http://www.house.gov/dingell/8-2-00.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Laura Sheehan
202-225-4071
Dingell Questions Reno on Prosecution Rate of Federal Firearm Felons
Washington, D.C. - The recent release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks has prompted
Congressman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., to question Attorney General Janet Reno
about Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Attorney policy regarding the
prosecution of felons who lie on their firearm purchase application.
"I want to know why, when the law clearly states it is a federal felony to falsify
information on a firearm transfer application, the Justice Department has chosen
not to prosecute these offenders," Dingell said. "In 1999, 86 percent of the people
rejected by National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) had lied
on their application and are thereby punishable by law, yet less than 1 percent
were prosecuted. NICS is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down
on gun criminals and prevent crime, but it only works if we use it."
In the letter, Dingell responds to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement
that "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers and
other person not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun," by noting that
stopping the sale of a gun to a prohibited person is only one factor of an effective
strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives
and domestic abusers who attempt, by falsifying their application, to purchase a
firearm is equally important.
Dingell also notes the BJS report states in 1998 of 90,000 rejected applications,
only 102 cases were federally prosecuted. While the Administration claims these
cases are difficult to prosecute, Dingell stated, "These are open and shut cases.
Knowingly falsifying a firearm transfer application is punishable under federal law
for up to ten years in prison."
Dingell asks Reno to explain exactly what the DOJ’s policy is for prosecuting
felons caught lying on their firearm purchase application, and more to the point,
why there seems to be minimal interest in prosecuting those who violate federal
firearm laws. During his tenure, Dingell has consistently made the case that DOJ
would make an enormous dent in gun related violence if it simply enforced the
some 40,000 firearm laws currently on the books.
August 1, 2000
The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Reno:
I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4,
2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background
Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely
enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous
importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies
to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun
violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of
the Administration on this front.
As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped
536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not
legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an
impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on
gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm
to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to
reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and
domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of
the equation.
The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700
defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts
between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems
incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the
instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the
number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.
As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a
firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a
firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In
simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in
prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of
prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify
the purchase application.
Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS
report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction
or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence
conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a
fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of
those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed
another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm
prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report
indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution
rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected
applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.
If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have
final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications,
totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted.
That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998,
for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only
one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these
cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former
federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private
practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up
off the street."
Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to
understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in
enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand
why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of
18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following
questions:
Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are
indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table
1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by
reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not
prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest
and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell
me:
A.What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18
U.S.C(a)(6)?
B.Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute
those who violate federal firearms laws?
C.Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those
who violate federal firearm laws?
Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute
was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual
case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a
false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473
requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she
is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each
disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or
no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the
prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires
many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if
an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a
prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a
document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of
U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively
open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of
firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred
because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under
felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000
individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473.
Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the
Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys
filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18
U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend.
Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false
statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak
evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to
prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.
Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement
policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It
states:
In November 1998, EOUSA [Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys] provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance .
. . The guidance stated that thousands of potential
Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field
offices annually, and that the system "would grind to
a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."
The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance
recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to
increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the
current annual level of 50 cases)."
The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form
violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those
cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records
of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms
convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the
referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or
prosecution.
In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the
following:
a.Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed
without investigation or prosecution?
b.What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to
increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has
EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18
U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
c.Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6)
violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field
offices?
d.How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have
U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998
EOUSA guidance?
e.I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are
disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to
obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are
unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons
who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee
regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant
Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious
misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially
unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and
explain why your representative characterized this law as such?
Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please
comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics
and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your
response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your
staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at (202) 225-4071.
With every good wish,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Laura Sheehan
202-225-4071
Dingell Questions Reno on Prosecution Rate of Federal Firearm Felons
Washington, D.C. - The recent release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks has prompted
Congressman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., to question Attorney General Janet Reno
about Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Attorney policy regarding the
prosecution of felons who lie on their firearm purchase application.
"I want to know why, when the law clearly states it is a federal felony to falsify
information on a firearm transfer application, the Justice Department has chosen
not to prosecute these offenders," Dingell said. "In 1999, 86 percent of the people
rejected by National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) had lied
on their application and are thereby punishable by law, yet less than 1 percent
were prosecuted. NICS is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down
on gun criminals and prevent crime, but it only works if we use it."
In the letter, Dingell responds to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement
that "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers and
other person not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun," by noting that
stopping the sale of a gun to a prohibited person is only one factor of an effective
strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives
and domestic abusers who attempt, by falsifying their application, to purchase a
firearm is equally important.
Dingell also notes the BJS report states in 1998 of 90,000 rejected applications,
only 102 cases were federally prosecuted. While the Administration claims these
cases are difficult to prosecute, Dingell stated, "These are open and shut cases.
Knowingly falsifying a firearm transfer application is punishable under federal law
for up to ten years in prison."
Dingell asks Reno to explain exactly what the DOJ’s policy is for prosecuting
felons caught lying on their firearm purchase application, and more to the point,
why there seems to be minimal interest in prosecuting those who violate federal
firearm laws. During his tenure, Dingell has consistently made the case that DOJ
would make an enormous dent in gun related violence if it simply enforced the
some 40,000 firearm laws currently on the books.
August 1, 2000
The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Reno:
I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4,
2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background
Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely
enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous
importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies
to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun
violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of
the Administration on this front.
As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped
536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not
legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an
impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on
gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm
to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to
reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and
domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of
the equation.
The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700
defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts
between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems
incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the
instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the
number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.
As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a
firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a
firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In
simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in
prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of
prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify
the purchase application.
Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS
report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction
or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence
conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a
fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of
those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed
another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm
prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report
indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution
rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected
applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.
If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have
final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications,
totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted.
That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998,
for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only
one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these
cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former
federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private
practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up
off the street."
Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to
understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in
enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand
why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of
18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following
questions:
Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are
indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table
1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by
reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not
prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest
and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell
me:
A.What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18
U.S.C(a)(6)?
B.Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute
those who violate federal firearms laws?
C.Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those
who violate federal firearm laws?
Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute
was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual
case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a
false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473
requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she
is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each
disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or
no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the
prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires
many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if
an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a
prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a
document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of
U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively
open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of
firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred
because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under
felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000
individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473.
Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the
Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys
filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18
U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend.
Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false
statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak
evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to
prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.
Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement
policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It
states:
In November 1998, EOUSA [Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys] provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance .
. . The guidance stated that thousands of potential
Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field
offices annually, and that the system "would grind to
a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."
The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance
recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to
increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the
current annual level of 50 cases)."
The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form
violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those
cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records
of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms
convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the
referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or
prosecution.
In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the
following:
a.Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed
without investigation or prosecution?
b.What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to
increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has
EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18
U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
c.Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6)
violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field
offices?
d.How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have
U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998
EOUSA guidance?
e.I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are
disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to
obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are
unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons
who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee
regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant
Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious
misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially
unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and
explain why your representative characterized this law as such?
Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please
comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics
and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your
response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your
staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at (202) 225-4071.
With every good wish,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell
Member of Congress