FBI Firearm Background Checks Hits 100 Million Mark

[Jerk]

FBI Firearm Background Checks Hits 100 Million Mark

By National Shooting Sports Foundation , Always Shooting for More - 21 Hours Ago


NEWTOWN, Conn. –– The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency responsible for running the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has announced the completion of the 100 millionth instant background check since the inception of NICS 10 years ago. The announcement drew praise from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) –– the trade association for the firearms industry –– and follows the continued surge of firearm sales across the country for the fifth straight month, extending a trend that began after the November elections.

"We congratulate FBI-NICS on this milestone," said NSSF President Steve Sanetti. "For 10 years and 100 million transactions, the FBI-NICS team has minimized complications and delays of firearm purchases, thereby benefiting America's retailers, law-abiding gun owners and the general public."

FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing firearms from federally licensed retailers. These checks help ensure that those prohibited by law from possessing firearms do not acquire them, and the checks further serve as a strong indicator of actual sales.

The NICS 100 millionth transaction corresponds with a 27.1 percent increase in firearm sales for the first quarter of 2009 over the same quarter last year.

The timing of the record transaction overlapped with a celebration of the 10-year anniversary of NICS. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane joined FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin III at a ceremony in West Virginia to congratulate the FBI-NICS team. At the ceremony, Keane addressed the 100 millionth NICS check.

"As firearm sales continue to sky rocket across the country and the FBI-NICS team celebrates its 100 millionth transaction, the professionalism and outstanding customer service offered by FBI-NICS continues to flourish," said Keane. "A sincere congratulations is due to our friends in law enforcement."

http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-fbi-firearm-background-checks-hits-100-million-mark

[tommieharris91]

So does this mean everyone is buying guns? Do you, as an owner of many firearms (presumably), like or do not like the NICS?

[yermom]

i was kinda wondering that myself :)

at least if there are 100MM of them, it would be hard to track down all of us :O

[Jerk]

So does this mean everyone is buying guns? Do you, as an owner of many firearms (presumably), like or do not like the NICS?

It doesn't bother me. I'm not for felons owning guns, unless their conviction was expunged (like a 40 year old guy who made a mistake when he was 19)

[Curly Bill]

I already wanted to go out and buy another gun or two, and now that I read this I'm even more inspired....

...and I have no problem with the NCIS.

[King Crimson]

I already wanted to go out and buy another gun or two, and now that I read this I'm even more inspired....

...and I have no problem with the NCIS.

go out and buy a gun, if you want to create more government work hours and bureaucracy....;)

anyway, sound to me like buying ammo is the scarcity issue.

[Curly Bill]

There's plenty of ammo still to be found around where I'm at, but it is more expensive than I'd like it to be.

I have heard that in other areas ammo is a bit more difficult to come by, especially personal defense ammo.

[Okla-homey]

I contributed to the one hundred million mark in March. You can't own too many guns. Especially nowadays.

[Curly Bill]

In light of the current economic/political situation I'd say guns are as good an investment as anything else.

[Okla-homey]

In light of the current economic/political situation I'd say guns are as good an investment as anything else.

One of the few items a feller can buy that can be sold years later for at least as much as you paid. That, and you can kill stuff with it.

Try that with a T-bill or CD.

[King Crimson]

You can't own too many guns. Especially nowadays.

sure, because you can most definitely preserve your personal freedoms against the government salary paying military. with a couple extra shotguns you can make a statement about personal liberties.

seems to me, like you'd be the first to shut down any opposition to the "institutions of government" you once accused me of not understanding.

[Curly Bill]

sure, because you can most definitely preserve your personal freedoms against the government salary paying military. with a couple extra shotguns.

Be that as it may, it would be better then just bending over.

[King Crimson]

Be that as it may, it would be better then just bending over.

i am not advocating bending over. i'm just saying extrapolating some kind of macho thing based on the 2nd amendment is weird.

we cry all the time about Al Qaeda types crossing over from Mexico, but we want to make buying automatic weapons a "freedom" issue?

[Curly Bill]

i am not advocating bending over. i'm just saying extrapolating some kind of macho thing based on the 2nd amendment is weird.

we cry all the time about Al Qaeda types crossing over from Mexico, but we want to make buying automatic weapons a "freedom" issue?

Who's mentioned buying automatic weapons? I certainly haven't.

[King Crimson]

Who's mentioned buying automatic weapons? I certainly haven't.

you have not in any way ever supported the freedom to buy automatic weapons on this site after Obama was the POTUS?

[Curly Bill]

you have not in any way ever supported the freedom to buy automatic weapons on this site after Obama was the POTUS?

Nope. While it wouldn't bother me a great deal if they were easier to own, neither does the current situation bother me. I don't recall ever having advocated for it being easier to possess automatic weapons.

[King Crimson]

Nope. While it wouldn't bother me a great deal if they were easier to own, neither does the current situation bother me. I don't recall ever having advocated for it being easier to possess automatic weapons.

fair enough. OK, here's my thing. i grew up in Oklahoma and i know how to shoot a shotgun. However, i think if there is a time that "we" need to protect ourselves from the government.....i don't really see how we (the people) have a shot given what i've seen in war TV in 1990 or 2002.

i just don't think the weapon to own argument is very realistic. some people think that's a "right" that's more important than freedom of speech.

i don't think it is. and, unlike some who post here, i don't pick and choose which civil liberties to support.

[Frozen Sooner]

Personally, I think that the government should be able to quarter soldiers in my pad.

edit: Interesting note that I think I've pointed out before here. The Supremes have only made piecemeal rulings as to which of the amendments were incorporated against the states by the 14th. This view has met with heavy dissent on the Court, notably from Justice Black. Relevant to the context of this discussion, the Court has yet to opine on whether the 2nd applies to the states or not.

My general feeling is that a colorable suit will eventually find its way to the Court and we'll get a ruling that firmly states that the 2nd is indeed incorporated against the states. Until that time, though individual states are free to make laws banning any and all weapon they want (subject to their own constitution and rulings of the various Circuit courts.)

[Jerk]

fair enough. OK, here's my thing. i grew up in Oklahoma and i know how to shoot a shotgun. However, i think if there is a time that "we" need to protect ourselves from the government.....i don't really see how we (the people) have a shot given what i've seen in war TV in 1990 or 2002.

i just don't think the weapon to own argument is very realistic. some people think that's a "right" that's more important than freedom of speech.

i don't think it is. and, unlike some who post here, i don't pick and choose which civil liberties to support.

We've discussed this before.

There is no doubt that if the government wanted to wipe us all out, they could send tanks, artillery and bombers to destroy us all, and our houses, neighborhoods, streets, powerlines, gas lines, and everything else in the way, too. And what would be left?

The only way for a tyrannical government to gain complete control without wiping out their own populace and infrastructure would be to send boots on the ground into every home and neighborhood, and that's where the rubber would meet the road. Even if 1 out of every 10 gun owners fought back you're talking 8 million people.

Door to door gun confiscation would make Iraq look like a pillow fight.

Anyway, under the right circumstances and with the proper amount of luck, a man could start a war with a steak knife.

[Jerk]

One of the few items a feller can buy that can be sold years later for at least as much as you paid. That, and you can kill stuff with it.

Try that with a T-bill or CD.

The FED continued their adventure this week into buying T bonds, and the rate for one of them ... forget which, maybe the 5 year, went negative. No sh*t. I'll have to get the link.

eta - found it
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0852590320090408

I know Sir Feds Alot is concerned with deflation, but good Lord man, what are they trying to do? Destroy the dollar?

[King Crimson]

a man doesn't start a war with a steak knife alone, he needs a social context to do it. it needs to "mean something".

that's why the 1st amendment is the 1st amendment. and the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment.

[Vaevictis]

Actually, they're doing it in such a way that the long term consequences are limited. Every dollar that they put into circulation with those purchases will be removed within 2-3 years, if not sooner.

[Jerk]

Actually, they're doing it in such a way that the long term consequences are limited. Every dollar that they put into circulation with those purchases will be removed within 2-3 years, if not sooner.

I'm lost :confused:

And to be honest with you, I don't know the core reason why they're doing it.

I guess it's either a) they want to create inflation or b) the bond market isn't strong enough to support all of this government spending

If it's b, they're doomed.

If it's a, they sure are taking one hell of a risk, aren't they?

Anway, back to guns....stay away from investing in ammo, it's a bubble waiting to burst. Guns, however, will remain stable and increase in value steadily.

[tommieharris91]

The FED continued their adventure this week into buying T bonds, and the rate for one of them ... forget which, maybe the 5 year, went negative. No sh*t. I'll have to get the link.

eta - found it
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0852590320090408

I know Sir Feds Alot is concerned with deflation, but good Lord man, what are they trying to do? Destroy the dollar?

I don't think you realize how much strength the dollar has gained against other currencies over the past 6 months. It's also been keeping that strength.

[tommieharris91]

I'm lost :confused:

And to be honest with you, I don't know the core reason why they're doing it.

I guess it's either a) they want to create inflation or b) the bond market isn't strong enough to support all of this government spending

If it's b, they're doomed.

If it's a, they sure are taking one hell of a risk, aren't they?

Anway, back to guns....stay away from investing in ammo, it's a bubble waiting to burst. Guns, however, will remain stable and increase in value steadily.

It's a. Of course, the last FOMC minutes says there's risk of stagflation and deflation now.

[Jerk]

I don't think you realize how much strength the dollar has gained against other currencies over the past 6 months. It's also been keeping that strength.

Give it time, they only started doing this three weeks ago.

Just wait and see what happens if the Fed doesn't extricate itself at the right time.

You had better hope Bernanke is a genius.

[tommieharris91]

Give it time, they only started doing this three weeks ago.

Just wait and see what happens if the Fed doesn't extricate itself at the right time.

You had better hope Bernanke is a genius.

Just the expectation of higher inflation would have caused the USD to lose strength.

[Jerk]

Just the expectation of higher inflation would have caused the USD to lose strength.

I guess no one thinks China will have the balls to tell Timmy, "hey **** you!" even if their t bills are being deluded by a printing press.

[Curly Bill]

Anway, back to guns....stay away from investing in ammo, it's a bubble waiting to burst. Guns, however, will remain stable and increase in value steadily.

So...you're saying ammo is gonna get cheaper, because right now I can barely afford the stuff.

On a side note -- at the Academy Sports that I fequent the rifle ammo has always been out in the aisle, and the handgun ammo behind the counter. Tonight I was looking for .223 where it has always been and they'd moved it behind the counter (the only rifle ammo so moved). I guess peeps been stealing it or something.

[Jerk]

So...you're saying ammo is gonna get cheaper, because right now I can barely afford the stuff.

On a side note -- at the Academy Sports that I fequent the rifle ammo has always been out in the aisle, and the handgun ammo behind the counter. Tonight I was looking for .223 where it has always been and they'd moved it behind the counter (the only rifle ammo so moved). I guess peeps been stealing it or something.

Yes, once people finally figure out that Obama can't wave a magic wand and make it illegal, they'll quit stock-piling it.

If they don't pass any gun control this year, then they sure as hell won't do it next year when the mid-terms approach.

Even if they don't figure it out, just how much ammo do people need? Once they hit 10k or 20k, they'll think, "gee, I have enough ammo to stage a coup in a small South American country" and they'll quit buying.

Brass and copper commodity prices are down, so I'm told

[Jerk]

btw- I don't understand the stockpiling mentality. I have 17 loaded fn-fal mags and 10 loaded AR-15 mags, They way I figure, I will probably not survive a situation where I need all of that, and if I did, then there will be 'battlefield pick-ups' available when the smoke clears.

[Vaevictis]

I'm lost :confused:

They're buying up bonds as a mechanism for injecting cash into the system. That's it. This has the effect of either staving off deflation or creating inflation.

Inflation can be fairly friendly to producers because spot market prices generally react to inflation faster than production costs (eg, wages, which are often only reconsidered at set periods.)

In terms of the long term effect on inflation, if you look at the article, you'll notice they bought bonds maturing over the next 1.5-2.5 years. They put $3 billion into the market this week, and in 1.5-2.5 years the government will tax $3 billion (plus any interest) and hand it over to the Fed... who can then retire that money, if the environment allows for it.

In other words, the inflationary effect of this cash injection has a duration of 1.5-2.5 years.

[Jerk]

They're buying up bonds as a mechanism for injecting cash into the system. That's it. This has the effect of either staving off deflation or creating inflation.

Inflation can be fairly friendly to producers because spot market prices generally react to inflation faster than production costs (eg, wages, which are often only reconsidered at set periods.)

In terms of the long term effect on inflation, if you look at the article, you'll notice they bought bonds maturing over the next 1.5-2.5 years. They put $3 billion into the market this week, and in 1.5-2.5 years the government will tax $3 billion (plus any interest) and hand it over to the Fed... who can then retire that money, if the environment allows for it.

In other words, the inflationary effect of this cash injection has a duration of 1.5-2.5 years.

Okay, I get it (I think? There's a reason I drive a truck)

From what I've read - mostly Karl Denniger's Market Ticker blog, there is a danger to this - that would be a "bond-market dislocation" which would led to the FED buying the entire curve (the 5, 10, 15, 30 year bonds- all of them)

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/924-BEN-SOLD-TO-YOU!.html (http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/924-BEN-SOLD-TO-YOU%21.html)

eta - actions have consequences

http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSLJ93633020090319

Explains how the FED could end up owning the entire curve
http://market-ticker.org/archives/879-Bernanke-Inserts-Gun-In-Mouth.html

[Vaevictis]

Yeah, the Fed can distort the market, and in fact already is. That's why it exists, actually.

A lot of people are acting like the Fed is going to be surprised if they "dislocate" the government bond market. I don't think so. If this occurs, the effect will essentially be that they they're going to crowd out all other investors and own all of the government debt, right?

Okay, so let's say that happens. What are the consequences of this?

(1) The government and the Fed are, together, essentially printing money.
(2) Investors have to find other places to put their money.

Okay, so, we know the Helicopter Ben Bernake doesn't have a problem with printing money to avoid deflation. He's made that abundantly clear. As far as investors finding other places to put their money,

(1) Unless another reserve currency surfaces, we're not going to be particularly concerned about this. Watch the exchange rates for a flight from the USD -- but we're not seeing one right now. Everyone's currency is devaluing right now, most faster than the USD.
(2) Okay, so if nobody is fleeing to another currency, where else are they going to put it?

Maybe in their mattress? I doubt it. In the banks? Well, that would provide the banks with liquidity, reducing the need for government intervention (a la TARP) -- I doubt the Fed would have a problem with this. In corporate bonds? Well, that would provide corporations with more liquidity, again reducing the need for government intervention. Another thing the Fed won't have a problem with.

Personally, I think the Fed knows a bond market dislocation is in the cards -- and I don't think they have a problem with it.

[Jerk]

Yeah, the Fed can distort the market, and in fact already is. That's why it exists, actually.

A lot of people are acting like the Fed is going to be surprised if they "dislocate" the government bond market. I don't think so. If this occurs, the effect will essentially be that they they're going to crowd out all other investors and own all of the government debt, right?

Okay, so let's say that happens. What are the consequences of this?

(1) The government and the Fed are, together, essentially printing money.
(2) Investors have to find other places to put their money.

Okay, so, we know the Helicopter Ben Bernake doesn't have a problem with printing money to avoid deflation. He's made that abundantly clear. As far as investors finding other places to put their money,

(1) Unless another reserve currency surfaces, we're not going to be particularly concerned about this. Watch the exchange rates for a flight from the USD -- but we're not seeing one right now. Everyone's currency is devaluing right now, most faster than the USD.
(2) Okay, so if nobody is fleeing to another currency, where else are they going to put it?

Maybe in their mattress? I doubt it. In the banks? Well, that would provide the banks with liquidity, reducing the need for government intervention (a la TARP) -- I doubt the Fed would have a problem with this. In corporate bonds? Well, that would provide corporations with more liquidity, again reducing the need for government intervention. Another thing the Fed won't have a problem with.

Personally, I think the Fed knows a bond market dislocation is in the cards -- and I don't think they have a problem with it.

NO SH&&!!!??

I'm sorry, I have to sober up before I even attempt to respond to this (as if one matters)

I will say, first, that I'm not an anti-fed ronbot. I think the system has proven that it can sustain itself, even if money has no real value other than "In God We Trust." There's not enough gold on the planet to have a hard currency.

The thing that I want to get across - which, yes, I'm not a very smart guy - just a truck driver- is that our consumption economy based on borrowing and spending cannot continue forever, unless we produce things that create wealth, and export them. That's it. That's my agenda. It's not anti-obama, or anti-keneysian, it's just that we may have reached the point of unsustainability because of our spending and our trade deficit.

I'm drunk. I'm going to bed.

[Curly Bill]

Jerk,

I think I have enough ammo as well but I'm always willing to add some more. I found 30-rd mags for my Mini-14 at Academy tonight and at first I was excited about it, but then it hit me that I really don't need anymore of them.

[Okla-homey]

sure, because you can most definitely preserve your personal freedoms against the government salary paying military. with a couple extra shotguns you can make a statement about personal liberties.

seems to me, like you'd be the first to shut down any opposition to the "institutions of government" you once accused me of not understanding.

No silly. Not against the gubmint. To defend one's family in a time of chaos if our institutions break down and 911 doesn't work. You know, like in Louisiana after Katrina. I'd keep a couple cops in my gun safe, but they wouldn't go along with that.

If the consumer credit situation ever goes south like the mortgage mess, and peoples' plastic stops working, things will get very scary, very fast.

[sooner n houston]

And about them ammo... Belive me when I say the govt is gonna go after the ammo as the way to limit gins in the U.S. Already hearing ideas about numbering each bullet, making it illegal to own ammo that is not so numbered, etc.

[Curly Bill]

And about them ammo... Belive me when I say the govt is gonna go after the ammo as the way to limit gins in the U.S. Already hearing ideas about numbering each bullet, making it illegal to own ammo that is not so numbered, etc.

This has been the speculation for awhile now.