was purchased in good faith. If gov’t is going to seize a gun that I bought in good faith, not knowing I was ineligible, then I expect the gov’t to refund the entire cost to me of buying that gun, including sales tax paid. Otherwise, it’s a taking, which is unconstitutional.....not to mention ain’t right.

For instance, it is easily believable (for me, anyway) that someone who has recent a bipolar disorder diagnosis and has gone off his meds (this is not at all uncommon with bipolar disorder), could easily be in such a state of denial due to his illness that he doesn’t rationally know that he is ineligible to buy a gun. Let’s say he’s on the manic swing of his disease, and his mood improves remarkably. He seems normal, even happy and energetic to those who don’t know him. (This is what happened with my friend who was bipolar, who eventually killed himself.) He decides that it would be fun to own a .22 rifle to go plinking with, so he goes to his LGS and buys a little Ruger 10/22. The NICS check goes through because his condition hasn’t been reported into the system yet. He buys the gun and takes it home.

3 weeks later, the feds show up and confiscate his gun without compensation. Is that justice? Let’s say that they go so far as to charge him with a felony. His lawyer discovers from the man’s family that he’s bipolar and was off his meds. “Your honor, yes, my client purchased a gun in violation of federal law, but he was hardly in a position of making responsible decisions. He wasn’t rational. I ask the court to drop the charges so that my client can get treatment as soon as possible instead of languishing in the prison system.” The judge agrees and dismisses the case. What about the man’s money? That might pay for a month or more of bipolar meds.....or for part of his legal fees.

A gov’t that would not compensate this man for the value taken would not be a just gov’t. I have no problem with gov’t confiscating firearms from convicted felons who shouldn’t have gotten through NICS. However, I would ALSO want to see those felons charged and tried for unlawfully purchasing a firearm. Without an insanity defense, no convicted felon can believably claim that he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to buy or possess guns. If there’s a fly in the federal ointment, it’s that they almost never charge anyone with a felony who has knowingly violated this law. If they actually DID that, there’d be a lot less of this kind of crime happening. Instead, they wait until until the convicted felon commits another felony with the gun, and then they charge him with felony possession of a firearm. They could have charged him back when he bought the gun, gotten him off the street, and prevented the commission of the other felony.

.....but that would be WAY too much efficiency to expect with the taxpayers’ dollars.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby RoyGBiv » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:46 pm

ELB wrote:Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.

Maybe.

Or... the simpler reason could be that the Trump administration has taken the path of "enforcing existing laws" (like we've been screaming for for years) in order to head off the Dems cries to make new laws that do nothing to stop the problem and only burden the law abiding.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5756
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby ELB » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:05 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:
ELB wrote:Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.

Maybe.

Or... the simpler reason could be that the Trump administration has taken the path of "enforcing existing laws" (like we've been screaming for for years) in order to head off the Dems cries to make new laws that do nothing to stop the problem and only burden the law abiding.


We will know when legislation is proposed to fix "the problem." If the solution is to ramp up resources required to complete a background check in 3 days no matter what, or to accept that a few are going to get through and the ATF is going to have to track them down, then it's "enforce existing laws."

If the proposed solution is to extend or abolish the 3 day limit, which exists exactly to prevent the government from slow-rolling NICS approvals, then...

Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.

Frankly, I don't think this effort is in any kind of pursuit of any of President Trump's goals, like enforcing existing laws. At best this banging the drum for more appropriations. There has not been any kind of transformation from the last administration at the level of the ATF that I am aware of. One of President Trump's failures is that he did not clean house at the DOJ and agency (meaning FBI, ATF, etc) levels like he should have.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby RoyGBiv » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:14 pm

ELB wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
ELB wrote:Someone is laying ground work to get the three-day approval turnaround requirement abolished.

Maybe.

Or... the simpler reason could be that the Trump administration has taken the path of "enforcing existing laws" (like we've been screaming for for years) in order to head off the Dems cries to make new laws that do nothing to stop the problem and only burden the law abiding.


We will know when legislation is proposed to fix "the problem." If the solution is to ramp up resources required to complete a background check in 3 days no matter what, or to accept that a few are going to get through and the ATF is going to have to track them down, then it's "enforce existing laws."

If the proposed solution is to extend or abolish the 3 day limit, which exists exactly to prevent the government from slow-rolling NICS approvals, then...

Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.

Frankly, I don't think this effort is in any kind of pursuit of any of President Trump's goals, like enforcing existing laws. At best this banging the drum for more appropriations. There has not been any kind of transformation from the last administration at the level of the ATF that I am aware of. One of President Trump's failures is that he did not clean house at the DOJ and agency (meaning FBI, ATF, etc) levels like he should have.

You're probably correct about it being a funding play. Hadn't considered that angle.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


rotor
Senior Member
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby rotor » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:02 pm

Shows the incompetence of the government. Can't even manage a database.


NotRPB
Senior Member
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 8:24 am

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby NotRPB » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:12 pm

I wonder how often the confiscators will hear "All mine fell out of my boat ... 'Go-Fish'"


MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby MechAg94 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:01 pm

I tend to agree with the Annoyed Man above. Unless they can prove the owner knew they were prohibited, I don't see where they have the authority to execute seizure warrants.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby K.Mooneyham » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:22 pm

Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.


Yeah, I agree, I'm sure they had other priorities. Things like "Fast and Furious" gun-walking and the botched "sting" operation in Milwaukee. How much money/resources were wasted during those debacles? How much other stuff just like those two that never came to light? How much money does the ATF waste instead of using it to take violent felons off the streets?


MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby MechAg94 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:11 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.


Yeah, I agree, I'm sure they had other priorities. Things like "Fast and Furious" gun-walking and the botched "sting" operation in Milwaukee. How much money/resources were wasted during those debacles? How much other stuff just like those two that never came to light? How much money does the ATF waste instead of using it to take violent felons off the streets?

And how much would it take to simply notify the people affected that they bought those guns illegally and they need to turn them. Offer them buy-back compensation for the gun's value. They would probably get a higher percentage of the guns back that way and spend less overall. I guess they assume raids would uncover other illegal material.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:56 pm

MechAg94 wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Note that the ATF is quoted as saying they didn't pursue one buyer whose background check subsequently failed because they "lacked resources." Hog. Wash. They simply decided other things were more important.


Yeah, I agree, I'm sure they had other priorities. Things like "Fast and Furious" gun-walking and the botched "sting" operation in Milwaukee. How much money/resources were wasted during those debacles? How much other stuff just like those two that never came to light? How much money does the ATF waste instead of using it to take violent felons off the streets?

And how much would it take to simply notify the people affected that they bought those guns illegally and they need to turn them. Offer them buy-back compensation for the gun's value. They would probably get a higher percentage of the guns back that way and spend less overall. I guess they assume raids would uncover other illegal material.


But the problem is that, without raids, how are they supposed to show off all of their tacticool military surplus gear?
Ding dong, the witch is dead


OneGun
Senior Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Houston

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby OneGun » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:09 pm

MechAg94 wrote:I tend to agree with the Annoyed Man above. Unless they can prove the owner knew they were prohibited, I don't see where they have the authority to execute seizure warrants.


The government seizes assets all time without having to charge or even allege a person committed a crime. Its called Civil Asset Forfeiture. I doubt the government will offer compensation. I expect the government will take the "its your tough luck" approach.
Annoy a Liberal, GET A JOB!


mrvmax
Senior Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:16 pm
Location: Friendswood
Contact:

Re: Fed to seize guns from people who failed background checks

Postby mrvmax » Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:34 am

This is really nothing new but it is getting a lot of attention. Let me explain, customer comes in to purchase a firearm and fills out the 4473. The NICS background check is run and comes back as delay. There is a 3 business day waiting period (which is actually 5 days since the first and last day do not count. It ends up being more during holidays but I digress). So let's suppose they came in on a Monday and it got delayed, legally I can transfer the firearm on Friday if there are no updates and it still shows delay.
The way NICS works is that the initial background check info goes to an employee at the FBI that has no access to look into someone's criminal records. They simply look for flags on the 4473 with their database and if anything pops up they give up to employees that have proper access to look into the individual (this was explained in a training class by the lady that runs NICS). So let's suppose that the customer filled out the 4473, I submit it to the FBI through E-Check and it goes to the FBI employee (or computer) looking over the 4473 and something shows up. Perhaps a person with the same name has a felony - so it goes to delay while they forward to another person who has the clearance to look into the background and see if that is this person. So they have until Friday morning to find out if this person who filled out the 4473 is a prohibited person that the have in their database, program, NCIC or whatever they use at the FBI. They then have to look into records or contact local law enforcement to verify whether or not they are prohibited. They do not always get answers back in three days for their requests. I have had some NICS checks stay open for a month.
So now we are at Friday and I tell Joe Blow to pick up his handgun, legally I can transfer it. Joe Blow picks it up and I never see him again. Two days later NICS gets a response to their request and find out Joe Blow had a stalking complaint (or arrest or dishonorable military discharge or anything else disqualifying). So NICS changes the status (which was "open") to "deny" and call me and ask if I transferred the firearm to Joe Blow. I tell them I transferred after 3 days like I legally can and that Jow Blow now has the firearm. NICS contacts ATF to retrieve the firearm since Joe Blow was a prohibited person. Keep in mind that although an FFL can transfer after three days if they do and the person ends up being prohibited and ends up committing a crime the media will try to ruin that FFL with all the negative attention. I think this is why places like Academy will not transfer until they get a "proceed".
So now let's talk about those that are prohibited. I have had a handful of deny status since I have been selling firearms and not one of those people did not know they were prohibited. One guy asked me after getting denied if I think that the felony he had as a teenager was still on his record. Yes, he really asked that. Another guy had a family related charge for assault that he "thought wouldn't have shown up". Those that are prohibited know it when they fill out the 4473. From what I see this is not the case of the government trying to seize guns. If someone were committed to a mental institution they know they were and they are responsible for reading the 4473 and knowing what they are signing. I have had people who were not sure if they qualified ask me and I refer them to an attorney (it is normally people who have had problems as a teenager and think the charges can no longer be seen or should have been dropped). I do not see this as a gun grab but normal business as usual.


Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jimd1981 and 2 guests