Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats today want to introduce gun control legislation that they say is going to make you safer. They want to expand background checks.

But what do background checks accomplish?

Well, the DOJ said there were 112,000 denials in a year.

Who were those 112,000 people?

Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you think those were felons, they saved you from those felons.

But how many of those 112,000 were prosecuted for that crime of trying to acquire that gun?

According to the DOJ, 12--1-2--12 in a year.

Who were the other 100,000?

Imagine, just imagine now that you are the victim of an abusive relationship and after 5 years you have summoned the courage and the resources to separate from that relationship, but things have escalated and now you have decided that it is time to acquire the means to protect you and your children. So you go to the gun store and you try to buy a gun. The clerk presses the computer button, and it says ``denied.''

You ask the clerk, ``Why was it denied?''

The clerk says, ``I don't know. This happens sometimes. Maybe you had a similar name to somebody else in the database.''

You can't buy a gun today, tomorrow, next week. Not ever. You have been denied. So you go to a friend you have known for a long time. Your friend says, ``I would like to help you.''

You say, ``Well, I don't know if I am going to make it through the night.''

Your friend says, ``I would like to help you, but don't you know H.R. 8 passed and it was signed by the President. I can't spend a year in a cage. Good luck tonight.''

Mr. Speaker, now, I am not going to ask you to imagine what happens next because the Democrats saw fit to put into this bill a requirement that you have an imminent threat of death. The threat has to be right there upon you or great bodily harm.

What do they say?

Well, if you are just expecting a few bruises and maybe a punch, put some ice on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues here today and I am going to challenge the sponsors of this bill and those of them who might think they would vote for this bill to consider whether it is fair.

Is it fair to surround yourself with armed guards, with Capitol Hill Police who have guns, with personal details, bodyguards, and ask the people to pay for it when you make it harder for those same people to protect themselves?

I don't think that is fair.

And for the fact checkers who are already hard at work on this speech, I include in the Record this GAO report on the DOJ statistics on background checks. [From the United States Government Accountability Office, Sept. 2018] Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives Law Enforcement--Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are

Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions why gao did this study

In 2017, approximately 25.6 million firearm-related background checks were processed through NICS, and about 181,000 of the attempted purchases at the federal and state levels combined were denied because the individual was prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law. Individuals who certify that they are not prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm and are subsequently determined to be prohibited could be subject to investigation, and if prosecuted, a fine, imprisonment, or both.

GAO was asked to examine firearms denials. This report (1) describes the extent to which federal and selected state law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms denial cases; (2) examines related challenges faced by these agencies; and (3) describes the circumstances that lead to investigations and prosecutions. GAO reviewed laws and regulations; analyzed federal and state data from 2011 through 2017; and interviewed officials from ATF headquarters, 6 of 25 ATF field divisions (the 6 that investigated the most cases), and the 13 states that process all NICS checks within their state. Results from state interviews are not generalizable but provide insights on state practices. what gao recommends

GAO recommends that ATF assess the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notifications as an enforcement tool, which would inform whether changes to policy are needed. DOJ concurred with GAO's recommendation. what gao found

Investigations and prosecutions. Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year) 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney's Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.

TABLE.--FEDERAL NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM (NICS) FIREARMS DENIAL CASES INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED, FISCAL YEAR 2017 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATF Field Division United States Attorney's Federal NICS Transactions Denials Investigations Offices Prosecutions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8,606,286..................................................... 112,090 12,710 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions.

Challenges. ATF and selected states reported challenges in investigating and prosecuting firearms denials. Officials from six selected ATF field divisions said that investigating the increasing number of denial cases referred to field divisions--which increased from about 5,200 in fiscal year 2011 to about 12,700 in fiscal year 2017--has been time intensive and required use of their limited resources. ATF policy provides that field divisions may send ``warning notices'' to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but ATF has not assessed field divisions' use of these notices, which could provide greater awareness of their deterrence value and inform whether any policy changes are needed. Officials from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys said that prosecuting denial cases can require significant effort and may offer little value to public safety compared to other cases involving gun violence. Selected state officials said that denial investigations can take law enforcement officials away from their core duties. State prosecutors said gathering evidence to prove individuals knew they were prohibited was a challenge.

Types of cases. ATF field divisions investigate denial cases based on USAO criteria and generally only refer cases to USAOs for prosecution when aggravating circumstances exist, such as violent felonies or multiple serious offenses over a short period of time. Officials from two of three selected states refer all denial cases for investigation, while one state uses risk-based criteria for selecting cases that include conditions such as felony convictions and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Prosecutors from these three states said they generally pursue cases that involve indications of violence, though individual prosecutors had differing priorities based on public safety concerns.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point to make. I wonder how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold two thoughts in contradiction simultaneously in their minds. They say that photo IDs and excessive registration paperwork and whatnot disenfranchises disproportionately minorities and the poor when they go to exercise their right to vote. But today with H.R. 8 and the next bill that is coming up, they are doing exactly that. They are causing there to be increased fees, increased paperwork, and more photo IDs.

How does that not disenfranchise not just all Americans but disproportionately minorities and the poor?

Mr. Speaker, I leave that to my colleagues to answer today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source