Would anybody support a NCIC check for buying ammo?

[gigag04]

Sure I would support it - if it was a condition of repealing the NFA, And Brady legislation, removing the check for buying guns, having Alaska carry nationwide, civil liability protection.

Otherwise no way

[MoJo]

When the CGA of 1968 was first implemented there was a provision for recording all rifle and pistol ammo purchases in a "bound book" It was a pain for both the buyer and seller. To buy a, back then, 59 cent box of .22 shells the dealer had to record your name, address, driver's license number, and I forget what else and keep it for 2 years IIRC. A lot of mom and pop places that sold ammo quit because they couldn't make any money because of the cost of the paperwork.

A NICS check? NO, NO, NO!

[Excaliber]

You might also consider the fact that the folks who lie about their criminal histories on Form 4473 and get caught on the background check are almost never investigated or prosecuted, even though they've committed a federal felony. A similar system for ammo would be no different.

Are you serious on this?

Here's a little data to help you judge for yourself.

The following information is taken from an NRA-ILA fact sheet on the Brady Act.

The GAO studied 20 Brady jurisdictions, 15 of which--Arizona; Arkansas; Kentucky; Nevada; Ohio; SouthCarolina; Clayton and Fulton Counties (Georgia); Bossier and Caddo Parishes (Louisiana); and Abilene, Fort Worth, Harris County (Houston area), Houston, and Pasadena (Texas)--had records identifying general reasons for purchase denials. GAO reviewed 384,301 retail handgun purchase applications occurring between Feb. 28, 1994 andFeb. 28, 1995, and found that 95.2% of applicants were approved immediately. Of the 4.8% disapproved, nearly half involved administrative errors (applications prepared or mailed incorrectly, etc.) or erroneous denials for traffic tickets. Persons denied for violent and nonviolent crime-related reasons accounted for 2.4% of applicants; denials due to administrative errors, 2%; and denials due to traffic tickets, 0.4%. Only four jurisdictions--Ohio; South Carolina; and Harris (Houston) and Tarrant (Fort Worth) Counties, Texas--had records identifying denials for violent crime reasons, and 0.2% of handgun purchase applications were so denied. (See additional discussion of the GAO study on previous pages).

Do the math here - 2.4% of 384,301 applicants denied for criminal records is 9,223 people. Remember, this is not the national figure. This number comes from only one study of only 20 jurisdictions over a period of one year. Obviously the national figure would be much higher.

Keeping this in mind, look at the national number of convictions for submitting false gun purchase forms over a three year period.

On Dec. 24, 1997, the Dept. of Justice, citing statistics from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, stated that during Fiscal Years 1994-1997 only 599 individuals were convicted of providing false information on either federal forms 4473 (used to document retail firearms purchases) or Brady handgun purchase application forms. During this period, a minimum of 75 of those convicted provided false information on Brady forms. (Letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.)

[Trinitite]

Would anybody support a NCIC check for buying ammo?

No, but I think it's a great idea for voting. Let's make sure the person isn't an illegal alien or other criminal prohibited from voting in the USA. The Democrats shouldn't object because reasonable restrictions are reasonable restrictions.

[74novaman]

Nope.

[baldeagle]

Here's a little data to help you judge for yourself.

The following information is taken from an NRA-ILA fact sheet on the Brady Act.

The GAO studied 20 Brady jurisdictions, 15 of which--Arizona; Arkansas; Kentucky; Nevada; Ohio; SouthCarolina; Clayton and Fulton Counties (Georgia); Bossier and Caddo Parishes (Louisiana); and Abilene, Fort Worth, Harris County (Houston area), Houston, and Pasadena (Texas)--had records identifying general reasons for purchase denials. GAO reviewed 384,301 retail handgun purchase applications occurring between Feb. 28, 1994 andFeb. 28, 1995, and found that 95.2% of applicants were approved immediately. Of the 4.8% disapproved, nearly half involved administrative errors (applications prepared or mailed incorrectly, etc.) or erroneous denials for traffic tickets. Persons denied for violent and nonviolent crime-related reasons accounted for 2.4% of applicants; denials due to administrative errors, 2%; and denials due to traffic tickets, 0.4%. Only four jurisdictions--Ohio; South Carolina; and Harris (Houston) and Tarrant (Fort Worth) Counties, Texas--had records identifying denials for violent crime reasons, and 0.2% of handgun purchase applications were so denied. (See additional discussion of the GAO study on previous pages).

Do the math here - 2.4% of 384,301 applicants denied for criminal records is 9,223 people. Remember, this is not the national figure. This number comes from only one study of only 20 jurisdictions over a period of one year. Obviously the national figure would be much higher.

Keeping this in mind, look at the national number of convictions for submitting false gun purchase forms over a three year period.

On Dec. 24, 1997, the Dept. of Justice, citing statistics from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, stated that during Fiscal Years 1994-1997 only 599 individuals were convicted of providing false information on either federal forms 4473 (used to document retail firearms purchases) or Brady handgun purchase application forms. During this period, a minimum of 75 of those convicted provided false information on Brady forms. (Letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney to Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.)

Putting on my pedant hat....it's worse than that. The convictions (599 were for a three year period, so the average is roughly 200 per year. The numbers for denials were for one year, so the number of convictions resulting from falsified applications represents a 2.1% conviction rate for only the numbers you provided, and certainly a much lower conviction rate for the national numbers. IOW, there is almost no risk in falsifying an application.

[Chemist45]

No.
No way.
No how.

Here's how it would go:
NICS check for ammo would crash the NICS system.
We need a new system. Who will pay for it?
We will just add a tax to ammo sales to cover the cost.
Now your $1.99 box of .22LR costs. $3.50.
When ammo costs more, fewer people will buy it.
Fewer shooters makes Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady happy.

This is a really dumb idea.

Oh, and it wouldn't stop a single bad guy from getting ammo.

[TNT]

absolutely would NOT support that

[Oldgringo]

Would anybody support a NCIC check for buying ammo?

Absolutely!

Chuck Schumer, Mayor Bloomie, Sarah Brady, Eric Holder, George Soros, to name a few. Actually, the list of those who would support this intrusion into our private lives is quite long.

Why do you ask?

[speedsix]

...Well, NO!!!


(thanks for the reminder, Keith!)

[wally775]

Stupid wrote:
Would anybody support a NCIC check for buying ammo?

Ok I will say this since the OP came from stupid.
I have finally seen a stupid question.

NO, NO NO and NO

[thr_wedge]

No!

[TxKimberMan]

No way.

[rangefinderII]

Not only no but heck no.

[baldeagle]

Forgot to answer the OP.

NO!!