Gun Background Check System Overwhelmed, Attorney General Says

[Allegiance]

Gun Background Check System Overwhelmed, Attorney General Says

Loretta Lynch says increasingly difficult to process background checks within three-day window

By

DEVLIN BARRETT

Jan. 20, 2016 2:02 p.m. ET

201 COMMENTS

The nation’s system for conducting background checks of would-be gun buyers is overwhelmed with the growing demand for weapons, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Congress Wednesday.

Ms. Lynch testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee about the Obama administration’s announcement earlier this month that it would seek to increase the number of gun sellers who are licensed, and thereby increase the number of people who must undergo background checks before buying a weapon.

Much of the hearing, however, focused on Ms. Lynch’s insistence that the government needs to hire hundreds more people to perform effective background checks on the millions of Americans buying guns. December set a new monthly record of 3.3 million firearms sales being submitted for background checks.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducts background checks on people who buy guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. Under the law, the government has three days to notify a dealer that a person is prohibited from buying a weapon because they have a criminal record or a legal finding of mental illness. If the government doesn’t reply in three days, the purchase can proceed.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to process background checks within that three-day window, Ms. Lynch said.

“Sadly, the (background check) system is overwhelmed at this time,’’ Ms. Lynch said. She said that in the case of the gun allegedly used to kill nine black church members last year in Charleston, S.C., a series of glitches allowed the sale to go forward. It could have been blocked if a particular arrest record had been located in time by the FBI.

The Obama administration has proposed hiring an additional 250 people at the FBI to handle background checks and an additional 200 people at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to police and regulate the firearms market.

Both of those proposals would have to be approved by Congress, where any move to beef up government action related to guns faces steep political hurdles.

While the debate over gun control is often heated, Ms. Lynch’s appearance before the committee Wednesday was relatively calm, with most of the discussion focusing on the logistics of background checks.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) asked if any of the suspects in recent high-profile mass shootings had bought their weapons at gun shows or from online dealers, two categories of gun sales that often don’t involve a background check, exemptions the administration would like to end. Ms. Lynch said she couldn’t provide that information.

Mr. Shelby said that the department is “on notice’’ that his subcommittee ”will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.’’ Ms. Lynch defended the president’s moves as "well-reasoned measures, well within existing legal authorities.’’

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.), told Ms. Lynch that “there is a great deal of frustration by the unilateral actions the administration has taken,’’ but added she was sympathetic to the stress of the workload on background check examiners.

It is unclear why gun sales are booming, though some gun-rights advocates say firearms owners, concerned President Barack Obamawill make it harder to obtain guns, are stocking up before that can happen.

Ms. Lynch said the administration’s goal of hiring more personnel at the FBI and ATF would let the agencies keep pace with the growth in background checks. But she conceded that even if Congress approves the request for new ATF hires, that would only cover vacant and soon-to-be-vacant positions, rather than allowing the agency to grow, largely because so many ATF agents are due to retire soon.

The background checks are now largely conducted by telephone, the attorney general said, adding that the agencies would like to upgrade their computer system to handle more of the workload and have enough staff to operate around the clock.

 

[Colonel Lou]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) asked if any of the suspects in recent high-profile mass shootings had bought their weapons at gun shows or from online dealers, two categories of gun sales that often don’t involve a background check, exemptions the administration would like to end. Ms. Lynch said she couldn’t provide that information.

 

This was one statement made by the president when I was viewing his town hall that I thought was from left field. I understand some transactions at gun shows can be conducted from private owner to private owner in the parking lot. This could be done anywhere, and the internet may be an avenue to allow these style of transactions. Not having the FACTS to back up claims as these claims makes the case of playing politics. What our side needs to do is to compile the facts and statistics and fight these claims with the truth. Truth is these types of transactions are the responsibility of the seller to insure the purchaser is legal to own the gun. Selling a gun to someone not able to obtain a gun is still a crime, but this was not addressed, only the fact that gun show and online sales are the main manner of guns used in the commission of a crime are being transferred.

A weakness in the administrations case is when they make unsubstantiated claims and then state the problem is a lack of personnel to keep up with the established enforcement. I view this as more a method to increase the government spending than fixing alleged problem. From the rest of the post, it just reeks of more governmental spending and job creation.

 

I question if this is a real threat or a reason

[Rancho Roy]

 

 

Truth is these types of transactions are the responsibility of the seller to insure the purchaser is legal to own the gun.

 

Are you referring to a moral responsibility or a legal responsibility?

 

It is perfectly legal for someone to find a firearm in a classified on the internet and meet the seller and buy the firearm, within state boundaries, as long as both buyer and seller are residents of that state......This is perfectly legal in "most" states. Not sure how the seller would could "insure the purchaser is legal to own the gun". Other than obvious age and current physical being (drunk, etc)

 

It only become illegal if the transaction is across state lines and an FFL isn't involved.

 

 

[Colonel Lou]

 

Are you referring to a moral responsibility or a legal responsibility?

 

It is perfectly legal for someone to find a firearm in a classified on the internet and meet the seller and buy the firearm, within state boundaries, as long as both buyer and seller are residents of that state......This is perfectly legal in "most" states. Not sure how the seller would could "insure the purchaser is legal to own the gun". Other than obvious age and current physical being (drunk, etc)

 

It only become illegal if the transaction is across state lines and an FFL isn't involved.

 

 

Roy B,

 

I appreciate your question and I will elaborate of what I was referring to in my comment.

 

In my opinion, I say the seller has BOTH the legal and moral responsibility to insure, to their ability, the purchaser is able to legally purchase the firearm. I will explain why I feel this way.

 

When completing the transaction, one should use what is in their capacity to identify if the purchaser is able to possess the firearm. No, a background check is not required in the case you cite above and the transaction is still perfectly legal. The problem is if we as gun owners do not attempt to identify if the purchaser is unable to possess, we only add to the opposition's banter when one slips through the cracks and a felon purchases a weapon and god forbid, commits a crime heinous or not.

 

You say state resident to state resident is legal in some states, but how would you identify they are legal residents of your state? Wouldn't you ask for an id (drivers license, voter registration card, or some issued identification). Being so close to the border, I would worry about transferring to a non resident.

 

Would you sell to someone who was under the proper age to purchase the gun? If someone who wants to purchase your pistol and appears to be under 21, wouldn't you ask for proof of age?

 

I understand the identification of all disqualifiers of gun ownership is hard for a private seller to accomplish. This is where one's moral responsibility would come into play. Using one's best judgment and not completing the transfer if something doesn't feel right.

 

What I worry about is in days of warning labels on axes, coffee cups and the suing of manufacturers for improper use of their merchandise, how far will the legal system go, whether criminally or civilly, and go after the seller of the firearm.

 

Now I am not saying not to conduct legal transactions, but I fear that I transfer a firearm to someone I do not know, I assume they are able to purchase, I even ask for identification and they commit a crime so now I am being prosecuted for some loophole. Whether this is by the legal system, or by a family member of a victim. I am not a person who thinks the sky is falling, but my way to alleviate my fears is to pay the fee and utilize an FFL for the transfer.

 

Now, giving a gift of a firearm is still legal with no transfer, I stand that this should still be allowed for family members. When my father passed away, I got some of his guns to keep them in the family. It would have been salt in the wound to have to pay a transfer for every firearm, just like it was to pay inheritance tax on what I received in the will. Thing is if I know my family member is mentally unstable, do I transfer a gun to them?

 

I have seen someone that has a table at every gun show I have been to in my home town, but does not want to utilize an FFL on their transfers as they feel they are not a business. Yes, if they used an FFL for every transaction maybe big brother would do the math and determine they are making a profit and therefore tax them. Maybe more are out there like this and that is the reason for sticking to their guns on no FFLs for private transactions. Thing is, if this individual rents a space at every gun show, does multiple transactions a year, wouldn't this qualify as a business?

 

Sorry for the diatribe, just hope this explains why I feel we all have a legal and moral responsibility when transferring firearms. If we do not follow our legal and moral understandings, we only add to the opposition's ability to cause us more consternation in the future.

 

Colonel Lou