Media Matters claims that all those stopped by the background checks from buying guns are prohibited individuals, that no mistakes are made by the government. And Media Matters is willing to engage in any amount of name calling and fraudulent photos to attack those who question their claims.

There are several things to understand about how the Brady Law background check process works. At gun stores or other registered dealers, would-be buyers have to fill out a form asking whether there are any criminal convictions or types of mental illness that would prevent them from legally purchasing the weapon. Falsely answering these questions amounts to perjury. If someone answers the question by saying that they have a background that prohibits them from buying, a gun dealers stop right there and do not even process those forms. And if someone is believed to have knowingly provided false information on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) form and prosecutors believe that they can prove that knowingly false information was provided, the would-be buyer faces prosecution.

Yet, the NICS system accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun.

The same problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he was placed on a “no fly list.” If someone is flagged by the NICS system, it is because it appears that they didn’t put down something in their background that disqualified them from buying a gun. Yet, an initial denial does not mean that the individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2008, the latest year with data available. There were 78,906 initial denials. Of those, only 5,573, or 7 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (73,333 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 5,573 referrals, over 44 percent, or 2,472 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved “no potential or unfounded” violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?

Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included. But of these 4,400 cases, only 147 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors. Of those 147 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 times.

Prosecution may be declined either because further investigation revealed that the person wasn’t prohibited from owning a gun, because false information hadn’t knowingly been provided, or prosecutors didn’t believe that the cases “merited” prosecution. But if someone is indeed prohibited from owning a gun and they left that information off their NICS form, it is relatively easy for authorities to prove they knowingly concealed that information. The most frequently claimed reasons that people failed the background checks are: “restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments.” How hard is it for prosecutors to prove that someone hadn’t accidentally forgotten that they had a conviction for a violent felony or they had a restraining order?

While prosecutors tend to go forward with their strongest cases, those prosecuted are often not found guilty. By the end of 2009, prosecutors had only 43 convictions, and only 22 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.03% of the 78,906 initial denials.

So we have two estimates of the false positive rate: 94.4% or 99.97%. The first estimate is obviously too low, it assumes that all the cases identified up to that point are accurate. The second estimate is obviously too high, it only counts as prohibited individuals those who have been proven so beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  These numbers are just one of the reason that no study by criminologists or economists has found that the Federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.

Of course, being falsely labeled as being ineligible to own a gun isn’t the only cost imposed on law-abiding Americans. Even those who aren’t prevented from buying a gun face delays in getting approved. Eight percent of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks are “not resolved immediately.” Two-thirds of those checks take up to 3 business days, and the rest take even longer, though these further delays can’t stop one from obtaining a gun at that point.

Media Matter’s Responses

Media Matters comically attacks me as “either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding the background check system,” that I have ignored their past comments (in fact, see here and here for my previous responses), that I am “the gun lobby’s apologist-in-chief,” and asserts my “apparent disregard for scientific rigor.” Those are just a small fraction of their claims. Given that Media Matters has no problem using a doctored picture of me (editing the color of my hair, skin, and clothes and distorting my hair) presumably because they believe that it makes me look bad, it is surprising that even people such as Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong never question whether Media Matters will use doctored screen shots of webpages. (Of course, it is not uncommon for opponents to use doctored information see here and here.)

But aside from the false personal attacks that are Media Matters’ trademark, Media Matters claims to have talked to two people who have studied the NICS system: M. Kristen Rand, Legislative Director for the Violence Policy Center, a group that backs banning guns, and in a later post, Ronald Fransen, the researcher whose report on the NICS system that is referenced above. While Ms. Rand’s quotes only refer to the 5,573 number discussed above, Media Matters interprets her comments as claiming that all those initial denials stopped “prohibited persons.” Mr. Fransen emphasizes that on average only about 8,600 people per year stick it out through an appeals process to get the initial denial overturned, but he fails to discuss that all cases involving evidence that a prohibited person tried to buy a gun are referred to the BATF field divisions for investigation. No discretion is involved at that stage.

Media Matters has even expressed outrage over a post at BigGovernment that it seemed that everyone understood, “[Lott's] assertion that ‘The Obama administration has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership.’” Yet, Media Matters doesn’t even try to defend Obama’s push for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty or the nomination of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms given his anti-gun statements in the past, let alone Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court and other lower courts. It tells us something when Media Matters can’t even admit this simple fact.

Conclusion

Media Matters’ founder, David Brock, claims that his group is in an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News and a handful of conservative websites. The term “sabotage” surely sounds like something a group that uses doctored pictures would say. Media Matters has recently made a long string of false claims about my work. Possibly they just want to spend George Soros’ money making so many false claims that their political opponents either don’t have the time to respond to all the attacks or can get nothing else done because they are responding.

The issue of how frequently the NICS system inconveniences law-abiding Americans needs to be taken seriously. That most of the 1.4% of denials appear to involve false positives or that 8 percent of the checks are delayed, the point is that law-abiding Americans may be more than inconvenienced. It isn’t just a cost of doing business that makes it difficult for gun shows and gun stores to operate. If someone is being stalked or threatened, delays in getting a gun may make the difference between life and death.

The Obama administration has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. It has enacted a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns because: “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents.” They have also tried imposing much more extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns. However, possibly the biggest threat is Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. There is also the Obama administration’s push for the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty and its continual inaccurate statements about the source of Mexico’s crime guns. In addition, President Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are adamantly against any protection for individual ownership of guns. If one of the five justices in the majority of the Heller or McDonald cases were to die or retire, not only would further gains be prevented, but even those two precedents would be threatened.

Obama’s push for more gun regulations begs a question he refuses to address. When have any of the laws that he has supported previously reduced crime rates? It would be nice if some in the press, including Dionne, would actually ask whether the previous background check changes reduced crime rates. Yet, again, may be they don’t ask the question because they already know the answer.

A few days ago I was thinking that I would like to post something uplifting on Big Government. After all, there is plenty going on right now which is wrong or ludicrous, but perhaps that makes it especially important to focus on what we have to be grateful for in America. Sadly, the best way I can think of to do that is to tell you a few stories about what is wrong and ludicrous in my country, Britain- home of the Magna Carta and the Mother of Parliaments. So here are some stories of common, everyday British madness which I hope will make you feel more optimistic about the USA.

1) From Surrey Today:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.

“I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Reader, try to fathom what kind of country punishes a man for doing his civic duty, what kind of idiots sit on a jury that takes twenty minutes to sentence him, what kinds of imbeciles framed this law.

Do you feel better about America yet?

2) From the Daily Telegraph, a heart warming tale from Watford where only council-vetted “play rangers” may monitor youngsters in two adventure areas while parents must watch from outside a perimeter fence:

The rules have been imposed at Harwoods and Harebreaks adventure recreation grounds.

Activities on the half acre sites include a skateboard half-pipe, a zip line, rope swings, den building, arts and crafts, plus a wide range of indoor and outdoor sports activities.

Play rangers currently patrol both parks – which are specifically for children aged five to 15 – and are fully qualified and have been cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau.

Parents already have to ‘register’ their child on arrival at the free playgrounds so staff have their contact details in the event of an accident.

But now only those who have been CRB vetted by the council can enter the sites, which are surrounded by six foot high steel and wooden fences.

Mother-of-five Marcella Bergin, 35, has been visiting with her three eldest children, Christy, 15, Seamus, 12, and Chloe, 11, for many years without any problems.

She said: “It’s like they are branding all parents potential paedophiles which is disgraceful – 99 per cent of people are great parents and certainly not child abusers.

“The whole thing is just a joke and I will certainly not be adhering to the new rules which frankly are crazy.”

And thus parents must seek their elected masters’ permission to play with their own children in a park. Reader, try to imagine the cultural climate that makes it possible for officials to pass such a law; each day in Britain brings fresh tales of petty officialdom run amok. What is most sinister here is the state’s assumption that it is authorized to invade so deeply into family life; that parents have to seek a license from the government to play with their own children.

How did it happen? Who permitted it? The line between private and public in the UK has been growing increasingly blurred for a long time. No doubt you know we have more CCTV cameras than China, and that soon every phone call, text message, email and website visit made by private citizens is to be stored for a year and will be available for monitoring by government bodies. We are not to be trusted. We must be watched. In the eyes of government, we are hapless children, and the emphasis in British law has changed from that which is not forbidden is permitted, to that which is not permitted is forbidden.

Do you feel better about America yet?

3) And finally, and on a higher level: this week the European Union will elect its first president- well, sort of. Naturally the electorates of the 27 state bloc will not be voting. They don’t even know who the candidates are. Not to worry, our leaders will decide that for us, behind closed doors. Apparently some Belgian is the front runner, although he refuses even to confirm that he is running. And there’s also a guy from Luxemburg who might win, although Luxemburg isn’t a real country, of course.

There’s a good reason why we haven’t been invited to vote – we might make the wrong decision. After all, France and Holland rejected the European Constitution in their referenda, so it had to be renamed the Lisbon Treaty and made law without consulting voters. Then the Irish rejected even this treaty in a referendum, and so they were forced to vote again until they gave the right result. This would be like a president losing an election and then holding another one and another one until he got the right result (i.e. his re-election). In Russia or Venezuela such tactics would be treated as outrageous, a sick parody of democracy. In Europe, they are par for the course. And nobody does anything. In the UK people grumble, and ridicule the system- but then they go to sleep. The next day they wake up and another bizarre law has been passed, another power given away.

Do you feel better about America yet?

The Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings this past summer blew my mind. I had no time for the absurd Stalin/Hitler/Dachau rhetoric (I lived in Russia for ten years and can tell you a few things about communism and totalitarianism), but that was just the fringe talking. At root, here were citizens who were angry and enraged, yelling at their leaders, challenging them to justify their actions. They were aggressively defending their rights, their traditions, and their liberties.

Now America has its own share of idiot laws and lawmakers, of course. Perhaps in a few states you also have barking mad regulations like the ones described above. And you do have Nancy Pelosi. But the persistence in this country of so rebellious a spirit, and such a firm conviction that government must serve the people and not vice versa is an excellent thing.

Do you feel better about America yet?