NICS, Felons, and Disenfranchised voters.

J

JimDandy

New member
Maybe I'm not thinking this all the way through yet, and haven't wrapped my mind around something I'm missing yet... but I got to thinking, how many prohibited persons are there?

So I did some searching and found The FBI records total page
And saw that more than half were illegal aliens, #2 was adjudicated mentally deficient at just over a third of their records, and limping WAY behind at #3 was the the criminal category. Now, I thought to myself, maybe there are multiple reasons, its easy to imagine there are felons who have been adjudicated mentally deficient. But when you add every category that isn't an illegal alien (You'll see why in a second) that's still less than half, or barely more than 4 million people. The reason we don't count the illegal aliens is because they can't vote. And over here at this research website Pro-Con (As in pros and cons of an issue, not go-convicts-yay!) we find Nearly 6 million people are disenfrachised for a felony conviction. This is staggering to me. Even if every single person in every single non-alien category were a disenfrancised person, that still leaves a missing million and a half or better people not in the NICS database.
 
I realized something that makes it even worse. Most states don't maintain the disenfranchisement after release. So the totals for most of those states are only those currently in the system, not those who have been released. The total number is actually much much higher.
 
So let me see if I understand you. You are upset because the totals from two different sources, compounded differently, from years apart don't add up somehow? Is that right?
 
Even though the sources and methodologies differ, I agree that convicted felons seem to be wildly underreported in the NICS data. Does this mean that there are convicted felons out there who could lie on a Form 4473 and pass an NICS check?

EDIT: Or are the "active records" in the NICS data just the people who have filled out a Form 4473 and been denied?
 
Last edited:
That's what I'm getting at Scott. Those are just the felons that can't vote. And as we all know, its a helluva lot easier to get back voting rights than firearms rights. Most states don't even maintain the disenfranchisement once the felon is released from any sentencing (i.e. Work Release/group home parole, etc.) The ones that do seem to have a 5x to 10x ratio. Even if we just double the 5 million in the list, that's nearly 12 million felons, but only 750K active records. While the top category does imply the records are those who applied and failed- why else would NICS know about so many illegal aliens- Shouldn't every felon be in the database by default?

Did some more poking around... Govt report of the NICS system shows "over 1.9 million" denials since inception through 2009. That's far below the total number of records there.

I think this is our argument- "What the hell are we doing tilting at windmills over rifles that aren't used in crimes, when more than 4 out of 5 felons can lie in a gun store and buy a gun?"
 
Good observations, JimDandy. Rather than compare numbers from different years, below are stats (and sources) that are all for the end of 2010.

Total Active NICS Index Records ------- 6,442,538
Felony > 1 yr and misdemeanor > 2 yrs --- 435,022
Misdemeanors Crimes of Domestic Violence - 54,559

source: NICS Operations 2010

Federal Prisoners Incarcerated -- 209,771
State Prisoners Incarcerated -- 1,402,624
Total Prisoners Incarcerated -- 1,612,395

source: Prisoners in 2010 (Table 1)

Violent Crimes in the above ----- 740,000

source: Prisoners in 2011 (Tables 10 and 11)

Unless state prisons (as opposed to local jails) are housing a LOT of people with > 1 year sentences for misdemeanors of violence, the nearly three-quarters of a million point-in-time prison population for violent crimes looks very funny compared to the cumulative NICS total of less than half of a million.

BTW, the NICS Index is not a record of denied firearms purchase attempts; the NICS Index is the source used to determine whether a purchase is denied.

ADDED: Illegal aliens are, by definition, prohibited persons; all ICE activity is dumped into NICS to make the numbers look impressive.
 
Last edited:
If you are not in jail or in a mental institution you should be able to have a weapon to protect yourself or your family.

The problem is that people who need to be executed are out on parole, and people who need to be committed are walking freely, and people who have molested children and raped women are out of prison after only a few months.

Bail is another thing also. If the accused crime is non-violent bail should be allowed. If it is a violent or sexual offense bail should be denied.

NICS is a joke for us, but a serious attempt at registry by the government. A digital record is impossible to dispose of Once it has been placed on multiple servers (a given). They aren't really concerned with stopping purchases. That isn't and never has been the true purpose of NICS.

It is a testbed program for digital gun registration.
 
What we're missing from your table, and barely get a peek at in the one I had- is how many of those folks have served their time, and been released. The felon IN jail isn't buying a gun. The felon OUT of jail is the one we need the records on.
 
From gc70:
"Unless state prisons (as opposed to local jails) are housing a LOT of people with > 1 year sentences for misdemeanors of violence, the nearly three-quarters of a million point-in-time prison population for violent crimes looks very funny compared to the cumulative NICS total of less than half of a million."

I believe that usually, if someone is sentenced to one year or more, they go to state prison. If less than one year, it's county jail. (At least that's the practice here in NJ and in PA.) YMMV.
 
JimDandy said:
how many of those folks have served their time, and been released
Click to expand...

You could piece some information together from annual release stats from the BJS, but it would not accurately reflect the population of prohibited ex-convicts. The BJS reports note that a lot of convicts are released and later reincarcerated. One person to be convicted, imprisoned, and released several times, but that person should be reflected as one name in the NICS Index.

Courts are supposed to forward information to NICS when a person is convicted. That information is supposed to be checked against the NICS Index and linked to an existing name if already in NICS or create a new record in the Index. In THEORY, the NICS Index should contain the names of all prohibited criminals, both currently incarcerated or previously released. That is why your observation that the prison population substantially exceeds the number of NICS records is so disturbing.

As far as getting information into NICS, I did notice that Schumer's UBC bill includes a section to clarify that federal courts are required to report information to NICS, suggesting that they have not all been doing so in the past.
 
Given that all 50 states listed a current nearly 6 million who couldn't vote, and MOST of those states did not disenfranchise released felons even saying 6 million seems to err on the side of caution in a big way- considering those states that do disenfranchise released felons had a ratio of between 5 and 10 times a total population as to that currently incarcerated. Even at 6 million, it's a frightening ratio when compared to the less than 750,000.

I'm also concerned at the less than 800 under indictment. Really? Less than 800, even federally, nationwide?
 
Last edited:
Jim Dandy...do you REALLY think that a violent felon really cares what the law is? If you think that the NCIS data base is useful you are deluding yourself.

You can even go beyond purchases...look at the Phillipines during WWII...where did the local population get their hand guns from? They manufactured them, (cottage industry)...and they were NOT that crude,

We do not need any "prohibited persons". What makes you so holy that your life is more valuable that the guy that has a DV conviction 40 years ago?

If someone has convicted a violent crime, and is a danger to society, that person need to be removed from society. Otherwise, when not incarcerated, they should be treated like everyone else.
 
No I don't think someone going to commit a crime cares what the law is. What I DO think is that IF we are going to have the database, it should include more than 20% of the known felons, DEFINITELY long before we apply it to the less common forms of gun sales such as private sales, flea markets and gun shows.

Now my question is, what part of pointing out that far far far less than half of the known felons actually in the NICS database in ANY WAY implied it was useful?

As for what makes me so holy, it would start with the fact that 40 years ago I wasn't smacking around my defenseless wife and/or children. And it finishes with a process to have that firearms disability removed at the state level allowing someone to (theoretically) get their firearms rights back after sufficient time to prove rehabilitation over recidivism. NOT that that was the point I was making, the point I was making is there is a giant hole in the NICS database you could fly a 747 through. With that said, thank you for reading what I wrote, instead of what you wanted to object to, and keeping it civil instead of confrontational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top