State background checks are redundant?

K

Kleinzeit

New member
On The Ed Show the other night (MSNBC), there was a story about background checks in Minnesota. Apparently, some Republicans are pushing for the state check to be dropped, arguing that it is redundant: that only the one, federal check is needed.

Ed, and his guest Josh Horowitz (director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), claimed that the state check is not redundant - that last year, the state check stopped 37 people from buying guns (because of drug use or mental illness) in the city of Bloomington who would not have been picked up by the federal check.

You can find a transcript here: http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_ed_show/52/MSNBC/Tuesday_February_1_2011/556050/ The discussion starts at 0:55:32.

I want to know if this is true - that these people definitely would not have been identified by the federal system?

Is the state of Minnesota obliged to share its information with the federal system? Do they in fact do so? If they are not obliged to do so, will there be a change so that they are/do? What about the other states?

I would imagine that the best system would be one in which the states do share this information. State checks then really would be redundant, and people could still be identified if they crossed state lines to buy guns. (My understanding of Virginia Tech - correct me if I am wrong - is that Cho was able to buy a gun because Virginia wasn't passing on its information to the federal system.)

I'm horribly ignorant on how all this works, but I'd really like to understand.

Btw - Please refrain from the usual rants about how this is typical of MSNBC, Horowitz, etc. etc. I would just like to talk about what the current situation actually is with checking/reporting by the states, and whether you think the arrangement works.
 
While they're at it, send them to NJ and see what they can do about the idiotic NJ firearms ID card requirement. A background check just to qualify you to get another federal background check :barf:
 
I wonder if that's Minnesota's "Permit to purchase" system for handguns. MO used to have one, NC still does. Basically, in order to buy a handgun you have to go to your local sheriff and get a permit to acquire a handgun. They run a background check on you, and yes, it's redundant. We managed to get rid of it here in MO because there were sheriffs abusing that power (requiring information the law did not allow them to request).

There may have been a reason for this permit in the past, but with the instant check we now have, there's not much point to it.
 
It's not really redundant because in most places the permit to purchase means you don't have to get run through the NICS at the dealer.
 
It's not really redundant because in most places the permit to purchase means you don't have to get run through the NICS at the dealer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "in most places." Here in MO, we most certainly DID get put through NICS at the dealer.

Furthermore, we aren't talking something that takes five minutes most of the time. It can mean two trips to the sheriff (I'm just going off what I had to deal with in my county in MO; MN might have a slightly different implementation) a week apart. That means you're looking at an hour's worth of an errand, a small fee, a week's wait, and another hour worth of errand before I could finalize the handgun sale.

If the make/model/ser. no. is required, then you can't even do anything on the spot. I was able to get a permit to purchase in advance, then find the gun I wanted, and finalize it on the spot. Some sheriffs wanted the details before they would issue the permit, and that was a real mess (and it was illegal in MO, which was how we got it tossed).

More power to the MN folks, I hope they're successful.
 
Here in Jersey we get finger printed just to get a license to buy rifles :mad:

If you have a GOOD experience, 6 week wait. Some wait as long as 6 months. Then you get to have a NCIS check too, but that's speed bump compared to the road block the state puts us through.
 
Kleinzeit said:
I want to know if this is true - that these people definitely would not have been identified by the federal system?
Click to expand...
According to the this article from the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, the figures from Bloomington come from the Bloomington police officer who heads the background check unit, in testimony before a committee of the MN state legislature. He also noted that the state check is somewhat more restrictive than the Federal check, as it "...would catch people charged with gross misdemeanors, such as stalking and crimes committed for a gang, as well as those charged with violent crimes and placed in pretrial diversion programs."

So it's a more comprehensive background check than the NICS one, and it's a bit disingenuous to say that it simply duplicates the latter.

Is the state of Minnesota obliged to share its information with the federal system? Do they in fact do so? If they are not obliged to do so, will there be a change so that they are/do? What about the other states?
Click to expand...

Apparently not. The same article quotes Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. He noted that the state check includes information (on mental health and drug issues) from the Minnesota Human Services Department, which, he said, isn't submitted to the Federal system.

It's not clear whether those 37 people would have failed the NICS check if relevant information, such as mental health data, had been available to that system, or if they were denied because they failed the more stringent standards of the Minnesota check.

There are two separate issues here: first, that of states' failing to report information to the feds which would be disqualifying under the federal system; both the situation in Minnesota and the case of the Virginia Tech shooter indicate that that reporting doesn't happen as well as it might.

The second issue is that of the power of individual states to place additional restrictions, beyond the federal ones, on who may purchase firearms of whatever type; to the extent that happens, states do need their own background checks in order to enforce those tighter restrictions.

I do not mean to deflect this into a discussion of partisan politics, but I think the general political background to the story is relevant: the Republicans have shiny new majorities in both houses of the MN legislature, and they're kicking up their heels a bit. Since the shiny new Democratic Governor opposes dropping the state background checks, and the Republicans don't even come close to having a veto-proof majority, this, as well as some other newly proposed legislation, is unlikely to go anywhere. There's a lot of political theater going on at the moment -- even more than usual. :rolleyes:

As a Minnesotan, I'm not too pleased with either side in this particular debate. Although I'd much rather not have to jump through the additional hoop of the state check, to try to repeal it on the grounds that it's redundant is, as I said, disingenuous. But I also have problems with the assumption that seems to be made by the opponents of repeal: that preventing people from buying guns is automatically a good thing, regardless of the actual reasons for the denial.
 
Well in Iowa if you get the permit to purchase it is good for a year and then you don't have to go through the NICS check at the dealer.

The permit counts as your background check.
 
Wow. That strikes me as kind of weird (though certainly also convenient). So, you could have done something in the last year that would have resulted in you failing the NICS, but you get a free pass for the year?

I can't help wondering how that is even possible.
 
""It's not really redundant because in most places the permit to purchase means you don't have to get run through the NICS at the dealer. ""

In MI you get both unless you have a CPL, then neither. BUT handguns are still registered and most gun guns think the recent changes to the registration are like sliced bread!! The system was 'streamlined''--Hitler loved registration..
 
Other than crimes commited on Federal property, what information about you could the Fed have that the state doesn't send them?

The Fed check has to rely on info provided by the states, and there could very well be a time lag between the state knowing something and the Feds getting that information from the state. Bureaucracy works at its own speed. And that goes both ways and sideways as well.

The Fed may know something that they do not tell the state. And both may know something in one part of the govt, but do not tell, or are forbidden to tell another part!

Patrick Purdy, the Stockton killer, who set off the media on the "assault rifle" hysteria was recieveing govt checks because his mental state left him unable to work. He was on disability for a mental condtion! Yet, amazingly, he bought 3 handguns in a years time in California, going through the 2 week waiting period and passing the background check every time! Because, the SS admintration (who was writing the checks) was forbidden by law from telling the rest of the govt that the man was mantally disabled (which would have been a firearm disqualifier).

Cho the more recent VA tech shooter "slipped through the cracks" they say, and while some people had concerns, he wasn't reported to the right people, or reported as being as dangerous as he turned out to be.

New laws have been written, to make the sharing of info easier, but I'm sure there are still a lot of things that don't get to the people who ought to know them.

What I consider redundant is having to get checked every single time. Yeah, sure, you could have done something to get you prohibited since your last check, but since you already have at least one gun (from the last check) if you have evil intent, another check does not stop anything. And if you don't have evil intent, additional checks are just redundant.
 
What I consider redundant is having to get checked every single time. Yeah, sure, you could have done something to get you prohibited since your last check, but since you already have at least one gun (from the last check) if you have evil intent, another check does not stop anything. And if you don't have evil intent, additional checks are just redundant.
Click to expand...
Yes but at $5.00 a copy, here in FL, the revenue must add up for the state. Unless of course the whole bureaucracy costs more than it takes in, which wouldn't surprise me.
 
State background checks are redundant?
Click to expand...

The case I could think of where state background checks are not redundant is domestic violence. These have been treated in some, if not most, states as misdemeanor assaults if no deadly/dangerous weapon is used. Most misdemeanors are not automatically sent to NCIC/NICS, thus possibly allowing many domestic violence offenders to fall through the cracks.
 
Last edited:
I might be wrong, but I think the only data the states send to the Feds is records of convictions. IF you had something at a state level that wasn't a conviction (like a restraining order) that still was a (temporary)DQ, the state might know that, where the Feds would not.?
 
In Minnesota, the permit to purchase a handgun or "assault weapon" is good for one year. However, you must still go through the NICS background check for any gun you purchase. Hypothetical: Let's say you pass the MN background check and are "awarded" a permit to purchase. 5 months down the road, you steal a car, but it's your first offense. Because many judges in Minnesota are rather lenient, you are allowed to plea bargain down to a misdemeanor offense. One month later, you could go purchase a handgun and would likely be able to pass the federal check. You have your MN permit to purchase already, so the gun dealer just runs you through the NICS and viola, you're a proud new owner of a handgun.

What this means is that even if the Minnesota permit to purchase and the NICS background check aren't 100% redundant, they don't compliment each other all that well either. Of course, most criminals don't go through either background check, so you can't stop their illegal purchases anyway. What's the statistic? Only 7% of criminals who commit violent crimes get their guns through the "legal" channel or via a licensed seller. How do they accomplish that? Fake names, fake id's, etc., I'm guessing.
 
USAFNoDak-

Very good comment on the PTP and the NICS. Even tho MN is trying to drop the PTP, I wonder if that is a good idea. We don't pay anything for a Permit to purchase and I look at it as a possible deterent to having Fed Gun Control. If approved by our state and then turned down by NICS, that could serve as a red flag that NICS is trying to pull something and add credability to an appeal. My NICS was "delayed". The delay went for 4 days and no problem. If I read between the lines, I think NICS was saying, "well, we can't stop you from passing but maybe we really don't want people to own guns". They of course did nothing outside the law, but in the Big Picture, maybe we are better off with 2 systems. I was actually more concerned about the PTP application thinking someone might inject their own politics into the process. Just my thoughts. Any input on that?
 
44 AMP

I was under the impression that when a NICS is delayed, they need more time to search individual state databases. When I was at the gun show, I purchased on a saturday where the state of MN database might not be available or perhaps down. You probably have more experience than I do so my question is>>>>? Actually a hypothisis. NICS is meant to catch convictions after you have gotten a PTP from the state. The state permit would be pulled if someone had a conviction and NICS would not have to have a verified incident on record. My guess is.... NICS does not reply on states submitting data, but searches the state of residence or the state records where the firearm is being purchased. Input from you guys on that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top