That was fast. How do you know?
Printable View
That was fast. How do you know?
They voted it dead 3-2 earlier today.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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!
Methinks you underestimate the supply of nails and coffins.
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
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]
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.
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.
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)
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
As for a debt being paid already, well then why are they not truly free citizens again with ALL rights restored?
The simple fact is that Denver Dems want this 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.
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlasterBob
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
Link? I'm too lazy to look it up...Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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.
The 32 denials is just December.
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...
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??????
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsRBadMMMMKay
I did a zabasearch 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
That sounds like work. Besides, the perp is magically unable to get a gun in any other means. He failed a background check.Quote:
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.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite.../1251622199088Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsRBadMMMMKay
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.
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.
Dangerous criminals there. Get em!Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeshaker
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by milwaukeeshaker
As several here have said, these laws are nothing more than counting coup in the culture wars.
Then how come only 2.5% of the failures were arrested?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
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.
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]
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.
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.
Ha! Good point Bob!
Joe Biden: 'We Don't Have Time To Prosecute Everybody Who Lies' On Background Checks
Quote:
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 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.”
There's no excuse for this. PERIOD. The Federal Government, Executive in particular, is selectively doing their job.Quote:
According to the Bureaus Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, anyone submitting false information onATF Form 4473 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 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-con...und-checks.jpg
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-con...ned-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-con...rosecution.jpg
Table. 6 shows that out of these 62, only 44 of those were prosecuted.
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...rosecution.jpg
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.