Colorado background check data for private sales much less than estimated

L

LeverGunFan

New member
After the first year of background checks on private sales in Colorado, the data shows much fewer transactions than estimated. The funding for the program was based on the often quoted 40% figure for the percentage of private firearm sales. The AP looked at the background check data and found that private sales constitute about 4.4% (13,600) of the total sales (311,000) in Colorado, and may actually be even less. Interesting data to debunk the 40% myth, but I don't expect this story to get the attention it deserves. Here's a link to the story in the Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...law-based-flawed-estimate-analysis?source=rss
 
That did make it to the national news, but only for a day, I think.

It needs more exposure here in Washington state, we have a similar ballot issue coming up this fall, with the same phony numbers being touted.

I think Colorado budgeted $3,000,000 for the anticipated workload, meaning 13,600 additional checks cost the taxpayer $220 each.

And, not one felony arrest for prohibited persons trying to buy a gun.
 
Oh, I'm sure it's just otherwise-law-abiding gun owners not conducting private sales according to arbitrary and unintuitive rules specifically designed to make them into criminals in the first place. Mission accomplished.

TCB
 
I'm sure it's just otherwise-law-abiding gun owners not conducting private sales according to arbitrary and unintuitive rules
Click to expand...
Yes, but when they break the law, they're not law-abiding.

Rather than flaunt the law and risk prison time, they should be working to change the law.
 
Correct,Tom

I have stated several times that an "honor system" UBC for FTF sales is unenforceable.

The law is redundant for FFL's.They do one anyway.Colorado gunshows (that I have attended)require a 4473 and NICS check for everyone,including non-ffl sales.

The point of the UBC law was FTF sales.So now what?

This is "data" to prove "further regulation is necessary"(I don't believe that,IMO,it is bad law)

So "We need a committee" to draft regulations.

Here is why "NO!" is necessary.My little nightmare.

To enforce UBC on FTF sales,it may be argued that a base line inventory of all your firearms is necessary.A reg may require the state to know you have 2 shotguns,3 rifles,and two handguns,sn's xxxxxxxx,etc.
Then you will be subject to audit.,
Any change in inventory,+ or-,would be prima facia evidence an off-UBC transaction had occurred.
Dismal? Yes,but don't things seem to go that way?
And,of course,full gun registration occurs.We know the next step.
 
I have stated several times that an "honor system" UBC for FTF sales is unenforceable
Click to expand...
...and you're absolutely right. This was only ever a foot in the door to get registration passed in the future.

Other factors aside, the idea of registering all firearms in the state (or nationally: the idea is the same) would be a logistical nightmare. The end result would be a slew of charges brought against people who meant no harm.
 
Several shops that I have been in actually begged me to bring transfers to them! This alone was an indication that this deal was a dud!
Dan
:rolleyes:
 
Of the 13,600 private transfers how may of them were so called "buy-back" transfers? Seems this would drop the actual FTF sales even lower.

Both FTF and buy-back are covered by UBC.
 
Some of them may have been 'buy back' transfers if a municipality performed one recently, but the article did not reference any, so presumption is there were none or so small a number it makes no difference.
 
Folks we're all looking at this wrong.

If only 4% of these background checked gun sales were private, that means our law stopped the 36% of them that were going to criminals!

Keep in mind the spin cycle.
 
I'm curious whether this data backs up my previous assertion that the law would push CO buyers and sellers away from local sources such as gun shows and FB ads, and towards online resources such as GB. If one has to arrange a FFL transfer regardless, IMHO this negates one of the primary advantages of a local FTF sale- convenience.

For the same reason, I surmise that CO sellers may be more likely to put a gun on consignment at a dealer, rather than seeking out a FTF buyer.

OTOH I also strongly suspect that many private transfers have bypassed the new state system due to simple ignorance about the law and its application, rather than intentional and malicious circumvention. Most folks don't pay nearly as much attention to legal developments as the average L&CR reader. :)
 
Last edited:
OTOH I also strongly suspect that many private transfers have bypassed the new state system due to simple ignorance about the law and its application, rather than intentional and malicious circumvention. Most folks don't pay nearly as much attention to legal developments as the average L&CR reader.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what laws like this are for.

There is no expectation that this law will prevent mass shootings.

There is no expectation that this law will curb black-market firearms.

There is every expectation that this law will trip up otherwise law-abiding people.

We've often heard the mantra "ignorance of the law is no excuse." In the case of laws like this, ignorance is what some folks are counting on.

Apprehending a psychopath or a drug kingpin is hard. There's all that overtime for investigators, all those darn pesky warrants, and finally the risk of confronting an armed and violent person.

On the other hand, nabbing a normal person on a malum prohibitum offense is easy. That guy doesn't want to be a felon. He'll do everything he can to stay out of prison and keep his name from getting smeared.

That means a plea deal, which helps the prosecutor's success rate. That means probation, which puts money in the county's pockets. That means another person with a lifetime bar on firearms ownership, which is exactly what supporters of laws like this want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top