It seems, in Prince William you are required to tell police

[dmharvey]

I always inform LEOs that I have a CPL and I am, or am not, carrying when I'm stopped. Out of the three or four times I've been stopped I've never had a LEO freak out or do anything other than tell me to just leave the pistol where it is. I don't really see any reason to not inform them.

[gunderwood]

I don't really see any reason to not inform them.

Thankfully we still have the ability to choose.

Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't inform complete strangers if I'm carrying or not. Then again, I value my privacy and don't use things like Facebook or Twitter either.

[LFS]

Hardly, but then for FFLs it's just business. Yes anything can go wrong in the future with a buyer, and although you should not be held responsible for the actions of other, I feel that every possible precaution should be taken by the seller. Yes a practical "red flag" approach is a good one but I feel an additional check would not hurt the situation.

There is no evidence (or at least I've never seen any) which suggests that the FFL/background check laws have done anything for crime. Yes, there have been people turned away, but that is usually because of errors in the system, not because a real disqualified person attempted to purchase a firearm. The checks appear to do no good because they merely attempt to crack down on an inanimate object, but objects are not the problem. As for harm...

According to gunfacts.info, the NICS checks catch quite a few felons and prohibited persons, though it is less than 1% of all purchases. The problem is that the government only prosecutes 1.25% of the cases. Given that, it is very reasonable to say that the government's insistence on background checks is to harass lawful gun owners and not about stopping crime.

[gunderwood]

Hardly, but then for FFLs it's just business. Yes anything can go wrong in the future with a buyer, and although you should not be held responsible for the actions of other, I feel that every possible precaution should be taken by the seller. Yes a practical "red flag" approach is a good one but I feel an additional check would not hurt the situation.

There is no evidence (or at least I've never seen any) which suggests that the FFL/background check laws have done anything for crime. Yes, there have been people turned away, but that is usually because of errors in the system, not because a real disqualified person attempted to purchase a firearm. The checks appear to do no good because they merely attempt to crack down on an inanimate object, but objects are not the problem. As for harm...

According to gunfacts.info, the NICS checks catch quite a few felons and prohibited persons, though it is less than 1% of all purchases. The problem is that the government only prosecutes 1.25% of the cases. Given that, it is very reasonable to say that the government's insistence on background checks is to harass lawful gun owners and not about stopping crime.

The BATFE is not known for letting people off for infractions. There is a difference between be rejected and actually being a prohibited person. If track down the source from gunfacts (found here, although from the publication dates it appears some revisions were made as late as July 1, 2001: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft00.pdf) you should look up there definition for rejection stats, which is:

Rejection occurs when an applicant is prohibited from receiving a firearm or a permit that can be used to receive a firearm, due to the finding of a disqualifying factor during a background check.

I.e. a rejection is when the system claims it, they make no move to remove false positives and is noted earlier in the same publication that those stats may include multiple rejections for the same application (this is all national and state checks so both can flag it). This interpretation is further backed up by the Table 6 which covers the percentage appealed, although the data is appallingly incomplete. Furthermore:

Procedures for an initial appeal may be relatively informal, with some checking agencies allowing a denied person to initiate a review with a telephone request. Other agencies involved in firearm appeals are those which maintain criminal histories or other records which could disqualify an applicant. An appellant may be required to contact the agency that supplied a criminal history or another record that caused a denial. Appeals often arise when an applicant denies being the individual named in a disqualifying record found by the checking agency. To resolve the identity question, the appellant will
ordinarily submit fingerprints for comparison with Federal and/or State arrestee records. If the appellant's
prints do not match any records on file, the denial can be reversed.

Another common appeal arises when an applicant is denied because of a felony arrest or charge without a
recorded disposition. The applicant can have the denial reversed by submitting court records to prove that the charge was subsequently dismissed. Whether a checking agency is required to approve, delay,
or deny a person with a missing disposition (as dictated by State law) may affect the number of appeals filed.

Data indicate that the vast majority of disputed firearm denials are resolved at the administrative level and are rarely appealed to the courts. Most disputed denials turn on accuracy of records...

The reason for the low prosecution rate has more to do with false positives than actual felons attempting to buy guns.

The wide dispersion of the appeals was attributed to what each state considers a rejection. For example, if the application is denied by the instant check (which I've had happen once), but it then reviewed by a human and found to be inaccurate does that count as a denial (this what happened to me, a human to review it and approved it because the instant flag was wrong). Furthermore, if the flag is correct and the human also denies it, does that count as two denials for one application? The actual source document seems to imply it may.

Edit: Although I can't prove it, I think is the reason for so few appeals in VA compared to other states. In essence whenever the instant check denies someone, a human review is instantly initiated (which can take hours to days) before the actual application is denied. Thus, anyone who has had an application flagged by the instant check has added to the "number of criminals who have tried to purchase a gun" statistic. However, because most of the human reviews go through (false positive) due to VAs relatively good system, you never get a chance to appeal them officially.

[LFS]

Thus, anyone who has had an application flagged by the instant check has added to the "number of criminals who have tried to purchase a gun" statistic. However, because most of the human reviews go through (false positive) due to VAs relatively good system, you never get a chance to appeal them officially.

So the number of criminals stopped by the check is probably 0.005% of all checks. This is a very insightful observation. You should probably contact the gunfacts.info guy and let him know what you have found.

[zephyp]

I don't really see any reason to not inform them.

Thankfully we still have the ability to choose.

Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't inform complete strangers if I'm carrying or not. Then again, I value my privacy and don't use things like Facebook or Twitter either.

We will always have the ability to choose. Our "free will" is something truly given by God and can never be taken away by anyone but Him.

Thankfully we still have the legal right to choose whether or not to inform here in VA. And I agree with you -- simply none of their damned business...

[gunderwood]

Thus, anyone who has had an application flagged by the instant check has added to the "number of criminals who have tried to purchase a gun" statistic. However, because most of the human reviews go through (false positive) due to VAs relatively good system, you never get a chance to appeal them officially.

So the number of criminals stopped by the check is probably 0.005% of all checks. This is a very insightful observation. You should probably contact the gunfacts.info guy and let him know what you have found.

Probably not a bad idea, but I can't really prove it because the source doesn't come out and directly say that. The numbers make sense and the language reads that way, but it doesn't say definitively that that is the case.

Edit: Email sent.

[mrjam2jab]

I always inform LEOs that I have a CPL and I am, or am not, carrying when I'm stopped. Out of the three or four times I've been stopped I've never had a LEO freak out or do anything other than tell me to just leave the pistol where it is. I don't really see any reason to not inform them.

Why would you bring it up if you are NOT carrying???