Surprise: Blocked Firearms Applications Skyrocket

This is supposed to mean something Bad about firearms applications

Blocked gun sales skyrocket amid coronavirus pandemic

Internal FBI data reveal a jarring new stat: The number of people trying to buy guns who can’t legally own them has skyrocketed. That came as part of a surge in gun purchases in the first three months of 2020, compared to the same time period in 2019. And the change has raised concerns about gun safety.

In March 2019, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran background checks on 823,273 attempted gun buys (the system immediately greenlights the vast majority of transactions). This past March, however, NICS processed more than 1.4 million background checks––a massive spike. The most dramatic shift, though, might be in how many people the system blocked from buying guns.

In March 2019 and February 2020, the NICS system blocked about 9,500 and 9,700, respectively. But in March 2020, it blocked more than double that amount: a whopping 23,692 gun sales.

Sounds like the system was working in that people who weren’t legally allowed to purchase were mostly denied.

“This FBI data confirms our fear that America’s background check system is completely overwhelmed, which means that more guns are slipping through the cracks and being sold to prohibited purchasers,” John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown, said in a statement. “Mitch McConnell can stop this by taking action to close the Charleston loophole, but he’s too scared of the gun lobby’s waning political power to do anything, even as gun violence rises in the midst of a pandemic.”

See, the system was blocking most of them (some did slip through due to the 3 day rule, where the results had to be returned in 3 days or the application was approved) as designed, but, of course the gun grabbers see this as a reason to implement more ways to restrict more citizens.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Surprise: Blocked Firearms Applications Skyrocket”

  1. Kye says:

    I still need to know why a guy who stole a car for a joy ride at 17 or kited a check at 24 can’t purchase a gun at 50. He is neither violent nor a career criminal so why should one mistake leave him and his family defenseless when the BLM comes to riot? Oddly, it seems the real dangerous criminals manage too get guns but this guy is screwed unless he commits another felony and buys an illegal firearm. Wouldn’t it be better to know he’s armed and the make, model and serial # of said arm?

    • samoore says:

      In a lot of jurisdictions, after a sufficient time (it varies) and “good behavior”, non-felony and some felony convictions can be vacated and will no longer show on a NICS check. Crimes of violence, or anything involving a minor generally cannot be vacated.

  2. reverendken says:

    Asking permission is NOT constitutional.

    • Kye says:

      You are correct. If it’s a right there is no qualification to exercise it.

    • gitarcarver says:

      No right is absolute.

      The founding fathers and those before them understood that.

      Today it is just those who attend YouTube University who think otherwise.

      • Kye says:

        Thank you very much for the insult. The Founding Fathers also knew the meaning of words. What do yo think they meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Today those who attend CNN University struggle with that concept. They also need remedial Freedom of Speech courses.

        • gitarcarver says:

          James Madison, the basic author of the Constitution argued that no right is an absolute in a society where people interact. Jefferson banned firearms at the University of Virginia. (So much for “shall not be infringed.” Congress banned firearms in the Congressional chambers. I do not have the right to discharge a weapon at three AM next to your house for several reasons.

          Speech is subject to “time, place and manner” restrictions from the government. The so called “hecker’s veto” which some argue is “free speech” has been restricted by several Supreme Court decisions. Other non-protected and therefore non-absolute speech would include libel and slander. Speech that incites unlawful behavior is not legal either.

          I can keep going if you want, but the fact is that no right is an absolute. The founding fathers recognized that fact.

  3. Kye says:

    This is what happens when you allow leftist communists to pollute peoples mins with “No right is absolute.” I’d like to see where in The Constitution is found “No rights are absolute” The Founding Fathers were Men of Words and if they had meant that they would have included it in the document.

    (full article at RedState. You may find it interesting)

    “Ever since state and local governments started going batsh** crazy in their response to Wuhan virus, Democrat governed cities, and states have made it a practice to try to use “public health” as a way of suppressing attendance at religious services. In states as widely spread California, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, New Jersey and Mississippi (to name just a few) you found various jurisdictions using the smokescreen of limiting public gatherings for the sake of public health to close churches, penalize church members who showed up for services, and sic the police on funerals to break them up.

    The effect of these orders has been to allow state and local governments to place an asterisk by the First Amendment. That footnote to the First Amendment states that the right to worship and assemble is contingent upon the government’s approval of the purpose. So you can’t have a funeral, but you can attend a BLM riot.”

    • gitarcarver says:

      That footnote to the First Amendment states that the right to worship and assemble is contingent upon the government’s approval of the purpose.

      RedState misstates the issue. Even before this country was founded, governments were allowed to enact measures that prevented the spread of a disease. This was further codified in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the Supreme Court wrote:

      The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

      The decision wasn’t close at 7-2. I guess the 7 justices had a time machine which allowed them to jump ahead to when CNN was founded, eh?

      As I said, the issue is misstated by RedState. It is not that the state does not have the power and authority to put in place measures to protect public health, but that states are doing so in an arbitrary manner. Courts along the line have ruled that if you are going to limit church gatherings, you have to limit other gatherings.

      If the idea is to protect public safety, then the government cannot discriminate on the type of gathering.

      It is not that the states look to ban church gatherings is a violation of the 1st Amendment, but that applying bans to certain groups and not to others is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

      • Kye says:

        Quite frankly I agree that rights are not absolute even those enumerated in the Constitution. I was just getting snappy because I took your insult about “YouTube University” too serious. You know, a simple “I disagree” would have sufficed. You needn’t attack right out of the gate.

        What I really object to is how the meanings and protections of the Constitution seem to be constantly twisted and turned to fit a leftist narrative, but never to the right. I know it is justified that felons not have second amendment rights but as I said there is no reason one who had a non violent crime should be denied that right. In fact right now if those McClosky folks in St. Louis lose their case they won’t be able to own a firearm. That’s Constitution abuse in my opinion. It’s also irony that using a lawful firearm to defend themselves and their property may lose them the right to use lawful firearms to protect themselves and their property. That’s just crazy! That’s leftist logic.

        I also wonder why it’s illegal to practice a religion that has virgin or child sacrifice but a religion that believes in slavery, murder and the total submission of the United States is permitted here. Makes no sense. The same for allowing communists, Nazi’s or white/black supremacists to practice their hate and promote kids to join them. Like they say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    I was just getting snappy because I took your insult about “YouTube University” too serious. You know, a simple “I disagree” would have sufficed. You needn’t attack right out of the gate.

    To be honest with you, I wasn’t thinking about you. I was thinking about the idiot sovereign citizens who make statements that people are violating their rights all the time.

    It was a bad choice of words on my part and for that I apologize.

    • Kye says:

      I realize that after I thought about it. I need to learn to sit on a comment before yapping my ass off. But thank you, I’m really not a snowflake So I feel like an idiot.

      • gitarcarver says:

        No need to feel that way.

        As I said, I said something that could be taken the wrong way and it was. If anything, that’s on me.

        It’s in the past and hopefully, we can move on from here. I know that is what I would like.

Pirate's Cove