FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by Bruenor »

Seems NICS is falling down on the job. Lack of resources to process checks in a timely fashion. probably costs more to send out the ATF to do retrievals that to staff NICS at sufficient levels.
On the other hand, I guess they need to keep the door kickers working too. :shock:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 901017001/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/fb ... years.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.

A USA TODAY review found that the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests last year for agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retrieve guns from prohibited buyers.
If the background check is not complete within the 72-hour time limit, federal law allows the sale to go forward. ATF agents are asked to take back the guns if the FBI later finds these sales should have been denied.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by djthomas »

Already being discussed in several places. But yes, it's not NICS per se. It's the states and everyone who is supposed to send records to NICS. Lautenberg disqualifiers in particular are very complex and when the local court records submitted to NICS are incomplete someone has to manually research the case. It's the same reason some people report it taking weeks for their CHL to be issued, except that here federal law allows the transfer to proceed in a mere 72 hours.

How many "can I get my CHL?" threads are opened here where we as a group spend weeks trying to figure out whether the person really is prohibited or not for an incident involving an ex girlfriend 15 years ago who kind of sort of lived with the guy but not really? The person doesn't have the court paperwork, they call the court and the court can't find everything, round and round it goes. Then it turns out they pled to some municipal version of disorderly conduct that has since been repealed so it's not clear if their conviction involved the element of force as required to be federally disabling and the court record is inconclusive as to whether or not the parties had been cohabiting. So now it's time to review police reports and legislative code history that may will take time to gather and review.

Just 4,000 issues over the millions of checks that go through the system each year is actually pretty impressive.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by bignflnut »

Journalists know that people won’t freak about a problem that represents 0.015 percent of the total number. Even if that represented millions of people, that number sounds so small as to be trivial. It simply can’t be presented as being that small a sample.

So what they do is they phrase it such a way that will grab your attention. “Thousands” sounds like so much larger a problem with 0.015 percent, even if it’s the same exact thing. “Thousands” gets your attention, it makes it seem like something you need to be concerned with, makes it a problem you should be talking about with your co-workers around the office water cooler.

But the numbers are what they are.

SNIP

This isn’t fake news. This is activism masquerading as journalism, and it’s pathetic.

The fact is that there is no problem with massive numbers of bad guys getting guns and then doing horrible things. USA Today even notes that the BATFE agents charged with recovering these guns don’t view most of these people as dangerous, and that’s because few ever do anything dangerous with those guns.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7481
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by Javelin Man »

How many "can I get my CHL?" threads are opened here where we as a group spend weeks trying to figure out whether the person really is prohibited or not for an incident involving an ex girlfriend 15 years ago who kind of sort of lived with the guy but not really? The person doesn't have the court paperwork, they call the court and the court can't find everything, round and round it goes. Then it turns out they pled to some municipal version of disorderly conduct that has since been repealed so it's not clear if their conviction involved the element of force as required to be federally disabling and the court record is inconclusive as to whether or not the parties had been cohabiting. So now it's time to review police reports and legislative code history that may will take time to gather and review.
Impressive use of a "situation"! :D
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by djthomas »

Javelin Man wrote:Impressive use of a "situation"! :D
Jedi mentioned in the other thread that his department somewhat routinely gets requests for police records precisely because the court records are ambiguous or incomplete so someone at the FBI has to essentially reinvestigate the matter to determine if the requisite elements of the prohibition are met.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by SMMAssociates »

What interests me, so to speak, is that a good many of those "declines" are against people who have no intention of ever doing anything illegal, immoral, or fattening with the gun. Waste of time, etc....

The BG, who presumes that he will bounce anyway, is going to purchase his weapon in a back alley or under the table. Even with the barely above zero prosecution rate for NICS failures.

Typical bureaucratic silliness masquerading as a crime stopper....

Regards,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: FBI NICS orders ATF to retrieve over 4000 firearms

Post by djthomas »

SMMAssociates wrote:What interests me, so to speak, is that a good many of those "declines" are against people who have no intention of ever doing anything illegal, immoral, or fattening with the gun. Waste of time, etc....
Regardless of the person's intent, if they're not allowed to possess a firearm the authorities can't ignore the fact that the person is in recent possession of a firearm. The alternative would be to do away with the 72 hour "may proceed" rule and state that until your background check comes back the transfer is on hold, even if that takes 90 days. Which would you prefer?

From what I understand actual prosecutions are far lower than 4,000 per year which suggests that in many cases it's "knock knock....hey Bob, you're prohibited by law from owning a firearm and we know you just bought one so we'll just take that back. Don't be stupid in the future because next time you will be prosecuted. Good day."

If it makes you feel better I've never not seen a firearm confiscated from a BG when they use it in a crime or it's known that they are a prohibited person.
Post Reply