SB 14-93 Repeal the Background Check for private sales

[TFOGGER]

From NRA-ILA email:

On Monday, February 3, the state Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will hear an important pro-gun bill which seeks to restore some of the rights that were stolen from you last year. Senate Bill 94 (http://www.nramedia.org/t/2360241/91104566/32013/9/), introduced by state Senator George Rivera (R-3), would repeal the misguided legislation passed last session by anti-gun legislators in Denver that criminalizes the private sale or transfer of a firearm between friends, family members and law-abiding citizens.

SB 94 was assigned to the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which has shown hostility towards your gun rights in the past. It is critical that your voice is heard this year and not ignored. As gun owners, sportsmen and supporters of the Second Amendment, we need you to show up in Denver on Monday, February 3, to support and speak in favor of SB 94. Without your active support, anti-gun state legislators will continue to trample on your Second Amendment rights like they did last session! For more information about testifying at the state Capitol, please click here (http://www.nramedia.org/t/2360241/91104566/21485/10/). Hearing details are provided below:
Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee Hearing
When: 1:30 p.m. on Monday, February 3
Where: Committee Room 356, Third Floor of the state Capitol
What: Hearing to discuss SB 94
If you are unable to attend this important public hearing, it is imperative that you contact the state Senators listed below TODAY and express your SUPPORT for Senate Bill 94.
Please call, e-mail, and use social media to contact the state Senators below, as they will play a vital role in determining whether or not your rights are restored this legislative session. Hold these legislators accountable by asking how they plan to vote on this legislation. Their contact information is provided below:
Senator Jesse Ulibarri (D-21), Chairman
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4857
E-Mail: jessie.ulibarri.senate@state.co.us (http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000024G0:001IsNYd00003Qla&count=1390579962&randid=1439624908&attachId=0&isUnDisplayableMail=yes&blockImages=0&randid=1439624908#)
Senator Matt Jones (D-17), Vice Chairman
Capitol Phone: 303-866-5291
E-Mail: senatormattjones@gmail.com (http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000024G0:001IsNYd00003Qla&count=1390579962&randid=1439624908&attachId=0&isUnDisplayableMail=yes&blockImages=0&randid=1439624908#)
Senator Irene Aguilar (D-32)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4852
E-Mail: irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us (http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000024G0:001IsNYd00003Qla&count=1390579962&randid=1439624908&attachId=0&isUnDisplayableMail=yes&blockImages=0&randid=1439624908#)
Senator Ted Harvey (R-30)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4881
E-Mail: ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us (http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000024G0:001IsNYd00003Qla&count=1390579962&randid=1439624908&attachId=0&isUnDisplayableMail=yes&blockImages=0&randid=1439624908#)
Senator Bernie Herpin (R-11)
Capitol Phone: 303-866-6364
E-Mail: bernie.herpin.senate@state.co.us (http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/21?folder=Inbox&msgNum=000024G0:001IsNYd00003Qla&count=1390579962&randid=1439624908&attachId=0&isUnDisplayableMail=yes&blockImages=0&randid=1439624908#)

[sniper7]

I'm emailing but it is fruitless. It will be 3-2 along party lines. I can't wait to boot these idiots out of office

[merl]

Matt Jones isn't going anywhere, Boulder.

[mcjhr]

Matt Jones isn't going anywhere, Boulder.

Guess we need to move boulder.

[UrbanWolf]

Better try our best than sit and watch our rights burn on CNN.

[merl]

Better try our best than sit and watch our rights burn on CNN.

And I look forward to voting against him but his mind is made up and he's in a fairly safe seat. Last year he just cancelled his town halls after a point, not listening.

[Great-Kazoo]

Better try our best than sit and watch our rights burn on CNN.

The D's are firmly entrenched in a GUNS ARE BAD MANTRA. Unless you can give more money to their war chest than bloomberg, it ain't going to happen

[brutal]

Sent to the "kill committee."

[Zundfolge]

Unless you can give more money to their war chest than bloomberg, it ain't going to happen

Yeah, which was proved by the recalls where Bloomberg outspent the pro-recall folk 8-1 ... clearly that's why the recalls failed.

[TFOGGER]

I'm thinking that the recalls provide significant leverage...Giron was very comfortable that she would survive the recall effort in her heavily Democratic district. At worst, bombarding them with emails, faxes, and phone calls might give them an inkling that it might be a good idea to pass this to the floor, rather than draw a target on their own backs by killing it in committee.

[BPTactical]

They need a gentle reminder that they work for us. Apparently the recalls were not enough of a reminder.

[Ronin13]

I'm thinking that the recalls provide significant leverage...Giron was very comfortable that she would survive the recall effort in her heavily Democratic district. At worst, bombarding them with emails, faxes, and phone calls might give them an inkling that it might be a good idea to pass this to the floor, rather than draw a target on their own backs by killing it in committee.
Just what I was thinking. Can't guarantee any good press on this though, that's for sure. Watch the Democratic Post publish an article calling us "bitter clingers," or similar terms. Greg Brophy even said it on AM 630 a couple weeks ago, that the UBC bill does absolutely nothing to prevent gun related crime.

[68Charger]

Matt Jones isn't going anywhere, Boulder.

Also defined as 250 square miles surrounded by reality...

[wctriumph]

Well, I'm not in Boulder or near any of these hacks but, I will email and make calls regardless. We really went for it in the last session and they did not listen, some big shots got booted out. If we can get that same kind of outpouring of grassroots activism going again, who knows, we may have a chance. It is worth my time to email and call. Is it worth a whole 120 seconds or less of your life to try and make us heard? It better be.


TEA

III

[cstone]

If I can make time in my schedule, I will go to the hearing. Here is the email I just sent:

SB 14-93 Repeal the Background Check for private sales‏

5:33 PM

To: jessie.ulibarri.senate@state.co.us, senatormattjones@gmail.com, irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us, ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us, bernie.herpin.senate@state.co.us


Mr. Chairman and members of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee,


I write to you today as a federal employee, member of law enforcement, military veteran, and most importantly as a citizen of Colorado. I support the repeal of the background check requirement for private sales of firearms between citizens of Colorado. A review of the recent tragic shootings here in Colorado and around our nation reveals that almost every firearm used to commit these criminal acts were either stolen from their lawful owner or bought in commercial sales after the murderer passed a background check.



The law passed last year requiring background checks on private sales did nothing to prevent any of those criminal acts and there certainly isn't justification in depriving me or my fellow, law abiding citizens of Colorado from engaging in private commerce involving a legal product. The current background check on private sales of firearms is not keeping weapons from getting into the hands of criminals but it is a direct infringement upon my rights.


Please recognize my service to this nation and return to me a right taken by the state legislature and governor. Please return to me the ability to conduct my private business without interference and added expense. I have worked all of my life to insure the safety of others and will continue to do so. Please give me back what was taken from me. Please repeal the required background checks for private sales in Colorado.


Thank you.


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

[DOC]

I'll be there. I'm on vacation that week. :)

[TAR31]

How many veterans are one the "veteran and military affairs" committee? My guess is none.

[Aloha_Shooter]

How many veterans are one the "veteran and military affairs" committee? My guess is none.

I looked (you could too if you had some Google-fu or Yahoo-fu). State Sen Larry Crowder is the only one of three committee members in the Senate who is a veteran (although State Sen Ted Harvey proudly talks about his father's military service). I can find no evidence of any service on the part of any of the House committee members although Angela Williams posted a picture of her with some Tuskegee Airmen. The bios I just read made me wish the societal rules in Heinlein's Starship Troopers were in effect.

[osok-308]

I'll definitely write, email, call, text... you name it, i'll do it!

[cstone]

Here are the two responses I've received so far:

Re: SB 14-93 Repeal the Background Check for private sales
Irene Aguilar (ireneaguilar.md@gmail.com)
Add to contacts
1/24/14


To: cstone
Thank you for participating in the legislative process, I value your input.

I am in the process of reviewing this bill and the opinions and research around the policies they propose. I will consider all sides before I make any decisions.

Senator Aguilar

Re: SB 14-93 Repeal the Background Check for private sales‏
Senator Bernie Herpin (bernie.herpin@outlook.com)
Add to contacts
10:44 AM


To: cstone

Thank you for contacting me about SB 14-094 concerning background checks. I am a Senate co-sponsor and will support this bill.

I am also a Senate co-prime sponsor on a bill that will repeal the magazine limit.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin
Senator, District 11
(303) 866-6364 (Senate Office)
(719) 596-3921 (Home)
www.bernieherpin.com
Sent from my iPhone

[TFOGGER]

I got the same 2 canned responses. Aguilar will vote to kill it.

[DavieD55]

Until you start getting 100,000 determined people down there to put some pressure on the statist swine you're going to continue to let them do what they want. Forget phone calls, you need tens of thousands down at the capitol protesting and making a statement.

[Zundfolge]

Until you start getting 100,000 determined people down there to put some pressure on the statist swine you're going to continue to let them do what they want. Forget phone calls, you need tens of thousands down at the capitol protesting and making a statement.

Torches and pitchforks would be a nice touch.

[Great-Kazoo]

Torches and pitchforks would be a nice touch.

Dragging them out , tar and feather a few on tv would be better. Then again the broncos would still be top story.
3 killed at 7-11, gov hickenlooper tar and feathered on capitol steps. BUT FIRST Another win by the Broncos.

[milwaukeeshaker]

EXACTLY!!!
You hit it right on the head. Broncos, mui importante, take off work, huddle in front of the TV, give all extra time to worship at the Broncos altar. Gun rights, eh, maybe I'll think about going to the capitol, nah, can't make it, then bitch about the laws later. Sheeple. What a shame.


Dragging them out , tar and feather a few on tv would be better. Then again the broncos would still be top story.
3 killed at 7-11, gov hickenlooper tar and feathered on capitol steps. BUT FIRST Another win by the Broncos.

[cstone]

So both R senators have indicated that they support repeal of the background checks for private sales. Two D senators have not responded and the one D who did respond was uncommitted in her response. As we have seen before, just because the voters in a particular district are majority D, that does not make them lock step supporters of the "common senseless" gun control laws passed last year.

Ted Harvey (Ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us)
Add to contacts
10:13 AM


To: cstone
Thank you for your email. I am confident Senator Harvey will vote in favor of this legislation.



Laurie Bratten

Aide to Senator Harvey

[kidicarus13]

EXACTLY!!!
Broncos, mui importante, take off work, huddle in front of the TV, give all extra time to worship at the Broncos altar. Gun rights, eh, maybe I'll think about going to the capitol, nah, can't make it, then bitch about the laws later. Sheeple.

B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S 39997 B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S

CAN NOT FOCUS ON GUN RIGHTS... BRONCOS MUST WIN ON SUNDAY... I NEED A SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS T-SHIRT

[sacarm added for those that didn't get it] Broncos winning SB rated a 3 on scale of 1-10, protecting gun rights rated a 9 on scale of 1-10

[spqrzilla]

When writing letters to representatives on the repeal of the background check bill, a far better issue to emphasize is the criminalization of loans between friends and the other violations short of outright transfer of ownership, rather than just claim that background checks are added burden to private transfers.

[Great-Kazoo]

B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S 39997 B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S B-R-O-N-C-O-S

CAN NOT FOCUS ON GUN RIGHTS... BRONCOS MUST WIN ON SUNDAY... I NEED A SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS T-SHIRT

There are at least 2 doz stores in the metro area selling super bowls. Sure they'd comp you a t-shirt is you asked.

[centrarchidae]

Here are the two responses I've received so far:

Re: SB 14-93 Repeal the Background Check for private sales
Irene Aguilar (ireneaguilar.md@gmail.com)
Add to contacts
1/24/14


To: cstone
Thank you for participating in the legislative process, I value your input.


Yes, Senator Doctor Agular (she's an MD, by the way, just in case you forgot, and DON'T YOU DARE HONK AT HER!) values your input.

That's not her pissing on your leg. That's the drought being over. No, really.

Unless she looks at FORMER Senator Angela Giron, and sees her own fate.

[Rucker61]

Maybe we should include photos of Giron, etc, in the emails.

[merl]

Yes, Senator Doctor Agular (she's an MD, by the way, just in case you forgot, and DON'T YOU DARE HONK AT HER!) values your input.

That's not her pissing on your leg. That's the drought being over. No, really.

Unless she looks at FORMER Senator Angela Giron, and sees her own fate.

So what is better, a form letter response or no response at all?

[Great-Kazoo]

Maybe we should include photos of Giron, etc, in the emails.

That could be considered intimidation.

[muddywings]

Emailed pushed to the committee. Thanks cstone. Your first paragraph is almost identical to mine.

[Aloha_Shooter]

That could be considered intimidation.

What if we just put up signs around the Capitol in celebration?

40065

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

I've gotten basically the same two responses already posted here....the one from Herpin also mentioned he is co-prime sponsoring SB 14-100 and would support HB 14-1041 should it make it to the state senate.

[wctriumph]

I am sending emails every day to the members of this committee and to the assembly members as well of the legislation that they are considering. I make phone calls every other day and state my position in a clear, concise and civil manner with a thank you at the end for taking the time to consider my efforts at participating in the legislative process.


TEA

III

[DOC]

I'm going to be there. Anyone want to meet up before hand?

[DOC]

its still going on.

[Rooskibar03]

Dead in committee.

[DOC]

That was fast. How do you know?

[ChunkyMonkey]

That was fast. How do you know?

They voted it dead 3-2 earlier today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KAPA]

Hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin and people vote sall these scumbags out in November. No more recalls, it'd time to take it all back!

[Gman]

Methinks you underestimate the supply of nails and coffins.

[muddywings]

From Jesse Ulibsrri:

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to my office regarding your concerns. Your participation is essential to strengthening our democratic process!

I value your opinion and I always consider the input of constituents before casting my vote in the Colorado State Senate. In regards to SB 94, Repealing the Background Check for Private Sales of Firearms, I am concerned about the impact that this bill may have on public safety.

Since July of last year, the universal background check law has prevented over 104 individuals with criminal histories from obtaining a weapon. This includes individuals who were convicted of rape, assault and drug distribution. We may never know what these individuals would have done if they could have purchased the weapons they wanted, but I don't want to make it easier for criminals to get guns.

Despite predictions to the contrary, gun and ammunition sales among law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed in Colorado since the passage of the gun violence prevention laws (and in fact, hunting licenses are at an all-time high). To be clear, law-abiding citizens can purchase a firearm and freely exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. The background check law is narrowly designed to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who are NOT law-abiding (like the rapists, drug smugglers and other criminals who tried to purchase guns in private sales) and the system is working as intended. For this reason, I voted NO on the repeal of the background check requirement for private sales.

Sincerely, Jessie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlasterBob]

If I could have a personal FTF conversation, I'd say - Oh thanks a lot Jesse. Now we have to continue paying anywhere between $30 -$50 or more to merely exercise our RIGHT to make a purchase or swap of a firearm and most likely have to drive an excessive number of miles to complete the transfer. Due to your decision to vote NO, I am hoping that you will be removed from office ASAP. [thumb down1]

[newracer]

They don't care about causing an inconvenience or the cost involved. They think it stopped over 100 people from getting a gun, to them it is worth it.

[Rucker61]

They're attempting to defend their position on the Colorado Senate Democrats facebook page. I pointed out that only 2.5% of the people that failed a BGC due to previous felony convictions were arrested, leaving them free to continue to acquire weapons via illegal means, and they retorted that these people had already paid their debt. I had to point out that lying on the form 4473 was in itself a felony. Still waiting on a response, but it's the first response from anyone tied to the Democratic majority I've seen. Actual dialogue, go figure.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

They are pro-registration and would like nothing better then to live in a world where only their hand picked few are legally allowed to own guns. Sorry, but a lot of their ideas of utopian paradise are akin to bad sci-fi movies where "intellectual" dictatorships rule everyday life. I don't understand who elects some of these people (well, then I go to places like Boulder and see who elects them.......LMAO)


(I just woke up, and yes.......I'm a little cranky and not thinking clearly :p)

[merl]

They're attempting to defend their position on the Colorado Senate Democrats facebook page. I pointed out that only 2.5% of the people that failed a BGC due to previous felony convictions were arrested, leaving them free to continue to acquire weapons via illegal means, and they retorted that these people had already paid their debt. I had to point out that lying on the form 4473 was in itself a felony. Still waiting on a response, but it's the first response from anyone tied to the Democratic majority I've seen. Actual dialogue, go figure.

Denial numbers have nothing to do with private sales and required BG checks. They are a red herring used to disguise the fact that this bill does nothing. Only an idiot would attempt a sale knowing they'll be denied, the 100+ they got may not have known (or, well, there are idiots out there).

As for a debt being paid already, well then why are they not truly free citizens again with ALL rights restored?

[Zundfolge]

The simple fact is that Denver Dems want this (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/04/armed-dad-did-what-he-had-to-do-to-protect-his-teen-daughter-from-thugs-now-hes-in-trouble-with-the-law/) to happen here.

Registration ... FOID cards ... more and more government control means they can trip up the law abiding and bring down their jackboots on necks.

These are hateful evil people that want to hurt the people.

[BlasterBob]

I had to point out that lying on the form 4473 was in itself a felony. Still waiting on a response, but it's the first response from anyone tied to the Democratic majority I've seen. Actual dialogue, go figure.

Now that is the point that really bugs the hell out of me. The out-right lying on these 4473 forms are felonies being committed and although "they" (the proper LEO's) are or should be well aware of these crimes being committed, why aren't they following up on them. These asses (Legislators) should insist that the laws must be observed, followed through with prosecution if at all possible. Why fart around making these laws if they fail to actively enforce them??[Mad]

[OneGuy67]

Now that is the point that really bugs the hell out of me. The out-right lying on these 4473 forms are felonies being committed and although "they" (the proper LEO's) are or should be well aware of these crimes being committed, why aren't they following up on them. These asses (Legislators) should insist that the laws must be observed, followed through with prosecution if at all possible. Why fart around making these laws if they fail to actively enforce them??[Mad]

The 4473 is a federal form, not a state form. The local DA's believe prosecution of fraud committed on these forms is a federal offense, not a state offense. However, you aren't going to get a U.S. Attorney to bother with this type of lowly crime.

[Rucker61]

The 4473 is a federal form, not a state form. The local DA's believe prosecution of fraud committed on these forms is a federal offense, not a state offense. However, you aren't going to get a U.S. Attorney to bother with this type of lowly crime.
I think HB 13-1229 makes not following that law a misdemeanor. Still, even less likely to follow through. After all, they've made the CBI BGC self funding, allowing that budgetary line item to be moved elsewhere under the radar. There is no way they're going to give back the money, for either 1228 or 1229.

[TFOGGER]

They're attempting to defend their position on the Colorado Senate Democrats facebook page. I pointed out that only 2.5% of the people that failed a BGC due to previous felony convictions were arrested, leaving them free to continue to acquire weapons via illegal means, and they retorted that these people had already paid their debt. I had to point out that lying on the form 4473 was in itself a felony. Still waiting on a response, but it's the first response from anyone tied to the Democratic majority I've seen. Actual dialogue, go figure.

Link? I'm too lazy to look it up...

[OneGuy67]

I think HB 13-1229 makes not following that law a misdemeanor. Still, even less likely to follow through. After all, they've made the CBI BGC self funding, allowing that budgetary line item to be moved elsewhere under the radar. There is no way they're going to give back the money, for either 1228 or 1229.

No it doesn't. HB 13-1229 requires the completion of a background check, but has zero language in it about the 4473 form, about lying or omitting on the form, or anything to do with the form at all.

The crux of the arguments have been that a person who is knowingly prohibited, fills out a 4473 and lies on it, then is prohibited from buying the firearm, why isn't there any enforcement of the attempted fraud, which is the falsification on the federal form 4473.

[Zundfolge]

...why isn't there any enforcement of the attempted fraud, which is the falsification on the federal form 4473.
Because as much as 99% of those rejected by background checks are false positives ... if they started arresting (or even hassling) people that were perfectly legal but triggered a false positive they'd have a much harder time hiding that fact from the people that BGCs are a sham (and might end up with BGCs in general challenged in court where they could be found to be a significant infringement of the 2A and then done away with).

[OneGuy67]

Because as much as 99% of those rejected by background checks are false positives ... if they started arresting (or even hassling) people that were perfectly legal but triggered a false positive they'd have a much harder time hiding that fact from the people that BGCs are a sham (and might end up with BGCs in general challenged in court where they could be found to be a significant infringement of the 2A and then done away with).

I have looked into a few rejected background checks; some to assist the person to be able to successfully overturn the denial (back when it was up to the person to prove no conviction. Now CBI must prove conviction) and attempted a few criminal filings of falsified 4473's. I was not able to get a local DA to charge, based upon the belief that the 4473 is a federal form. You lie on a state form to the state and I have your ass all day, but apparently, I can't get you for lying on a federal form.

[TFOGGER]

According to the CBI's year end stats, there were a total of 32 denials on private sales.Given an appeal success rate of roughly 70%, that means the new law kept a whopping 9 people from illegally obtaining a weapon.Maybe, assuming they didn't just go buy one illegally. All of the others would have been stopped by the previous law.

[newracer]

The 32 denials is just December.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Does anyone have access to what the denials where actually from (at least generic stat wise, like domestic "charges", unpaid parking tickets or child support, etc.), other then "because we said so"? I seriously doubt a lot of paroled rapists and murderers where lined up at walmart to buy shotguns like these idiots would have you believe.

And I agree, bottom line is money - but registration and control are right up there. What would a bureaucrat do without bureaucracy? I doubt they could flip burgers......they probably can't follow simple instructions...

[BlasterBob]

So, if a BATF Agent observes a firearm transfer being made by two individuals here in Colorado and he somehow absolutely knows there has been no legitimate BGC, is it his/her duty to advise the proper local CO LEO of this violation? Apparently the Federal enforcement and/ or prosecuting people feel such violations of wrongfully completing Form 4473 (perjury) is not worth pursuing, why then even have such laws on the books if they are NOT going to be actively enforced. Also, when BATF legal beagles were assembling the wording for Form 4473, do you think they were convinced that the perjury charge would be enforceable/prosecutable or did they believe that it might just be an excellent scare tactic??????

[Zundfolge]

Does anyone have access to what the denials where actually from (at least generic stat wise, like domestic "charges", unpaid parking tickets or child support, etc.), other then "because we said so"?
I unfortunately can't find a source for this, but the vast majority of denials from false positives are because the legitimate buyer has the same name as a dirtbag.

I did a zabasearch (http://www.zabasearch.com/)for "Eric Harris" in "Colorado" and it came back with 12 hits and a search for "Jason Brown" in "Colorado" came back with 42 hits (There is currently a Jason Brown on the FBI's 10 most wanted list) I'll bet any time one of those guys tries to buy a gun they have problems.

[hatidua]

They don't care about causing an inconvenience or the cost involved. They think it stopped over 100 people from getting a gun, to them it is worth it.

I actually don't think they care in the least about this as a safety measure. It's about pandering to their base. If their base wanted legislation that banned okra, just because, -they'd push a ban on okra.

[Rucker61]

No it doesn't. HB 13-1229 requires the completion of a background check, but has zero language in it about the 4473 form, about lying or omitting on the form, or anything to do with the form at all.



Miscommunication. By "that law", I was referring to HB 13-1229, which includes language about those who violate provisions are committing a class 1 misdemeanor.




The crux of the arguments have been that a person who is knowingly prohibited, fills out a 4473 and lies on it, then is prohibited from buying the firearm, why isn't there any enforcement of the attempted fraud, which is the falsification on the federal form 4473.

That sounds like work. Besides, the perp is magically unable to get a gun in any other means. He failed a background check.

[newracer]

Does anyone have access to what the denials where actually from (at least generic stat wise, like domestic "charges", unpaid parking tickets or child support, etc.), other then "because we said so"? I seriously doubt a lot of paroled rapists and murderers where lined up at walmart to buy shotguns like these idiots would have you believe.

And I agree, bottom line is money - but registration and control are right up there. What would a bureaucrat do without bureaucracy? I doubt they could flip burgers......they probably can't follow simple instructions...

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPS-CBIMain/CBON/1251622199088

[Great-Kazoo]

FWIW: at one time CBI would ask FFL's to stall someone who had a denial , IF they had a warrant . I witness 3 folks leave a store i was "employeed" at years ago with outstandings. 2 of them failed to pay speeding tickets / show up for court. The other one had something mixed up with his last name.

[DOC]

I was there and testified. 1 3 out of 5 didn't give a shit about facts. 2 they said 102 people were stopped from transferring a gun (and they couldn't tell if it was through private sales or retail sales) but they said if it could have stopped one murder would it be worth it? I asked if it did stop one murder or was that just wishful thinking? 3. I stepped on my dick when I tried to talk about the rights of people. I got caught up in the second amendment.... when I should have brought up the state version which says "Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." And a universal background check is just the opposite of that. It calls the right in question of every person in the state.

[merl]

FWIW: at one time CBI would ask FFL's to stall someone who had a denial , IF they had a warrant . I witness 3 folks leave a store i was "employeed" at years ago with outstandings. 2 of them failed to pay speeding tickets / show up for court. The other one had something mixed up with his last name.

Dangerous criminals there. Get em!

[OneGuy67]

FWIW: at one time CBI would ask FFL's to stall someone who had a denial , IF they had a warrant . I witness 3 folks leave a store i was "employeed" at years ago with outstandings. 2 of them failed to pay speeding tickets / show up for court. The other one had something mixed up with his last name.

Since most backgrounds are done by computer now, they just pend the transaction and contact the local law enforcement. They discovered that a number of employees would tip off the person who would mysteriously be gone when the cops showed up. Yes, the majority of the warrants are for stupid things like moving violations. Take Von Miller for example; his was a traffic related warrant.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Do you think that the hoplophobes would still value backround checks if there was no gun information (ie make and serial) required on the form?

[merl]

Do you think that the hoplophobes would still value backround checks if there was no gun information (ie make and serial) required on the form?

Yes, any barrier to gun ownership is a good thing.

[Zundfolge]

Do you think that the hoplophobes would still value backround checks if there was no gun information (ie make and serial) required on the form?
Yes, its about the cost and inconvenience. It's really not about registration to these people (at least not the rank and file antis). Sure they want to register our guns (some know it eventually ends in confiscation but mostly because its a cost and inconvenience) but for the most part they're just happy spitting in the eye of their political opponents.

As several here have said, these laws are nothing more than counting coup in the culture wars.

[Rucker61]

Since most backgrounds are done by computer now, they just pend the transaction and contact the local law enforcement. They discovered that a number of employees would tip off the person who would mysteriously be gone when the cops showed up. Yes, the majority of the warrants are for stupid things like moving violations. Take Von Miller for example; his was a traffic related warrant. Then how come only 2.5% of the failures were arrested?

[OneGuy67]

Then how come only 2.5% of the failures were arrested?

The failures may not be all warrant related. They may have an active restraining order in place, may have a conviction, etc. According to CBI Instacheck records, there were only 188 warrant arrests for 2013.

From their statistics, a total of 396,955 transactions were conducted and 7,351 denials (1.81%). Of Concealed Handgun Permits, 63,178 eligible and 174 prohibited for 2013.

[BlasterBob]

As Gman said in another thread, "Either enforce the laws or change them. This idea that we'll have all kinds of laws on the books and whomever is running the federal government at the time will selectively enforce them is lunacy"

What Gman said in that thread just confirms what I said earlier about perjury on the Form 4473's and no one seems to give a good shit about those violations. Apparently the threat of perjury is just a hopeful scare tactic. Either enforce/prosecute it or remove it from the forms...........[Mad]

[OneGuy67]

You have to have something on the form and perjury is the easiest criminal charge that encompasses all potential issues, otherwise people will naturally claim they didn't know it was a crime. The Colorado Secretary of State uses a similar perjury statement on their website when people file documents. Perjury is a misdemeanor; however, the actual crime is forgery and is a felony, yet the Sec of State won't change their admonition to show the more serious offense. Should they take it off? No. It eliminates the possibility of a person who fraudulently files a document to claim they didn't know it was a crime to file a fraudulent document.

[BlasterBob]

To this old fart, perjury is still perjury whether it is in a court of law or on an official document such as Form 4473.
As far as perjury goes, it always seemed rather strange that when person is found guilty in a trial and the guilty party had pleaded innocent to the charge but was actually proven guilty beyond ANY reasonable doubt, his lying about his being innocent apparently is never considered as perjury.

[OneGuy67]

Ha! Good point Bob!

[Gman]

Joe Biden: 'We Don't Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies' On Background Checks (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/)


So the Federal government wants to put more gun control legislation on the books, but they don't want to enforce the current laws. Barack Obama wants universal background checks on guns, but doesn't seem willing to do his job when it comes to enforcing the laws behind background checks. This came out during a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and Jim Baker of the National Rifle Association. According to an interview (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/) that Baker gave with the Daily Caller, he said that Biden told him, "regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

According to the Bureaus Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf), anyone submitting false information onATF Form 4473 (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf) commits a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.

One would think that with the administration's call to "get the guns out of the hands of criminals," that they would be genuinely interested in prosecuting said criminals, but as reported earlier, this administration simply wants to go after guns. They are not interested in enforcing the law, which by the way, is their job as the Executive Branch.

In a report titled Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by a NICS Check in 2010 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf) that was authored by Ronald J. Frandsen and funded by tax payers through the U.S. Department of Justice and received in August of 2012, there was a report of 72,659 applications to purchase firearms that were denied (See Table A below).
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/background-checks.jpg (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/background-checks/)
National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that the most common reasons for denial fell into three categories. Thirty-four thousand four hundred fifty-nine denials for felony indictment or conviction were issued, making it 47.4% of the reason for denial of applications to purchase or transfer a firearm. Another 13,862 were denied because of being a fugitive, which amounted to 19.1% of denials. Finally, 7,666 people had their application denied because of State law prohibition, which made up 10.6% of denials.

In delayed denials, according to the report, "the agent contacts the firearm purchaser and seizes or takes an abandonment of the firearm or coordinates a transfer of the firearm to a licensed dealer or to a third party who is not a prohibited person. In POC states, a retrieval may be handled by local law enforcement, a statewide firearms unit, or ATF. In addition to the delayed denials, a small number of 2010 standard denials potentially involved unlawful firearm possession. Field offices investigated a total of 1,923 unlawful possession cases that began in 2010. A retrieval of a firearm (or firearms) from a prohibited person by field agents occurred in 1,164 (about 61%) of the cases. The subject of the investigation was cleared in 509 cases (approximately 27%). About 93% of the cases had been resolved by December 13, 2010, with the subject missing in nearly 7% of the cases."

However in the chart that follows that assessment, they indicate that 128 of those delayed denials they were unable to locate and 122 had other outcomes. Together they total 13% of delayed denials, which means that at the least a little over half of those still possess the firearm they acquired.

When it comes to actual prosecutions by U.S. attorneys, here's how the numbers break down. In Table 4 below these are the numbers of cases that the ATF declined to refer for prosecution and the reasons why.


http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cases-declined-by-AFT.jpg



Table 5. shows a total of 62 cases in 2010 that ATF referred for prosecution. Note the reasons for the referral.


http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/charges-referred-for-prosecution.jpg


Table. 6 shows that out of these 62, only 44 of those were prosecuted.



http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/prosecution.jpg



There's no excuse for this. PERIOD. The Federal Government, Executive in particular, is selectively doing their job.

The percentage of prosecutions based on the number of applicants is .00072879126%. That tells me that this process doesn't work and is likely not worth the tax dollars invested into it.

[asmo]

Joe Biden: 'We Don't Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies' On Background Checks (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/)

But they *do* have time to go after FFLs who abbreviate state names.. Makes perfect sense.

[BlasterBob]

But they *do* have time to go after FFLs who abbreviate state names.. Makes perfect sense.

Doesn't exactly give us a lot of confidence in the BATF system - huh?
I have always felt like the FFL's are forced to act as agents (like employees) for the BATF but get zero compensation for all the applications/4473's, filing and record keeping that must be maintained in absolute perfect order that they are truly FORCED to do.
i rather doubt if the FFL's maintaining spotless records are ever recognized for their super record keeping/WORK.

[merl]

Doesn't exactly give us a lot of confidence in the BATF system - huh?
I have always felt like the FFL's are forced to act as agents (like employees) for the BATF but get zero compensation for all the applications/4473's, filing and record keeping that must be maintained in absolute perfect order that they are truly FORCED to do.
i rather doubt if the FFL's maintaining spotless records are ever recognized for their super record keeping/WORK.

They do get compensation, their business. Everyone in the market must do it so it isn't unfairly on certain sellers. The buyers just pick up the cost.

[BlasterBob]

They do get compensation, their business. Everyone in the market must do it so it isn't unfairly on certain sellers. The buyers just pick up the cost.

merl, you are correct in that the FFL is somewhat compensated by being allowed to be in business and he can remain in that business (as far as BATF is concerned) just as long as he doesn't screw up the 4473's on a chronic basis and if there IS a chronic screwup of completing/maintaining the forms, he can then be put out of business by the Feds. They might not take his FFL license away but they might STRONGLY recommend he give it up and if that recommendation is not followed, they can really be "on his case". You are also correct in that the FFL here in Colorado will be paid for his time for his administrative duties of making the phone contact with CBI and doing all the paper shuffling. However, I believe the FFL's in many of the States, other than Colorado, are still required to complete and maintain the same paperwork but doubt if they are charging $30 - $50 for their service like so many of the Colorado FFL's are reportedly to be charging. I am NOT saying this to be critical of charges being made by the various Colorado FFL's!!!!!!
Seems like our Legislators may have figured that the charges for the BCG and the administrative charge made by the FFL might just discourage a good number of transfers from ever taking place. IMHO

[merl]

Seems like our Legislators may have figured that the charges for the BCG and the administrative charge made by the FFL might just discourage a good number of transfers from ever taking place. IMHO
Of course, any barrier is a good thing. Buying a gun is often a multi-hour experience which discourages it (the instant check has always been >1hr for me). I don't particularly enjoy waiting in a store for an hour or having to make two trips.

[OneGuy67]

I bought an AR lower receiver at the last Tanner and the background check took 2 minutes. It took longer for me to fill out the 4473 than it did when the nice lady pressed 'SEND' on her keyboard to get the approval back.

[lowbeyond]

But they *do* have time to go after FFLs who abbreviate state names.. Makes perfect sense.

once you figure out most of the violations of the 2nd A and all sort of other crap starts with a licence, it does make sense

What is that anyway? A useless piece of paper, some at extremely high prices, that the State makes you buy in order for them to not fine, jail, kill you. Pay off $ to your neighbor, the government worker

Funny thing is most people absolutely love licenses

[DOC]

Why didn't more of the people show up to say how long it takes. The dipshits that would see us in chains think it takes 2 minutes and $10 to transfer guns. I have never been out of there in less than 2 hours but I thought that was just me.

[mtnrider]

Why didn't more of the people show up to say how long it takes. The dipshits that would see us in chains think it takes 2 minutes and $10 to transfer guns. I have never been out of there in less than 2 hours but I thought that was just me.

You must have bad luck? With the exception of Christmas and panic time it has taken me longer to fill out the form then to get the approval. They came back approved almost instantly. Of course I would prefer not do have to do it all all (or have to pay for it).

[merl]

You must have bad luck? With the exception of Christmas and panic time it has taken me longer to fill out the form then to get the approval. They came back approved almost instantly. Of course I would prefer not do have to do it all all (or have to pay for it).

Bad luck or similar name to somone or my distant past haunting me. Just know the effect is a long wait.

Or perhaps the times have been reduced since the $10 fee went into effect?

[mtnrider]

Bad luck or similar name to somone or my distant past haunting me. Just know the effect is a long wait.

Or perhaps the times have been reduced since the $10 fee went into effect?

The $10 has been in effect since early last year. They implemented that almost immediately so I doubt that has anything to do with it. I could believe similer name, or past etc causing additional delays.

[BlasterBob]

The $10 has been in effect since early last year. They implemented that almost immediately so I doubt that has anything to do with it. I could believe similer name, or past etc causing additional delays.

I really believe the $10 charge for a BCG has been in effect LONG before "early last year".

[mtnrider]

I really believe the $10 charge for a BCG has been in effect LONG before "early last year".

Well, We started paying for it directly early last year.

[DOC]

Its all erosion.

[BlasterBob]

Well, We started paying for it directly early last year.

Maybe we are talking about two different things.
Started LAST year???
That may well be but the vendors at the Colorado gun shows have been charging for background checks at the shows for a few years now. Some may have been including the $10 in the overall price of the firearm but we have been getting charged for those BCG's since the law was passed some years ago. That law required ANY gun show transfers/sales/swaps, even made by those walking the aisles when they bought, sold or swapped a firearm with other non-FFL's, they must still have a BCG made and the FFL's were not allowed to charge more than $10 if made at the show. Again, that policy was started years ago.

[brutal]

Maybe we are talking about two different things.
Started LAST year???
That may well be but the vendors at the Colorado gun shows have been charging for background checks at the shows for a few years now. Some may have been including the $10 in the overall price of the firearm but we have been getting charged for those BCG's since the law was passed some years ago. That law required ANY gun show transfers/sales/swaps, even made by those walking the aisles when they bought, sold or swapped a firearm with other non-FFL's, they must still have a BCG made and the FFL's were not allowed to charge more than $10 if made at the show. Again, that policy was started years ago.

The fee the FFL's charge is not the $10 CBI fee put into law July 2013.

They now collect that fee in addition to whatever they charge, whether it is for a retail sale or private transfer. I think you're confusing the $10 fee most FFL at gunshows charged with the new CBI mandated fee. Most FFL don't add a BGC fee, other than the now mandated CBI fee for a retail sale.

[mcjhr]

It's what brutal said. FFL fee + $10. Makes me sleep safer at night.

[BlasterBob]

Apparently we are talking about two different situations. I had mentioned the mandatory BGC at gun shows which was first covered by Colorado Amendment 22 which required a BGC at all Colorado gunshows. This requirement was covered by Article 26.1, 12-26.1-101 and was effective March 31, 2001 (almost 13 years ago).
12-26.1-103 indicates, Fees imposed by licensed gun dealers. For each background check conducted at a gun show, a licensed gun dealer may charge a fee not to exceed ten dollars. So I am sure a lot of dealers may not have charged that ten dollars and just absorbed the fee IF the firearm was actually sold by them from their inventory - but if some guy in the aisle wanted to transfer his personal firearm to another individual at the show, the dealers would normally charge the maximum (at the time) ten bucks. It amounts to the same thing dealers are currently doing at the shows but have now added their administrative costs to the ten bucks. Back when that Amendment 22 came about, the ten bucks was the maximum they could charge for acquiring the BCG and transfer processing when made at gun shows.. Maybe no one will agree with me on this one.