More than 300 people banned from owning guns were able to buy them last year because the state police were overwhelmed with background check requests, police said Wednesday.
People with histories of mental illness or convictions for violent misdemeanors, felons and fugitives were able to obtain and keep guns for three months or longer before state police reviewed the sales, according to records released by request to The Baltimore Sun.
Maryland State Police finally cleared the backlog of background-check requests last week that began more than a year ago and once stood at more than 60,000, leading to months-long delays in investigating thousands of firearm transactions.
Police say a team of undercover troopers has recovered nearly all of the 364 firearms sold to people barred from owning them, but four guns have not been retrieved. "To us, the danger has not passed," state police spokesman Greg Shipley said.
Nine transactions have been referred to prosecutors as knowingly illegal sales, he said.
Over the course of last year, dealers released 51,812 guns before a background check was completed. They could legally do that because of a loophole that allows them to give out firearms after waiting a week, regardless of whether the check is done. Normally, the seven-day waiting period provides plenty of time for state troopers to conduct the check and notify dealers.
It seems the law in Maryland is that The State Police conduct the background check INSTEAD OF depending on the federal NICS check. Sounds pretty crazy to me.
To put limitations on the waiting period and not give the resources necessary to complete the checks within that limitation period, is deadly irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of law that gun loons pass, a law that cannot work and then use that excuse to say it proves that kind of law does not work. Totally dishonest, which is shown by the comments on this blog by the pro gun "side."
Whoa there, are you saying Maryland's state background check was the idea of gun rights advocates?
DeleteIt's your side that passes idiotic laws like this. You don't see us demanding any such legislation.
DeleteIf you think Maryland's gun laws are the work of gun rights advocates, you're even more delusional than I'd thought--and that's a strong statement.
DeleteNope, Bravely Anonymous, Maryland's gun laws are very nearly exclusively the work of your side.
DeleteGC, it's your side that kills children.
DeleteKurt,
DeleteIt's your side, no you who are not law abiding citizens, as you told me your self. Simple criminals and you guys prove it everyday.
Since you dishonest killers insist on being insulting and dishonest, so be it.
DeleteWhat "side" is that since I support the right to buy, own, and use guns? Unlike you, I am a law abiding citizen and support the Constitution and other laws of my country.
DeleteGuys, we've got to be nicer to Anonymous--he seems to be in a fragile state.
Delete"You should be hoping for a stand alone gun rights amendment, or the law will find the second amendment obsolete and all that will be needed is a liberal court."
DeleteThis doesn't sound like the words of someone who supports the right to buy, keep, and use guns.
Actually it's better TS. Stop the arguments about militias, which are a well founded argument and have a stand alone law. That's actually more pro gun than the silly, losing arguments your side keeps bringing up. If you are so pro gun why would you be against a clear, unambiguous right to a gun law?
DeleteJust stop lying Simon, but I know that's not possible for you guys. You want courtesy, you have to give it.
DeleteActually, I can see where Anonymous is coming from. The gun control folks we all know and love would never have allowed that stipulation in the law which says after a certain period of time if the background check isn't completed give him the gun anyway. That sounds like you guys.
DeleteIt is true to say that no gun control freak believes that a right delayed is a right denied.
DeleteIt is true to say gun loons don't except even the smallest regulation and would rather see innocent people and children die.
DeleteIt seems the law in Maryland is that The State Police conduct the background check INSTEAD OF depending on the federal NICS check.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct. Asshats in the Maryland legislature tried this year to change the law to permit the state to impose an indefinite delay on sales while the check was run (clearly no fans of Martin Luther King, these folks), but I believe the legislative session ended with no such abomination passing.
Perhaps there's hope even for Maryland.
Other states rely on their own systems rather than the Federal one. This doesn't seem to be a problem for them--I've known of people who had very old convictions of felonies in other states, or just arrests with charges dropped, who were denied a purchase by the TICS (Tennessee Instant Check System). And these denials came back basically instantly--as one would suspect in an "instant check system" as the Tennessee and federal systems are named.
ReplyDeleteFor those who had not convictions, they could challenge the no answer and this was when there was a waiting period as the TICS people (following the same rules applicable to NICS) conducted a deeper check to see if the person was prohibited--if no convictions can be found during this check, the person is allowed to purchase the gun.
This state system, like the federal one, had records from the other states. It also accessed these quickly and more or less instantly (a 5 minute phone call or so).
One has to wonder what Maryland has done to so screw up their system that it can't run a decent check in a matter of days.
If they used the NICS system, these 500 some individuals would have been denied immediately, and the other customers would have been approved immediately rather than sitting around waiting.
It seems to me that a state check alone might very well miss some out-of-state disqualifiers. But the state one might catch some things, especially mental health problems that might not be in the federal NICS. I say both should be done, and needless to say, in a timely manner.
DeleteIt's a matter of how well they set up their databases. NICS is just as reliant on each state reporting things as TICS is. TICS may even be getting their information from NICS with reporting flowing from state agencies to the FBI and then back down to other state agencies. I don't know if that is happening or if the states just have a network among them. All I know is that here in Tennessee I've seen denials we cleared up because they were for pre-computer era arrests in Virgina (close by) and New Jersey (a good deal farther).
DeleteStill, even if we decided to run a NICS and TICS check, which would double the cost since both would want their fee, it would slow people down by about 5 to 10 minutes as the shop owner called it in to the second agency.
So again, I ask what the hell is wrong with Maryland that they can't get their shit together as well as Tennessee and run an instant check. Moreover, not only can't they run an instant check, they couldn't run a sufficient check in 7 days? And it took them months to determine that so many of these people were felons, etc.? And when they did determine that these people were disqualified, it wasn't because they got a new bunch of information--it looks like it was just a matter of getting around to running the check and then finding, according to their records they had all along, that the person was prohibited.
It sounds to me like they need to completely overhaul their system so they can find this info quicker. Here's how they do it in Tennessee: a shop owner calls them directly, gives them the person's information, they it in as the FFL reads it off, and they query a database right then. If it finds nothing that might disqualify the person, they're approved. If it finds something that might disqualify them, they're denied. They can then submit a challenge to the denial and have a more in depth check run to see if they're prohibited--this actually gives the state 14 days to look for a conviction on the felony arrest they found, for example, rather than the 7 days Maryland has. This in depth check is done for these cases meaning they have a smaller number to check. If they find that the case was dropped (e.g. the substance thought to be drugs proved not to be as in some cases I've seen) then they approve the sale, note it in the system, and the person isn't bothered the next time they try to buy a gun. If they find that the person is prohibited, then they are still denied--whether or not they're prosecuted, I don't know--haven't dealt with a case of a felon trying to purchase to have first hand knowledge.
During the same time MD was having that spike in sales we were having a huge spike here--a usual 5 -10 minute call was taking 30 minutes to over an hour. Still, our system kept up with the huge volume and didn't have embarrasments like this--it was during this spike that I dealt with most of the cases of people getting denied over arrests that other states reported where they didn't report the dismissal of charges.