Connect with us

Politics

How do gun background checks work? A look at the current system

Published

on

In the wake of the mass shooting at a Florida high school earlier this month, President Trump is seemingly open to strengthening federal background checks for gun purchases.

“While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Sunday.

Sanders said the president has spoken to Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, about a bill to “improve federal compliance with criminal background check legislation.”

Trump has said on social media he wants to “be strongly pushing comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on Mental Health.” He’s also said tackling background checks is an issue that needs both Republican and Democratic support.

During an emotional listening session at the White House this week with parents and students impacted by school violence, Trump promised to be “very strong on background checks.”

Here’s a look at how the federal background check system currently works, and what experts and activists have to say about it. 

What happens when you want to purchase a gun?

In order to purchase a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL), a consumer must provide identification and pass a federal background check using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ 4473 form.

The first page of the document requires basic information, including the buyer’s full name, address, sex, birthday and ethnicity. A Social Security number is encouraged, but not required.

The form also asks the buyer about criminal background, immigration status and mental health — information that could result in a consumer being denied. Those questions include:

  • Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
  • Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?
  • Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?
  • Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Lying on the federal form is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, an ATF spokesperson confirmed to Fox News. That penalty is also listed at the top of the form.

Once the form is completed, the dealer will submit it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) online or by phone. Then, almost immediately, the licensed seller will know how to continue with the sale:

  • Proceed: If NICS indicates the seller can proceed, then the sale can continue.
  • Canceled or Denied: Should NICS mark the form as “canceled” or “denied,” the seller cannot legally sell the firearm to the buyer. Michael Smith, the vice president of marketing and media for Upstate Armory Group, a firearm dealer in Simpsonville, S.C., told Fox News he generally provides the customer with contact information for a local lawyer who handles restoration of firearm rights in case the failed background check is erroneous. There have been times police have arrived at the gun shop to arrest the customer who legally cannot purchase a gun, Smith said.
  • Delayed: If the background check elicits a “delayed” response from NICS, the seller cannot complete the transaction for at least three business days. Unless a specific “denied” designation is issued, the seller will be able to complete the transaction with the customer after that period elapses, under federal law.

Even before a 4473 form is filled out, Robbie Wheaton, vice president of the Wheaton Arms Inc. gun shop in Piedmont, S.C., said he takes note of the customer. If a customer seems to be intoxicated or “shady” – talking, for instance, about a cheating spouse – dealers don’t have to sell that person a gun.

“A shop has a final right to say ‘no’ based on a person’s behavior whether they will sell a firearm to them or not.”

– Robbie Wheaton, vice president of Wheaton Arms Inc. in South Carolina

“As a federal firearms licensee, we have the right to be able to refuse the transfer of firearms to someone,” Wheaton told Fox News. “A shop has a final right to say ‘no’ based on a person’s behavior whether they will sell a firearm to them or not.”

Smith praised the background check system, as it can flag other discrepancies for sellers, such as an age issue.

South Carolina law, for example, prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing a long gun (such as an AR-15) and anyone under 21 from buying a pistol, handgun or other firearm, he said. The background check can prevent sellers, particularly at hectic gun shows, from accidentally selling a firearm to someone who isn’t of age, Smith said.

Why do I have to complete the background check?

Thanks to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the FBI created the NICS in 1998. The system is supposed to instantaneously let a firearms dealer know whether a buyer is legally allowed to purchase the gun.

According to the FBI, more than 230 million checks have been made by cashiers prior to a purchase and more than 1.3 million denials have been issued since the system was put in place.

Is this process the same in every state?

No.

In South Carolina, for example, consumers who already have a concealed weapons permit do not need to go through a background check in order to purchase a firearm in the state, multiple dealers in the Palmetto State told Fox News.

Also, state laws may be superseded by federal law. The 4473 form asks consumers about marijuana use. Those who use the drug, in states where recreational or medicinal use is legal, will be denied a firearm, Wheaton said.

In Hawaii, after the first legal medicinal marijuana dispensary opened in the state in 2017, local law enforcement agencies asked users who are also gun owners to turn in their firearms within 30 days, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.

Is this system strong enough?

It depends on who you ask.

Jonas Oransky, the deputy legal director of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger gun control, praised the background check system but said it has “significant gaps.”

Specifically, Oransky’s organization points to a “private sale loophole.” Federal law requires licensed dealers to complete background checks, but people can also purchase guns from a private seller – such as a friend or through online classifieds websites like ArmsList.com. (ArmsList.com prompts users to “accept” a terms of use document, which acknowledges the website doesn’t certify or investigate transactions and instructs users not to use the site for “illegal purposes.”)

“It doesn’t matter necessarily if people are selling at scale,” Oransky told Fox News. “It’s not that all sellers are dangerous or devious, but buyers who know that they can skip the background check can look for an unlicensed seller.”

Wheaton, who has been in the firearms business full time since 2007, said he and other licensed sellers try to persuade customers to transfer guns through a licensed dealer so a background check can be conducted.

Oransky also pointed to the so-called “Charleston loophole,” which allows dealers to sell guns to a customer before a background check is completed – when NICS marks a document “delayed” but does not approve or deny it within three business days. He said a disproportionate number of buyers who obtain a gun before a background check is completed are domestic abusers, citing complex records and restraining orders that investigators need additional time to read through or discuss with the appropriate local law enforcement agency.

“The FBI should have the time they need to complete a background check. It’s more important than expediting sales to people who shouldn’t have a gun,” he said.

On the other hand, Second Amendment advocates argue that the background check system already does too much.

“We don’t think it’s proper for people to have to prove their innocence to the government in order to exercise their God-given right,” Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, a Virginia-based gun rights nonprofit, told Fox News.

“Our rights are listed in the Bill of Rights for a reason,” he continued. “People’s rights are being infringed upon and it’s resulting – in some cases – in death and in other cases extreme inconvenience in being able to purchase firearms.”

Pratt also said the background check system doesn’t do its job, as several of the more recent mass shooters in the U.S., including the suspect in the fatal shooting of 17 people in Parkland, Fla., were able to pass background checks.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter @K_Schallhorn.



Source link

Politics

EU's devastating role in triggering Black Wednesday laid bare – 'Torpedoed the pound!'

Published

on

THE UK was plunged into an economic crisis in September 1992 and an expert has claimed the EU was partly to blame for triggering the financial crash.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Budget 2021: Sunak blasted for 'wasteful' freeports plan

Published

on

BUDGET 2021 saw Chancellor Rishi Sunak unveil fiscal policy support designed to help the country weather the final months of lockdown and beyond. However, one of his policies, an extension of “freeports”, has been branded a “wasteful” use of taxpayer money.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge says states acted too late to ratify Equal Rights Amendment

Published

on

WASHINGTON — A federal district court judge ruled late Friday that recent state votes to ratify the proposed Equal Rights Amendment came too late to make it part of the Constitution.

The ruling was a defeat for ERA supporters and the three states that asked the judge to declare that the amendment became formally adopted after Virginia last year became the 38th state to ratify it.

Along with Illinois and Nevada, Virginia argued that the Constitution does not give Congress any power to set a time limit on the ratification process. They also argued that the deadline had no force of law, since it was placed only in the amendment’s proposing clause, not in the actual text that the states voted on.

But Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., said the vote “came after both the original and extended deadlines that Congress attached to the ERA.” A ratification deadline in the introduction “is just as effective as one in the text of a proposed amendment.”

The states now have the option of appealing the ruling. The case is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally proposed in 1972, passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of Congress and endorsed by President Richard Nixon, it would amend the Constitution to add this provision: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or a abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” It would also give Congress power to pass laws enforcing the provision.

Article V of the Constitution provides that once approved by Congress, a proposed amendment is adopted when ratified by three-fourths of the states. Virginia said its vote in January 2020 put the ERA over the finish line.

In proposing the amendment, Congress said the ERA would become valid when ratified by the required number of states “within seven years from the date of submission by the Congress.” Another congressional vote extended the deadline, but only by three years — to 1982.

Judge Contreras did not rule on a separate issue involving five states that originally voted to ratify the amendment but then voted to rescind their approval.

He said his ruling expressed no opinion on the merits of the ERA as a matter of policy. “It merely enforces a procedural time limit that Congress set when proposing the amendment.”

Among supporters of the ERA were advocates of abortion rights. NARAL Pro-Choice America said it would “reinforce the constitutional right to abortion” and “require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.”

Abortion opponents agreed with that analysis and fought to prevent federal recognition of ratification. “It would nullify any federal or state restrictions, even on partial-birth or third-trimester abortions,” said the National Right To Life Committee.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending