fake ID's foil Brady Bill

Betty

New member
Hope this hasn't already been posted:
from abcnews.com:

"y using fictitious identities, undercover investigators bypassed entirely the criminal background check system," says an executive summary of a Government Accounting Office report to be released today.

The GAO document details an investigation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), in which GAO agents attempted to use false identifications to buy firearms from licensed dealers in Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Virginia and West Virginia.

"Their success rate was 100 percent," according to Democrats on the House Government Affairs Committee, who were set to hold a briefing on the matter today.

The results of the investigation cast doubt on the effectiveness of the Brady Act — the landmark gun control legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Clinton in 1993.

Under the Brady bill, gun dealers are required to contact the NICS — a computerized system developed and run by the FBI prior to every sale. The system then checks the name of the prospective purchaser against a database of the names of people legally prohibited from owning firearms — including convicted felons, illegal aliens, people dishonorably discharged from the military and people with mental defects.

But the system has no way of verifying that the name provided by the buyer is actually theirs. That gaping loophole allowed the undercover agents to use fake names to obtain handguns and rifles, including semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines.

"In no instance did NICS background checks detect that the GAO agents were using false identifications," the summary says, "and in no instance did a gun dealer refrain from selling weapons to the agents."

Prior Problems

Today is not the first time serious deficiencies with the now 2 *-year-old system have been exposed.

NICS went online in November, 1998. During its first eighteen months of implementation, 6,084 people who were legally barred from owning guns were able to obtain firearms because the FBI failed to complete their background checks within a three-day timeframe as specified by law, according to the testimony of then-FBI Assistant Director David Loesch before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Under a provision of the Brady bill, if a buyer's record is not checked within three business days, the sale is allowed to proceed by default.

In the five states targeted by the GAO investigation, NICS is the only background check system in place. GAO operation only investigated dealers in five states. Many other states, however, have imposed additional, more stringent safeguards such as fingerprinting or requiring the approval of all gun license applications by local police officials.

GAO officials were expected to present the complete results of the investigation, including an undercover videotape, at a briefing on Capitol Hill this morning. Representatives from both the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence — a leading gun control advocacy group — and the National Rifle Association were also invited to speak at the forum.
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Well, duh! Since Brady only tags "known bad guys," what did they expect?

Anybody wanna bet that rather than just scrap the whole Brady BS as an ill-conceived, unworkable piece of crap (besides being an unconstitutional infringement on us good guys), the good folk of the "for the children" alliance will want further "safe-guards" such as retina scans, DBA sampling, et puke - besides a newly enacted delay to ensure proper processing of said biocharacteristics.

& where do these GAO guys get off breaking several laws by forging IDs (with, I assume Federal equipment), lying on a 4473 (isn't that a felony pergury rap?), ... how many federal laws did these guys break anyway?
 

jimpeel

New member
It's a "greater good" kinda thing

labgrade,

You obviously are unaware of the fact that those who make the laws cannot break the laws. They are above that which they create and enforce on the peons. If breaking the law is for the "greater good" (Hm -- I've heard that somewhere before ...) then anything is acceptable behavior for those who beleive themselves to be the keepers of that "greater good".
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
I forgot (slaps own head) ... you mean like how like an agent of a society-sponsored group can sell 10 kilos of cocaine to someone & then bust 'em for possession with intent to distribute?

Sorry, I had an attack of "logic."

"each according to his abilities, each according to his needs"
 
I agree with labgrade here. The Brady bill was for dealing with known problematic people. There was nothing in the bill about determining if the people were real. As it turns out, pretty much all of the laws that involve some sort of identification have no instructions for determining if the people are actually real. With a good fake ID, you can do a lot of things. Now the guys in this sting had an advantage. Their IDs had incorrect information, but were real IDs. I am sure they got their IDs from the DMV of the states where they did their sting. What did they have to do to get the IDs? They didn't have to prove who they were, but simply show badges and permission from some superior and then licenses were issues with the information they requested.
 

Chaingun

New member
Another good reason for Ashcroft to show this bill doesn't work and is a complete wast of time.

I'm waiting for the New Brady Bill, maybe a DNA background check :rolleyes:
 

Bunkster

New member
Fake ID's are a problem for most anything. To insinuate they are a unique problem in this area is simply mindless.

Regards
 

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Don't recall anybody making an assertion that fake IDs was unique to this specific arena - only that the "duh factor" was at work because Brady only "works" for those known names to be bad. If one was to create a new identity isn't it obvious that that new person would have no criminal history on which Brady would flag?

To imply otherwise would be equally astute.

Oh, BTW, what'd they do with the guns?
 

ckurts

New member
I saw this earlier today and thought "huh, now let me get this straight, GAO "agents" (sworn LEO's?) pretended to be good guys buying guns. And this was supposed to prove what?. Or they expected something else to happen, like 'aha, you can't fool the forces of Brady, we know you're trying to trick us, Agent So-And-So"
 

Matt VDW

New member
Hmmmm... Where's the hubbub over how easy it is to circumvent election laws, even without a fake ID?

Oh, but rigging elections is nowhere near as serious as letting the earth-shattering power of a semi-automatic weapon get into the wrong hands, right? :rolleyes:
 

cm

New member
well, if they can use this to get the momentum for gun control going again, they will use this to justify a manditory waiting period while a fingerprint check gets done everytime that anyone goes to buy a firearm. it doesn't matter that using a false ID and lying on a 4473 is already a crime, "we're just trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals". yeah, right, like criminals get their guns legally anyway...now, what was that? something about someone that has committed a felony can't be in possession of something or something like that? wasn't it a firearm or something like that? just more drivel to get the gun control agenda passed, because "since this problem with false ID's is such a problem, we have to do something like fingerprinting and background checks to make sure a criminal doesn't get a gun - how could you argue against that"? just like "it's for the children" logic.
 
Sorry, this still bugs me. The IDs were not fake. The used real licenses that were issued by the the states in question. The real licenses simply were made with ficticious information.

In order to sell guns, businesses have to have a legal picture ID such as a state DL, state ID, or military ID. The IDs used were not the mail order fake IDs used to get into bars by teenagers. Those are not legal IDs.

So, the sting used legal IDs, but with fake information.
 

alan

New member
on fake ID's, and "the law"

Wonder if the sachems at GAO would be surprised at the fact that underage persons have been using phoney ID to purchase booze for years. Cigaretts too. What a discovery.

By the way, are these undercover agents guilty of violations of the law, possibly the conspiracy statutes? Then how about RICO, or are these "government agents" yet another "specially endowed class", similar to media types?
 

Grapeshot

New member
Well all this proves is how dangerous identity theft can be.
And that federal agents have little or no difficulty in pulling it off.

Frankly, I don't think it's as easy as we have been led to believe for criminals to obtain Social Security #'s and steal identities. Additionally, if one was smart enough to steal your identity, I would think they'd have something more lucrative in mind than buying a gun ...

Could be wrong here though ... Comments?
 
alan, unlike buying liquor with a 'fake ID,' buying guns requires a legal picture ID. What is a legal picture ID? These types of IDs include a DL, a State ID card, or a military ID. The difference is that you can get a mail order ID, but it isn't a legal form of identification.

By the same type of circumstance used in this sting, government agents could have gotten state licenses to practice medicine printed up as well.

Such procedures are not uncommon with LEO type people who are involved in operations that require identificaiton. Legal IDs with ficticious information that match a printed social security card and the title to a car or other legal document are used to give the holder a different identity such that they may operate without fear of their real identities being discovered or the fact that the created identities are not real. Several documents are made up by the issuing agencies and as a group, are self-supporting so that with several documents, it all seems real to those they want to convince of that. The last thing an under cover LEO wants to happen is to be searched and have the searcher find any evidence that he is not who he claims to be.
 

alan

New member
Grapeshot and DoubleNaughtSpy:

The point I was trying to make, perhaps I did not do a very good job is as follows. What is the real point of this "identity" fiasco. One assumes that the dealers, from whom the arms were purchased complied fully with the requirements of the law (Brady), it turns out that the identity "documents" were "phoney". They could not be expected to discern this fact.

As I asked, are the feds surprised by the fact that well done, "phoney" documents will pass muster, allowing someone to, for instance, buy firearms? After all, they likely produced the things to begin with. The documents were "phoney" in the sense that the person using them was not the person the documents "identified". As has been pointed out, there isn't anything new with this, so as I asked earlier, what is the point, what ends are being sought, and by whom? Am I being thickheaded?
 

Grapeshot

New member
Alan,

I totally agree with you. Sorry if it didn't come out that way ... the feds are totally out of line for pulling this nonsense.

I meant that the Feds really weren't proving anything by duping some probably well-meaning FFL's. Heck, when someone comes here to buy a gun and has a picture ID I have no way of verifying the information on it, and I don't think ATF would trust me to go around fingerprinting people.

I think this attempt on their part is totally political in nature. They want to prove the necessity for total government control over the selling of firearms, and although you and I are smart enough to see that, most people won't think twice before buying it.
 
Top