Anti-Gunnites Propose Going After People Who Lie On Gun Permit Applications

They think they have really found something in which they can Do Something

(NY Times) Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

The staggeringly low number of prosecutions for people who “lie and try,” as it is called by law enforcement officials, is being studied by the Obama administration as it considers measures to curb gun violence after the Connecticut elementary school shootings in December.

In the face of those difficulties, the White House has said it is looking for actions it can take without Congressional approval. Increasing the number of prosecutions for lying on background-check forms is an effort that the administration can undertake largely on its own, in part by pressing federal prosecutors to pursue such cases. It is also one measure that both sides of the gun-control debate have agreed upon.

It is a felony to deliberately provide false information in an effort to buy a gun, and studies financed by the Justice Department show that people who do so are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase.

Well, sure, if they broke the law, prosecute them. Is this really going to stop those criminals? What’s being recommended is that those who are serious career criminals that lie be given long jail sentences.

“This is not like looking for a needle in a haystack — these are people you know are too violent to buy a gun,” John Feinblatt, an official with the mayors’ group (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) who met with Mr. Biden on Wednesday, said in a telephone interview. “Once they have been rejected, they go online or to a private seller or a gun show and get a gun.”

Except, if they go online the sellers require that the handgun be sent to a licensed firearms dealer who would require a handgun permit. At gun shows all licensed gun dealers require a……handgun permit. There is no permit necessary to purchase a shotgun or a rifle (even those scary looking ones!).

And, yes, the NRA agrees with prosecuting liars. The NRA has never had a problem with restricting handgun ownership from criminals.

But will this really stop anything? Will this stop all the gun violence and murder on the streets of Chicago? No. Because most criminals aren’t getting their guns legally. They do not care about The Law.

One idea to deal with private purchases is to require that any potential purchaser obtain a handgun permit prior to any purchase, which would be shown to the private seller. That way, the cost of the background check would be on the buyer, not the seller. Interestingly, Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY) proposed legislation, H.R. 137, provides a common sense way to deal with this.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

19 Comments

Comment by bob sykes
2013-01-14 07:47:01

Many states do not require a permit to buy handguns. Ohio is an example. Ohio does require a permit for concealed carry, and there are restrictions on transporting guns in cars (unloaded in trunk).

Also, Ohio does not require gun registration. Some Ohio cities do have local rules, but the State limits what the local jurisdictions can do.

 
Comment by john
2013-01-14 11:17:15

but that 2nd Amendment doesn’t that the right of the people to bear arms is only for “good” people does it? Don’t the children of felons have a right to be protected by a dad with a gun ? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN ???

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-14 11:24:29

Actually john, the Constitution allows for penalties under the law. When a felon is incarcerated, he loses rights. When a felon is released, he may not be able to vote even though that is a right as well.

The problem with your argument is one that shows the problem behind your thinking and the lack of thinking behind your ideas and those on the left:

You equate felons with law abiding citizens.

You believe that law abiding citizens are the same as those who have committed crimes against others.

That’s pathetic.

 
Comment by Anne
2013-01-14 11:40:30

My dad told me that, as recently as 50 years ago and in broad daylight, he and his friends could walk down streets in San Diego with “sixguns” (the tools of their trade) in holsters strapped to their legs in plain sight and without attracting any attention, even from police officers.

As teenagers, they earned spending money by collecting bounties on coyotes, cougars, rattlesnakes or any other critter that became too numerous or was a threat to the safety of sheep which were raised in the area.

Yippiekieyay!!!

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-14 12:56:13

I’ve never understood this: Prosecuting people for ATTEMPTING to buy something.

We are going to prosecute people for being ineligible to buy a gun when they try and buy a gun?

Does this mean that we are now going to prosecute and jail 12 year olds for TRYING to buy smokes? Or a 16 year old for TRYING to buy beer?

Don’t get this.

Guys, demanding a permit before buying a handgun is the same policy that NY and Chicago use to limit gun purchases. that was deemed unconstitutional in DC recently.

We must assume everyone is innocent before guilty. This “process” again puts the right to own a gun in the hands of government bureaucrats.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-14 13:08:16

Now, chicago is wanting to go after those people with mandatory jail time for not reporting lost or stolen guns.

And again, demanding permits to own a gun, or purchase a gun, is unconstitutional.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-14 14:13:32

I’ve never understood this: Prosecuting people for ATTEMPTING to buy something.

We are going to prosecute people for being ineligible to buy a gun when they try and buy a gun?

I have no problem with prosecuting people for perjury. When a person tries to buy a gun, the form they submit is stated to be true and accurate under the threat of perjury.

(I also have no problem with charges of perjury for the “Fast and Furious” scandal, but that is another issue.)

Guys, demanding a permit before buying a handgun is the same policy that NY and Chicago use to limit gun purchases. that was deemed unconstitutional in DC recently.

There is a difference between a “permit,” which means government approval for whatever changing and fluctuating standards a government wants to impose and proving one is eligible based on the Constitution which does allow for felons to be denied certain rights.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-14 14:28:29

I have no problem with prosecuting people for perjury.

I was not assuming perjury. From what I’ve read and heard, they are going after people, felons in this case, for just attempting to get the background check. I don’t know if they lied on their form or not.

If they lied, then sure, go after perjury. Just like the IRS puts people in jail for lying on their IRS forms. I got lucky last year when they forgave me for a mistaken SSN number put in the wrong place. But, since I signed my name to the original IRS form as being truthful and accurate, I could have been prosecuted and sent to jail. RIGHT?

Or, should we spend time actually going after those people who commit mayhem with guns they shouldn’t have in their possession?

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-14 14:57:45

Constitution which does allow for felons to be denied certain rights.

Sorry, but that is not the job of a citizen. Do we really want citizens asking other citizens “Let me see your FELON papers.” Or putting citizens in harms way when a felon intent on getting a gun gets asked for his “non-felon permit” by some average dude selling a gun from his house.

How about we start having soda permits? People must prove to the government they are not obese enough so they can buy their soda for the month?

Let’s have psychological permits on those wishing to buy adult rated video games? people must prove that they are sane and capable of handling the imagery in movies and computer games.

How about a fast food, salt, or trans-fat permit?
HECK, how about a pain pill permit? prove to the government that you won’t get addicted and commit violent crimes to get more later on.

 
Comment by Some call me......Tim
2013-01-14 15:47:44

Long time NRA member here. As part of my membership I get a free American Hunter magazine subscription. A regular column of this magazine is a message from both Wayne La Pierre and Dave Keene. Over the years Wayne has made many points about our broken Criminal Justice System allowing criminals that have LONG rap sheets being put back on the streets because to do otherwise violates their civil rights?
So basically we reward these career criminals with the ability to go out and commit even more crime because, God forbid, we don’t want to violate their civil rights!
To me the real reason for all these shootings is a weak and ineffective criminal justice system that awards, rather than prosecutes the real criminals all in the name of “fairness”, a major tenet of the liberal mindset.
It’s way overdue that we start making the punishment fit the crime and keep these career criminals in jail where they belong!

 
Comment by Anne
2013-01-14 19:25:50

I agree, Tim.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-14 19:40:37

Or, should we spend time actually going after those people who commit mayhem with guns they shouldn’t have in their possession?

We can’t do both?

We can’t go after those who commit mayhem as well as prevent people from illegally obtaining guns through perjury?

Sorry, but that is not the job of a citizen.

I agree to some extent. It is, however allowable under the Constitution to not allow felons to be afforded all rights. A background check is part of the government – not the citizen’s – ability to deny anyone a right.

As I said, I am against permitting, but I believe a background check is okay.

 
Comment by Anne
2013-01-15 07:48:36

Comment by Some call me……Tim— January 14,

What do other people call you?

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-15 09:30:08

It is, however allowable under the Constitution to not allow felons to be afforded all rights

I’ve always heard this, and have accepted it like many feel-good things through my history. But, where does it state that in our Constitution?

I’ve just become more and more leery when we allow the government to dictate who among a certain group is allowed to do what they allow us to do.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-15 10:46:31

But, where does it state that in our Constitution?

Eighth amendment.

I too share your aversion to the government picking who can buy some things. I always predicate that on a law abiding citizen having the right to purchase a legal item.

If a felon convicted of armed robbery wants to purchase a weapon, I would be against that because his past has demonstrated that he will use the weapon for an illegal purpose.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-15 11:03:14

But, where does it state that in our Constitution?

Eighth amendment.

It does? A statement about bail and excessive punishments?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-15 12:26:17

Yes. Because the denial of rights to convicts is part of English jurisprudence. It is not considered “excessive punishment.”

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-01-15 14:07:48

Gumball,

Also the 14th Amendment applies:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-01-15 14:50:08

Well, I think we all know that the 14th has been voided a long time ago. Equal treatment? Fairness? Equal Protection?

I’ll believe that when Gregory of Meet The Press is charged for violating DC laws. Or when law-abiding gun carrying citizens are not being harassed by LEO.

But, I get your point. It’s not really “constitutional” to ban felons from owning firearms, but it’s based on jurisprudence and historical context.

Slavery was too.

Until someone decided to read the Constitution and understand what the words meant.

Oh, and as to the 14th? Tell that to those people who’s land has been seized by gov’ts. Tell that to the millions nearly stripped searched by TSA (who are now at baseball and football events) every day and told they had no recourse. (not directed at you GC, just venting)

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8540 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE