Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (referred to hereafter as the “Brady Act”) and implementing regulations, the FBI and designated state and local criminal justice agencies use NICS to conduct background checks on individuals seeking to purchase firearms from an FFL or obtain permits to possess, acquire, or carry firearms. The mission of the FBI’s NICS Section is to enhance national security and public safety by providing the timely and accurate determination of a person’s eligibility to possess firearms in accordance with federal law. Figure 1 shows the states where the FBI performs background checks for all transactions, as well as POC and partial POC states. ATF—one of several Department of Justice law enforcement components—is responsible for investigating criminals and criminal organizations that use firearms, arson, or explosives in violent criminal activity, among other things. ATF is also responsible for investigating criminal and regulatory violations of federal firearms, explosives, arson, and alcohol and tobacco-smuggling laws subject to the direction of the Attorney General, as well as any other function related to the investigation of violent crime or domestic terrorism that is delegated to ATF by the Attorney General. U.S. Attorneys prosecute criminal cases brought forward by the federal government, prosecute and defend civil cases in which the United States is a party, and collect debts owed to the federal government that are administratively uncollectible. U.S. Attorneys investigate and prosecute a wide range of criminal activities—including, but not limited to, international and domestic terrorism, corporate fraud, public corruption, violent crime, and drug trafficking. Each U.S. Attorney exercises wide discretion in the use of his or her resources to further the priorities of the local jurisdictions and needs of their communities. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) represents the 93 U.S. Attorneys that prosecute federal cases. Among other things, EOUSA provides guidance, management direction, and oversight to USAOs. During a NICS check, the FBI and POC states use descriptive data provided by an individual—such as name and date of birth—to search various databases containing criminal history and other relevant records. These databases include the Interstate Identification Index, the National Crime Information Center, and the NICS Indices. The Interstate Identification Index includes, among other things, information on persons who are indicted for, or have been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year or have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The National Crime Information Center includes criminal justice- related records pertaining to wanted persons (fugitives) and persons subject to protection orders, among other things. The NICS Indices were created for use in connection with NICS background checks and contain information on persons determined to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. NICS checks determine whether or not an individual is disqualified by federal or state law from possessing firearms. As shown in figure 2: Federal NICS transactions increased from about 6.5 million in fiscal year 2011 to about 8.6 million in fiscal year 2017. Federal NICS denials increased from about 77,000 in fiscal year 2011 to about 112,000 in fiscal year 2017. POC state transactions—which include both full and partial POC states—increased from about 9.3 million in fiscal year 2011 to about 17 million in fiscal year 2017. POC state denials increased from about 45,000 in fiscal year 2011 to about 69,000 in fiscal year 2017. If the FBI or state agency completes a background check within 3 business days and determines that a person should be denied, such denials are referred to as “standard denials” and do not involve the potential transfer of a firearm. If the FBI or state agency cannot complete a background check within 3 business days, the FFL may transfer the firearm pursuant to federal law, unless state law provides otherwise. When the FBI makes a denial determination after 3 business days— called a “delayed denial”—the FBI determines if the FFL transferred the firearm to the individual, and if so, refers these cases to ATF for retrieval of the firearm if the individual is confirmed to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. States may establish requirements regarding background check processing times, including waiting periods, beyond the federal requirement. States also may include state databases in addition to NICS indices when conducting background checks. In POC states, FFLs initiate a NICS check by contacting one or more state organizations, such as a state or local law enforcement agency, to query NICS databases and related state files. If necessary, the state organization then conducts any required follow-up research. States may use different methods to conduct background checks. Examples of these varying methods include the following: Instant Check: Requires an FFL to transmit a buyer’s application to a checking agency by telephone or computer. The agency is required to respond immediately or as soon as possible. Purchase Permit: Requires a buyer to obtain, after a background check, a government-issued document (such as a permit, license, or identification card) that must be presented to an FFL before the buyer can receive a firearm. Exempt Carry Permit: State concealed weapons permits, issued after a background check, exempt the holder from a new check at the time of purchase under an ATF ruling or state law. Other: Requires an FFL to transmit an application to a checking agency, which delays transfer until a waiting period expires or the agency completes a check. After a federal NICS denial, ATF can take enforcement actions through criminal investigation and referral for prosecution to a USAO, as making false written statements on the ATF Form 4473 is a crime punishable as a felony under federal law by up to 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. Any fines that result from a firearm denial are criminal fines assessed through prosecution as part of a plea agreement or sentencing. ATF does not have the statutory authority to issue fines or take any civil action against individuals whose firearm applications are denied and are suspected of providing false information during the attempted purchase. For federal denied transactions, the FBI’s NICS Section sends information about each denial to ATF’s DENI Branch. The DENI Branch is responsible for researching each transaction to determine whether the case should be referred to one of ATF’s 25 field divisions for possible investigation. The DENI Branch is to refer all delayed denial cases— which may require recovery of a firearm—and standard denial cases that meet USAO investigative referral criteria for each corresponding judicial district. An ATF NICS coordinator in each field division is to distribute the referred denial cases to the appropriate field office within each field division. In addition to recovery of a firearm for delayed denial cases, all firearms denial investigations may involve verifying the purchaser’s prohibited status, gathering relevant supporting documentation such as mental health or court files, and communicating with prosecutors regarding the prosecutorial merit of the case, according to ATF officials. Figure 3 shows the general NICS background check process when purchasing a firearm from an FFL in either a NICS or POC state. Among the denials that ATF investigates (delayed and standard), each field office also determines which cases should be referred to a USAO for possible prosecution. If the ATF field office determines that the subject is a prohibited person and local prosecutorial guidelines are met, the field office may refer the case for prosecution. ATF agents may discuss potential referrals with prosecutors to try to obtain USAO acceptance before ATF formally refers a case for possible prosecution. A case that is not deemed appropriate for federal prosecution may be referred to a state prosecutor. If the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute, an arrest is made or a warrant is issued. Figure 4 shows the general process for the investigation and prosecution of standard firearms denials. POC states vary in their procedures and standards for investigating and prosecuting persons denied firearms transactions. For example, these states may or may not investigate and prosecute prohibited persons who violate state gun control laws. In some states, the agency conducting background checks notifies the state or local police, depending on which has jurisdiction, where the transaction occurred. The local agency is then responsible for investigating and assisting in the prosecution of the case by state or local prosecutors. Other states have units with statewide jurisdiction that screen cases before deciding whether a referral should be made to a state police trooper or local law enforcement agency for investigation. A POC state may also refer denials for further investigation to the nearest ATF field office. In POC states, a firearm retrieval associated with a delayed denial may be handled by local law enforcement, a statewide firearms unit, or ATF. State and local prosecutors, whether the district attorney, county or city prosecutor, or the state Attorney General’s office, represent the state for cases arising under state law. Occasionally, federal and state law may prohibit similar types of criminal conduct, allowing both federal and state prosecutors to pursue the case. In fiscal year 2017, ATF referred about 13,000 firearms denials to its field divisions for investigation, of which USAOs had prosecuted 12 cases as of June 2018. In March 2018, the Attorney General issued a memo that directed all United States Attorneys to enhance prosecution of cases involving individuals who make false statements on the ATF Form 4473. Officials from 10 of our 13 selected POC states said that they do not investigate or prosecute NICS denials. At the federal level, the FBI’s NICS Section referred 112,090 denied transactions to ATF’s DENI Branch in fiscal year 2017, of which ATF referred 12,710 (about 11 percent) to its field divisions for further investigation. The 12,710 referred cases consisted of 3,993 delayed denials and 8,717 standard denials. According to ATF headquarters officials, the DENI Branch refers all delayed denials to ATF field divisions for additional investigation because these cases could potentially require the recovery of a firearm that was transferred to a prohibited person. The DENI Branch uses investigative guidelines established by USAOs that cover 94 judicial districts to determine if standard denials should be referred to the respective ATF field division for investigation. USAO criteria may include individuals who are violent felons, have an active protection order, or have made multiple attempts to purchase a firearm in the past after being denied, among other offenses. Based on our analysis of ATF data, the number of firearms denials the DENI Branch referred to ATF field divisions for investigation increased from 5,208 in fiscal year 2011 to 12,710 in fiscal year 2017—an increase of 141 percent. We discuss the reported impact of this increase in referrals on ATF staff later in the report. Of the 12,710 referrals ATF sent to its field divisions in fiscal year 2017 for investigation, USAOs considered 50 cases for prosecution, and prosecuted a total of 12 cases (9 delayed denial and 3 standard denial) as of June 2018, according to ATF data (see table 1). An additional 10 cases were pending or awaiting prosecution as of June 2018. Overall, USAOs filed about 54,000 criminal cases in fiscal year 2016, of which about 9,200 involved firearm-related matters. According to Department of Justice officials, in fiscal year 2017, USAOs also filed about 54,000 criminal cases, of which about 10,400 involved firearm-related matters. We also asked state officials from states within our six selected ATF field divisions whether they investigated and prosecuted these denials. Officials from four of these six states said that ATF has not been referring firearms denials to them, so investigation and prosecution of firearms denials was not being done in their state. State officials from two of the six states said that they either occasionally receive referrals from ATF, which are investigated and submitted for local prosecution or they are not aware whether they receive referrals from ATF because they do have a dedicated team to investigate these cases. Officials from all 6 states said they have laws that prohibit persons from purchasing and/or possessing firearms based on prohibitions, such as a prior felony or misdemeanor convictions, but do not have laws that prohibit persons from falsifying information on ATF’s form 4473 during the NICS background check. These states also cited some limitations for investigating these referrals such as lack of statutory authority within their state agency and resource constraints. On March 12, 2018, the Attorney General issued a memo that directed all United States Attorneys to enhance prosecution of cases involving false statements on the ATF Form 4473, which the memo refers to as “lie-and- try” cases. The memo specifically stated that every United States Attorney must coordinate with the ATF Special Agent-in-Charge in the local district to review and revise, as necessary, local prosecution and referral guidelines to ensure vigorous and appropriate prosecution of these cases. The memo also stated that these guidelines should place particular emphasis on cases against violent persons, including—but not limited to—denials involving individuals convicted of violent felonies, misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, or subject to protective orders, and denials involving fugitives where the underlying offense is a violent felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Further, the memo stated that the review and any resulting revisions should ensure that district-specific prosecution and referral guidelines reflect the Department of Justice’s renewed commitment to reducing violent crime. The memo required that all United States Attorneys certify that the review has been completed and all necessary adjustments made within 45 days. According to EOUSA officials, as of early May 2018, about 90 percent of USAOs had coordinated with their respective ATF field divisions to discuss revisions in USAO referral guidelines for standard denial cases. The officials added that in response to the Attorney General’s memo, some USAOs narrowed criteria to focus resources on particular denials, such as those involving an attempted purchaser with a history of violent crime, or prioritized denials with recent prohibitions, such as a domestic violence conviction in the past year. In other cases, ATF officials said that USAOs broadened criteria, which may result in more potential cases from which to select for investigation and referral for prosecution. ATF officials also said that some USAOs added investigation referral criteria (for individuals prohibited from possessing firearms) to include elements outside the list of federal prohibitors, such as denied individuals with ties to gang activity or terrorism. These attributes outside of NICS prohibiting categories would require further investigation at the local level by ATF, according to officials. While ATF officials have the expectation that the revised criteria would increase the overall workload on ATF field divisions, ATF officials said that it is too early to discern how these changes will impact ATF and the number of denial cases prosecuted by USAOs. EOUSA officials suggested that firearm-related prosecutions may well increase in the future, but added that any increase that results does not necessarily mean that firearms denial prosecutions would increase. Officials from 10 of our 13 selected POC states said that they do not investigate or prosecute any NICS denials, sometimes citing resource availability or the lack of state statutes as the reason. Officials from these 10 states said that while their state does not investigate or prosecute firearms denials, their state may take other actions following a denial. These possible actions may include informing local jurisdictions of the denial for possible investigation, and possible arrest if the denied individual has an active warrant. Other actions cited include revoking a state firearms owner identification card and possibly seizing any firearms; informing ATF of a delayed denial so ATF can retrieve the firearm; and providing the information on each denial to the FBI for input into FBI databases used to perform NICS checks. Officials and data from the remaining three POC states—Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—indicate that these states investigate a high proportion of firearms denials. These states have statutes that prohibit providing falsified information on a state or federal firearms form as well as statutes that penalize the attempt to purchase firearms by individuals prohibited from such purchases. Oregon: Prior to 2014, the state generally did not investigate firearms denials, according to state officials. In 2014, the state changed its policy based on concerns about firearm-related crimes. Specifically, beginning in late 2014, Oregon began investigating all firearms denials, which resulted in more than 2,500 firearms denial investigations in both 2016 and 2017. According to state data, there were between 2,000 and 2,400 firearms denials annually from 2011 to 2013. According to the two Oregon county prosecutors we interviewed, from late 2014 through 2017, their offices accepted about 141 of the more than 700 firearms denial investigations referred to their offices, with most prosecuted successfully. Pennsylvania: Prior to 2014, the state investigated a relatively small percentage of firearms denials per year using risk-based criteria, according to state police officials. In 2014, the state changed its policy to investigate all firearms denials. According to state police reports, in 2016, approximately 6,500 denial cases were referred for investigation, of which about 1,600 were referred for prosecution and 356 resulted in convictions. For 2017, the state reported that approximately 5,500 denial cases were referred for investigations, of which 1,907 investigations were referred for prosecution, resulting in 472 convictions. Virginia: Virginia has investigated firearms denials since 1989, according to state officials. Virginia does not refer all firearms denials for investigation, but instead uses risk-based criteria to refer a subset of prohibited categories for investigation, according to these officials. The number of referrals for investigation in Virginia has increased from about 770 in 2011 to around 1,700 in 2016 and 2017. Virginia prosecutors we interviewed in three jurisdictions from localities where a high volume of firearms denial referrals occur said they tend to work with Virginia state troopers who specialize in denial investigations and reported high prosecution rates for the cases they accept. The prosecutors noted that most convictions do not go to trial and are reduced to less severe violations and most of the penalties imposed tend to be probation, but there is the occasional jail term. For example, one Virginia prosecutor said that jail sentences are rare, but for a felon with a record of violence, sentences of 7 to more than 24 months in jail have been imposed. Unlike federal denial investigation referrals where about 30 percent of the total is for delayed denials, the vast majority of investigations and prosecutions within these three states are related to standard denials. Officials within these states explained that background checks that result in delayed denials are fairly uncommon. According to Pennsylvania officials, in Pennsylvania this is because of state background check policies that provide additional time, 15 days, to complete background checks if a denial is possible, but not clear initially. If the 15-day period expires without an approved transfer, the transaction is not denied, but the firearm is not transferred. According to officials in all three states, FFLs generally will not transfer a firearm until the background checks are completed. ATF officials from our six selected field divisions said that investigating firearms denials can be challenging because of the high volume and require use of their limited resources. ATF has not assessed field divisions’ use of warning notices in lieu of prosecution, which could provide greater awareness of their deterrence value. EOUSA officials said that denial cases are difficult to prosecute and offer less value for public safety than other prosecutions. State officials said that denial investigations compete with other investigations and can be difficult to successfully prosecute. ATF officials from our six selected field divisions—which combined received approximately 60 percent of the total standard denials that ATF referred to field divisions from fiscal years 2011 through 2017—said that investigating firearms denials can be challenging for various reasons. ATF field divisions have taken some steps to help mitigate these challenges, but ATF headquarters could benefit from enhancing its oversight of some aspects of the investigations process. According to officials from our six selected field divisions, one challenge to investigating and prosecuting firearms denials is the high volume of firearms denial referrals for investigation that ATF sends to field divisions. According to ATF headquarters officials, the DENI Branch has agreed to send these referrals to field divisions based on criteria each ATF field division has established with USAOs within their division. In fiscal year 2017, ATF’s DENI Branch referred 1,889 delayed denial cases to our six selected field divisions—which field divisions are required to investigate— and 5,435 standard denials cases, which they are to consider for further investigation. In the six field divisions, the number of standard denial referrals more than tripled from fiscal years 2011 to 2017, and in two field divisions, the number of standard referrals in 2017 was more than five times the number in 2011. For example, in one field division, the number of standard referrals was 166 in 2011 and increased to 1,064 in 2017. ATF officials did not know why the number of standard and delayed denials had increased during this period. Officials from all six of our selected ATF field divisions also said that investigating denial cases can be time-intensive and require use of their limited resources. The officials said that delayed denials can be particularly time-intensive because they are required to be investigated and the investigation involves a defined set of actions, including the possible retrieval of the firearm. For example, these investigations typically involve steps to verify the prohibition of the individual, including obtaining court records; contacting the individual and FFL that sold the firearm; and arranging to retrieve the firearm for those individuals found to be prohibited. A fiscal year 2016 ATF funding request through the annual congressional budget justification submission noted the drain on investigative resources because of the requirement for ATF to follow-up on delayed denials. While the investigation of standard denials also can take time, officials from our six selected field divisions said they have greater discretion over whether or not to investigate these denials. For example, each field division has discretion to screen all or some of the standard denials, which can include confirming the person was correctly denied and contacting the denied individual and the firearms dealer. Officials from all of the six selected field divisions said that, in light of the high volume and time-intensiveness of denial cases, they have taken various steps to prioritize the types of cases to investigate. For example, per ATF policy, field divisions prioritize delayed denials over standard denials because a prohibited person may be in possession of a firearm. Officials from three of the six field divisions said that after verifying that the applicant is prohibited by reviewing the criminal history attached to the case file, they generally close standard denials without further investigation. The officials added that while these cases may meet USAO criteria and be referred to a field division for investigation, they ultimately do not have prosecutive merit based on coordination with prosecutors who have experience in prosecuting these cases. Officials from one field division said that they typically do not devote resources to verifying the prohibited status, and instead triage standard denials based on certain criteria, such as a recent violent felony or domestic violence conviction. Accordingly, officials in that field division only refer to a criminal investigator for further review what they consider the greatest threats to public safety. EOUSA officials said that USAOs generally do not accept and prosecute denial cases that do not involve aggravating circumstances, as these cases can require significant effort for prosecutors relative to the short length of punishment and may offer little value to public safety because the offender does not obtain the firearm, compared to other cases involving gun violence. The officials added that USAOs filed about 9,200 firearm-related cases in fiscal year 2016 and about 10,400 in fiscal year 2017, but that cases involving falsifying information when attempting to purchase a firearm generally are only a small fraction of USAO efforts. Instead, USAOs primarily focus on cases where persons obtain firearms and are prohibited persons or use the firearms in connection with a criminal offense. According to ATF DENI Branch data, the majority of the 25 cases that USAOs prosecuted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 that involved firearms denials (standard and delayed) resulted in reaching plea agreements with the defendants. Federal law provides that it is unlawful “for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition ….” Generally, to convict someone for making a false statement on the ATF Form 4473, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the seller was a FFL; the defendant made a false statement or used a false identification while acquiring or attempting to acquire a firearm; the defendant knew the statement or identification was false; and the false statement or identification was intended to, or likely to, deceive a FFL about the lawfulness of the firearm sale. EOUSA officials said that prosecutions for falsifying information are very challenging because of the requirement to prove intent, and can become further complicated because the purchaser may not know that he or she is prohibited and was not intentionally trying to deceive an FFL. The officials added that these cases are not appealing to judges and juries from a public safety standpoint. They also said that they find juries questioning why the case is being prosecuted in instances when the individual did not get the gun, resulting in juries refusing to convict these individuals or jury nullification. EOUSA officials said that the number of prosecutions of firearms denials can be low, particularly in standard denial cases where the system worked and the subject did not obtain a firearm, and because of the priority often given to other cases involving gun violence. EOUSA officials said that delayed denial cases can require less effort to prosecute than standard denials, since USAOs do not need to prove an individual’s intent in making a false statement in purchasing the firearm, only that the prohibited individual is intentionally in possession of a firearm. For instance, generally, to obtain a conviction for a felon in possession of a firearm, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than 1 year; the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm; and the firearm previously passed in interstate commerce. However, officials from our six selected field divisions said that as long as a firearm is recovered from the prohibited person and the person is cooperative, ATF is unlikely to refer delayed denial investigations to USAOs for prosecution. While officials from all six selected ATF field divisions said that investigating the increasing number of denial cases can be time-intensive and require use of their limited resources, ATF headquarters has not assessed the extent to which field divisions’ use warning notices in lieu of prosecutions or whether any policy changes could enhance their use as a deterrence tool. Standard denial cases ATF referred to field divisions for investigation grew by more than 200 percent ATF-wide from fiscal years 2011 through 2017, and by more than 300 percent within our six selected field divisions. Moreover, delayed denial referrals grew by about 70 percent ATF-wide and by 70 percent within our six selected field divisions during this period. Figure 5 shows the increase in standard and delayed denial cases ATF referred to its field divisions for investigation from fiscal years 2011 through 2017. At the same time, ATF data show that special agent staffing across our six selected field divisions collectively only increased by one special agent from fiscal years 2011 through 2017. Officials from five of our six selected field divisions said that the increasing number of NICS denial cases received from ATF headquarters for investigation has posed a burden on staff resources. Field divisions are required to investigate all delayed denial referrals, but have discretion as to how thoroughly they investigate standard denial referrals. Officials from all six selected field divisions said that, to date, one of the ways they have been able to adjust to the increasing volume of standard denial referrals has been by closing them with limited investigation or sending warning notices to the prohibited individuals. However, based on trends over the last 7 years, the number of standard and delayed denial referrals for investigation could continue to increase. In addition, the Attorney General’s March 2018 memo to USAOs directing that the prosecution of false statements on the ATF Form 4473 be enhanced may impact how, and how many, denial investigations ATF performs. For all delayed denials, ATF policy requires field divisions to contact prohibited persons within three days of being assigned the case to advise the person of their prohibition. According to ATF headquarters officials, warning notices are intended to inform the individual that he or she is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, should not attempt to purchase a firearm again, and may be subject to prosecution. For delayed denials, ATF policy also requires field divisions to send a written warning notice in all instances where the special agent is unable to make contact with the prohibited person within 3 business days, or when other circumstances exist, such as extraordinary distance or inclement weather. Officials from our six selected field divisions said that while warning notices for delayed denials are not always delivered in writing, all individuals involved in delayed denials receive a warning in some form—e.g., written, oral, or via text message—from the ATF special agent investigating the denial. Officials from one field division said that they send text messages to denied purchasers in lieu of warning letters because they are less intimidating to prohibited persons, the texts save time and money, and are more effective in helping retrieve firearms. For standard denials, warning notifications are not required. Specifically, ATF policy provides that field divisions may send warning notices to denied persons “where appropriate and in lieu of prosecution.” However, in instances where aggravating circumstances exist, such as if the prohibited person committed a violent felony or made multiple attempts to purchase firearms, ATF policy provides that consideration should be given to hand-deliver the notice to the prohibited person. The 6 selected field divisions varied in the extent to which they sent warning notices related to standard denials. Specifically, three of the six divisions had established a practice to send notices to all prohibited persons. Officials from these three divisions said that such letters are intended to (1) educate the denied person that he or she is prohibited from purchasing firearms, (2) deter the individual from attempting future purchases, and (3) serve as evidence during any subsequent investigation or prosecution that the individual knew that he or she was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Officials from one of these field divisions also said that the practice of addressing standard denials by sending warning notices is a good use of limited resources while addressing a public safety concern. Of the three field divisions that routinely send warning notices for all standard denials, two send them via certified mail, while the other sends letters via standard mail due to limited resources. According to officials from these three field divisions, the costs associated with mailing warning notices also includes staff time to locate recipient information and mail the letters, in addition to supervisory review, as is done in at least one field division. A group supervisor in one of these field division’s sub-offices said that while their field division primarily uses certified mail, the sub- office hand delivers these notices for all standard and delayed denials. Officials from one of these three field divisions said that they confirm the prohibited status of individuals before sending the warning notices, while officials at another field division said they do not confirm the prohibited status prior to mailing but that the notice includes information on how to appeal the denial. These three divisions received an average of about 800 standard denials in fiscal year 2017. Officials from the three divisions that do not routinely send warning notices for standard denials said that notices are only sent for standard denials in rare cases. Such cases can include when there are aggravating circumstances. Criminal activity or not cooperating with the ATF—after the attempted purchase are examples of aggravating circumstances. Officials from one field division stated that warning notices were used for standard denials by individual agents in the past, but there was no field division policy to do so routinely. Officials from another field division said that due to limited resources, the decision was made to not send these notices, though they said the notices could be an effective deterrent for prohibited individuals from trying to possess a firearm or attempting to purchase from an FFL. ATF headquarters officials said that under ATF policy, the decision whether to send warning notices for all standard denials is made by individual field divisions. Therefore, they did not know the extent to which each of the 25 divisions used this practice. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call on federal managers to design control activities to achieve an agency’s objectives. These controls can include using quality information to make informed decisions, such as how best to achieve ATF’s objectives given limited resources; evaluating ATF’s performance in achieving key objectives; and addressing risks, including its limited resources to investigate or prosecute denial cases. While ATF policy provides that individual field divisions determine their use of warning notices, ATF headquarters is uniquely positioned to assess use of the notices across all field divisions. Assessing the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notices for standard denials would provide ATF headquarters with greater awareness regarding agency-wide efforts to use the notices as a deterrence tool in lieu of prosecution. As assessment could also better inform ATF as to whether the application of certain practices to all field divisions could be a feasible and effective use of limited investigative resources, given the small number of standard denial cases prosecuted each year, and revise related policies if appropriate. State police supervisors in all three states (Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) that investigate denials said investigators are generally assigned to denial investigations as their time permits. Supervisors also said these investigations are generally considered time consuming and can sometimes impact other duties. State police supervisors said that these investigations can be disruptive to operations by taking troopers away from their core duties, such as traffic enforcement and response, except where troopers are dedicated to conducting these investigations. State troopers echoed this point, adding that denial investigations are difficult to conduct given the amount of documentation needed for prosecution when they have other duties. Local law enforcement officials in Oregon and Pennsylvania also said that denial investigations are disruptive, as they are usually forwarded to officers when they are on patrol, sometimes many weeks or months after the firearms background check was initiated. Investigators in all three states also said they face challenges assisting with prosecutions of denied persons, including gathering the necessary documentation to prove the individual knew they were prohibited. For example, Virginia troopers said that obtaining records on out-of-state convictions and mental health prohibitions, and locating documentation on older convictions, can be especially difficult. Troopers in Oregon and Virginia commented that in their experience, there can be some degree of inaccuracy in the criminal records in their state. For example, they said that arrests and prosecution results may not be accurately reflected in the criminal history of the denied person. When the trooper checks the actual record, it is sometimes discovered that the person is not prohibited. A Virginia trooper said this is especially common for juvenile convictions. Oregon and Virginia officials said they have been able to mitigate these challenges by utilizing specialized troopers to conduct denial investigations. These troopers are taken off line and generally perform denial investigations almost exclusively. In both states, these specialized troopers conduct a large portion of the denial investigations in these states or in designated locations within the state. Virginia State Police officials told us that some areas within police divisions that receive a high volume of denials for investigation use specialized troopers that spend all or most of their time investigating firearms denials. These Virginia troopers reported that they have become more efficient than troopers that do not specialize because the repetition of performing multiple investigations improves the learning curve and the quality of their investigations. Virginia State Police officials said that while any area may assign troopers to work exclusively on denial investigations, most areas either cannot afford to remove a trooper from road coverage or do not investigate enough cases involving persons denied firearms to make it an effective use of resources. According to Oregon officials, five specialized troopers in the state investigated more than 1,100 of the almost 2,600 firearms denials referred for investigation in 2016. These troopers covered the denials for several metropolitan areas in Oregon and cited efficiencies in conducting and referring investigations for prosecution. State prosecutors we interviewed in the three states that conducted denial investigations said the primary challenge in prosecuting denial cases is in gathering the evidence needed to prove that the individuals knew they were prohibited. They added that the difficulty in gathering evidence for certain prohibited categories also make those prosecutions more difficult. For example, obtaining records related to old convictions, out of state convictions, and mental health prohibitions are common challenges. There are also challenges due to record retention policies for specific prohibitions. For example, a Virginia prosecutor said that prosecuting denials for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence convictions in Virginia that are more than 10 years old is difficult because these records may be destroyed under state law after 10 years. Oregon state investigators we interviewed said that, under state statutes, successfully prosecuting someone for falsifying information on firearms purchase forms requires proving that the person “knowingly and willingly” falsified information on the form, which can be difficult to prove. One Pennsylvania investigator also said that denied individuals may not understand the questions on the forms and genuinely believe they are not prohibited. Prosecutors we interviewed who worked with specialized investigators reported that they have worked closely with these troopers to facilitate successful prosecutions. For example, an Oregon prosecutor we spoke to utilizes a case reporting process where the trooper advises the prosecutor of the strong cases to be considered for prosecution. This allows prosecutors to focus their attention on the cases more likely to be successfully prosecuted. In one Virginia county, the prosecutor’s office provides troopers a checklist of important points the trooper should address to make a strong case for prosecution. Virginia prosecutors in jurisdictions served by a specialized trooper said that they confer with the troopers regularly and are able to successfully prosecute a high percentage of the denial investigations these troopers conduct. While individuals are denied firearms purchases because they are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal or state law, federal denial investigations and prosecutions are generally based on additional aggravating circumstances. The three states that investigate denial cases have established priorities for investigating and prosecuting such cases. The types of standard and delayed denial cases investigated by ATF field divisions and referred to USAOs for prosecution are determined by multiple factors, including the prohibiting category (e.g., felony conviction), criminal history of the denied individual, USAO investigative referral criteria, and the nature of the ATF investigation itself. Of the almost 21,000 delayed denials the ATF DENI Branch referred to ATF field divisions for investigation from fiscal years 2011 through 2017, 32 percent were denied for being convicted felons, 23 percent for a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and 19 percent for being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance. As discussed earlier, all delayed denials are referred to the appropriate field division for investigation. Of the almost 36,000 standard denials the ATF DENI Branch referred to field divisions for investigation during this time period, 36 percent were denied for being convicted felons, 30 percent for a qualifying protective order, and 16 percent for a conviction for a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. For standard denials, USAO investigative referral criteria, not the prohibiting category itself, determines which cases are referred for investigation. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, the number of delayed denials referred to ATF field divisions for investigation increased by 46 percent (from 2,742 to 3,993). This increase was driven by cases in which the prohibiting category was drug-related, which increased by about 300 referrals (60 percent increase); involved misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, which increased by about 250 referrals (34 percent increase); and involved felony convictions, which increased by about 280 referrals (34 percent increase). Also during this period, the number of standard denials referred to ATF field divisions for investigation increased by 30 percent (from 6,715 to 8,717). This increase was driven by misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, which increased by about 626 referrals (62 percent increase), and felony convictions, which increased by about 659 referrals (25 percent increase). Cases in which the prohibiting category was related to mental health or protection orders also increased by 42 percent (about 200 referrals) and 21 percent (about 300 referrals), respectively. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of investigation referrals by prohibiting category from fiscal years 2011 through 2017. The types of denial cases that ATF’s DENI Branch refers to field divisions for investigation are determined by the USAO referral criteria established in the district in which the purchase took place. Based on our analysis of the standard denial referral criteria for the 34 USAO districts that cover the six selected ATF field divisions as of February 2017, there are similarities in the criteria used across these USAO districts. For example, most of the 34 districts direct ATF to refer standard denials for investigation if the cases involved recent convictions for violent crimes or convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Also, about two-thirds of the 34 USAO districts direct ATF to refer cases in which prohibited persons have made two or more attempts to buy firearms while prohibited. In addition to the 10 prohibitions listed under federal law, other referral criteria used by USAO districts include prohibited individuals who are also suspected terrorists or associates of suspected terrorists; known gang members or members of criminal organizations; or suspected of gun trafficking. Aggravating Circumstances Resulting in a Prosecuted Firearms Denial Case An individual attempted to purchase a firearm while under indictment for first degree robbery, in which the subject used a woman to set up an exchange of sex for marijuana. During the exchange, the subject robbed and shot the victim. The subject was charged with two felonies—falsifying information on the background check form and illegal possession of a firearm while under indictment. The subject pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and 3 years supervisory release. The denial cases ATF field divisions refer to USAOs for prosecution generally include aggravating circumstances in addition to the factors discussed above related to an individual’s criminal history. According to ATF officials in one field division, these aggravating circumstances could include violent felonies or multiple serious offenses in a short period of time, especially if these occurred in close proximity to the timing of the attempted firearms purchase. For example, a prohibited person with multiple armed robberies or actively involved in gang activity could be considered to have aggravating circumstances. The officials described a recent incident where an individual was found in possession of PCP three times in a span of a couple months, then bought a firearm and fired it at an occupied dwelling. This was considered a clear example, and the individual was prosecuted for making a false statement as well as illegal possession of a firearm stemming from the delayed denial. Additional examples provided by ATF officials from our 6 selected field divisions of recent cases ATF referred for prosecution include: An individual purchased a firearm from an FFL and sold that firearm to a prohibited person. The original purchaser was later denied (delayed denial) due to a prior drug conviction. The purchaser was charged with illegally possessing a firearm, making a false statement in the purchase of a firearm, and making a “straw purchase,” which is when an individual illegally purchases a firearm on behalf of another person. According to ATF, this individual was sentenced to 1 year in federal custody and 3 years of supervisory release. An individual was charged with making false statements in the attempted purchase of a firearm. The individual did not receive the firearm as a result of a standard denial. During the investigation, the subject was not cooperative, and had an extensive criminal history in multiple states dating back 35 years, including several contacts with law enforcement on domestic violence and protective orders. The subject was charged with falsifying a background check form, to which he pled guilty and was sentenced to 12 months in prison. An individual under indictment for armed criminal action committed first-degree robbery in which he used a woman to set up an exchange of sex for marijuana. During the exchange, the subject robbed and shot the victim. The subject later attempted to purchase a firearm and was able to obtain the firearm as a result of a delayed denial. Later, a completed NICS check revealed that he was a prohibited person for being under indictment, and was subsequently arrested later that week. The subject was perceived as a threat to the community and charged with two felonies, falsifying the background check form, and illegal possession of a firearm while under indictment. He pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and 3 years supervisory release. Of the 12 examples from our six selected field divisions provided, 9 involved delayed denials and 3 involved standard denials. Eleven of the 12 cases have been completed as of May 2018. Of the 9 cases charged in federal court, 1 case was declined by prosecutors, and the other 8 resulted in guilty pleas. These guilty pleas resulted in penalties ranging from time served to 33 months in prison, along with additional punishments such as probation, fines, and mandated treatment programs. Of the 3 cases charged in state court, 2 resulted in guilty pleas and 1 had not been resolved as of May 2018. Of the 10 cases pursued by federal and state prosecutors that resulted in guilty pleas, 7 cases involved a subject with a history of drug crimes, 6 involved violent crimes, and 4 involved domestic violence. Additional information on these case examples can be found in appendix VI. According to officials from our six selected ATF field divisions, standard denial referrals may meet USAOs criteria and be referred to a field division for investigation, but almost always do not have prosecutive merit based on coordination with prosecutors. The officials noted that USAOs generally do not accept standard denials that only involve a violation related to falsified information. The officials also said that minor crimes, such as burglary, from decades ago would likely not be a high enough threat for prosecution. For delayed denial cases, officials from the 6 field divisions said that if a firearm is retrieved or otherwise recovered from the prohibited person—and the person is cooperative—ATF is unlikely to refer these investigations to USAOs for prosecution unless there are aggravating circumstances. The types of denial cases that are referred for investigation in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are determined in part by the priorities the states have set for such referrals. For Oregon and Pennsylvania, which investigate all firearms denials, these priorities include cases involving stolen guns, purchasers with active warrants, active protection orders, and prior felony convictions. In these states, convictions of a crime punishable by more than one year (i.e. felony convictions) are the most common reasons for denial. Virginia investigates a subset of all denials based on risk, and has a policy to prioritize denials that is similar to Oregon and Pennsylvania—active warrants, active protection orders, as well as mental health issues. According to Virginia state police officials, denials can be referred for investigation if they involve one or more of a set of prohibiting categories. In 2017, these amounted to about 50 percent of the almost 3,600 denials recorded. Virginia state police officials said that investigations tend to be handled in the order they arrive, regardless of prohibited category. Two troopers said that Virginia residents with exclusive Virginia criminal histories jump to the top of their lists because the records for these individuals will be easiest to obtain. The investigators in these Virginia jurisdictions said they tend to refer most of their investigations for prosecution, regardless of the prohibited category, if there is evidence to support the falsified information charge. Pennsylvania investigators and supervisors generally said that no priority is given to the denial investigation referrals they receive. They said investigations tend to be handled on a first in first out basis, regardless of the prohibiting category of the denied person. One supervisory trooper said that since these investigations are usually sent to the field 2 to 3 months after the transaction has occurred, they are generally considered low priority when compared to assaults, robberies, and other crimes a trooper investigates. Oregon state police management and troopers told us they prioritize cases involving stolen guns, purchasers with active warrants, active protection orders, and prior felony convictions. Local law enforcement agencies that investigate denial cases in Oregon told us they do not prioritize any cases—except for active warrants—handling them in order as they are received. Investigators in all three states said that the criminal histories of those investigated tend to be minor. For example, outside of the prohibiting offenses that led to persons being denied, most of these individuals’ criminal histories tend to consist of old prohibiting offenses like non- violent felonies, or drug possession, with few gun violations noted. Investigators in these three states said that this may be because individuals with the most severe criminal histories do not attempt to purchase firearms through FFLs. However, one investigator said that individuals who were denied based on misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence tend to have multiple charges in their background. State investigators said prosecutors’ interest or willingness to prosecute is a key determinant for whether a case is referred for prosecution. One investigator also said he may check with prosecutors early in an investigation to determine the likelihood of prosecution. According to Oregon troopers, denial investigations that are recommended for prosecution often involve convictions for felonies, misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and restraining orders. The troopers said that the strength of the case—including the adequacy and availability of proof the individual knew he or she was prohibited and falsified information— determines which cases are referred to prosecutors. Prosecutors from all three states said that they generally pursue cases against individuals who have indications of violence, including protection orders, domestic violence, and felony convictions. Individual prosecutors also identified specific prohibiting categories, based on public safety concerns, as their priorities for prosecution. An Oregon prosecutor said there is a good public safety argument for prosecuting denials based on domestic violence, mental health, and felony prohibitions when there is probable cause. However, for other prohibiting categories, such as being on probation or being a drug user, the officials said that prosecuting these denial cases is not very useful based on the amount of effort required to prosecute. A Virginia prosecutor cited domestic violence and protection orders as being prosecuted most often. A Pennsylvania prosecutor said that his county prosecutes most of the referrals it receives, with denials for multiple instances of driving under the influence, mental health, and domestic violence being the most common. State prosecutors we interviewed also said the cases they accept for prosecution may be influenced by the fact that certain types of cases are harder to prove. For example, they said that denials involving mental health, drug users, and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence are often harder to prove, due in part to the difficulty in obtaining related records. The officials added that cases involving out-of-state and older convictions are also not prosecuted as often as other cases due to the difficulty in obtaining records. State prosecutors also said that there are certain circumstances where prosecutors are reluctant to pursue prosecution—such as cases where prohibitions occurred as a juvenile— where a firearms denial conviction would establish an adult criminal record where no criminal record had previously existed. According to the prosecutors we contacted, the criminal histories of denied individuals generally involved minor violations other than the prohibiting offense. Prosecutors said the criminal history of the individual can play a role in whether felony charges are filed, as opposed to misdemeanor charges, and for sentencing. For example, one Virginia prosecutor said that he will file felony charges for a denial case only for cases in which an individual was denied based on an active protection order or serious felony in his county. Another Virginia prosecutor said that there is consideration of both criminal history—convictions for violent felonies or misdemeanors, especially—as well as multiple arrests where no conviction resulted, when deciding whether to charge the denied person with a felony or misdemeanor. The prosecutor noted, however, that denial cases tend not to be violent felons or hardened criminals. According to a Pennsylvania prosecutor, almost all cases are ultimately charged with misdemeanors. The prosecutor noted, however, that the state recently brought multiple felony charges against a person who was denied a firearms purchase based on a murder conviction in 1973. These prosecutors also stated that they often try to plead denial cases whenever possible, as these cases often do not result in convictions when they go to trial. For example, a prosecutor in Pennsylvania told us about one denial case that went to trial where the jury found the denied person not guilty. The defendant was prohibited from purchasing a firearm based on convictions for repeatedly driving while under the influence, a misdemeanor with a potential prison term of 5 years in that state. The attorney said the jury believed that it was a pointless prosecution for a firearm’s denial offense. In Virginia, one prosecutor also described a case where a person was denied because of a mental health prohibition, and the person was found not guilty of the charges of falsifying information when attempting to purchase the firearm. He attributed this to a sympathetic defendant and jury reluctance to impose a criminal conviction on an individual without a criminal record. Further, state officials said that the penalties handed down when denied individuals are convicted tended to be minor. The Oregon prosecutors said that common penalties are fines (usually in the hundreds of dollars) and probation ranging up to 1 year depending on the criminal background of the denied person. According to a Pennsylvania state police official, in some instances the charges are pled down to a lesser violation, such as disorderly conduct, which result in an approximately $300 fine. The two Pennsylvania prosecutors we interviewed said that most denial prosecutions in their jurisdictions are pled down to misdemeanors, eliminating the need for a trial. According to the prosecutors, common penalties for misdemeanor convictions include probation and the requirement to pay court costs (upwards of $1,000 in one county). The prosecutors added that there is an occasional jail sentence for denied felons with substantial criminal records that can result in about 1 to almost 2 years in jail. Prosecutors across the states said that they try to plead cases—thus avoiding trial—whenever possible. One Pennsylvania prosecutor said that cases without strong evidence that cannot be pled are sometimes dropped because conviction would be difficult. Another Pennsylvania prosecutor said jury apathy in one strong case led to fewer denial cases. Virginia prosecutors said that most convictions are for misdemeanor charges and result in probation, fines, and court costs. They did say, however, that jail time has resulted for denied individuals with violent felony convictions. At the federal level, the number of firearms denial cases ATF has referred to its field divisions for investigation has increased substantially over recent years, which has placed a burden on field division resources. At the same time, field division resources have not increased, and the number of USAO prosecutions remains low—totaling 12 in fiscal year 2017. Assessing the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notices for standard denials in lieu of prosecution would provide ATF headquarters greater awareness of agency-wide deterrence efforts, and better inform the agency as to whether any policy changes are needed. We recommend that the Deputy Director, Head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assess the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notices for standard denials in lieu of prosecution and determine whether any policy changes are needed. (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. DOJ concurred with our recommendation to ATF and provided technical comments, which we incorporated in this report where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Attorney General, the Deputy Director, Head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions are listed in appendix VII. Our objectives in this report were to (1) describe the extent to which federal and selected state law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms denial cases; (2) examine the challenges, if any, that federal and selected federal and selected state law enforcement agencies face in investigating and prosecuting firearms denial cases; and (3) describe the circumstances that lead to the investigation and prosecution of persons denied firearms. To describe the extent that federal and selected state law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms denials, we reviewed published reports regarding federal and state law enforcement efforts to investigate and prosecute firearms denials. For federal efforts, we requested data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regarding firearms denials provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by state and prohibiting category for fiscal years 2011 through 2017. We reviewed the internal controls in place for these data and determined that the data were reliable for our purposes. We requested and received data from the ATF Automated National Instant Criminal Background Check System Referral Application and the NForce Case Management System that showed how many of these denials, both standard and delayed, were forwarded from ATF’s Denial Enforcement NICS Intelligence (DENI) Branch to ATF field divisions, broken out by the prohibiting category of the denials. This provided us the total count of denials that ATF may investigate nationwide. To assess the reliability of these data we reviewed internal controls and the data quality assurance program of ATF. We determined that these data were reliable for the purpose of our reporting objectives. To examine federal prosecutions of denied persons, we requested information from ATF’s case management system that identified the NICS cases that were prosecuted, including those instances where a conviction was recorded. For state investigations and prosecutions, we selected the 13 states that perform their own background checks for all firearms transactions and searched their state police and state agency websites to identify the state’s background check units, or staff associated with this function and inquired about their policy regarding the investigation of persons denied firearms purchase. From these contacts we determined that 10 of these selected states did not perform investigations, while 3 point-of-contact (POC) states did investigate these denials. We analyzed data from the state police in Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia that identified the number of firearms denials recorded, the prohibiting category of the denials, and the number of these denials referred to state or local law enforcement for investigation. To assess the reliability of these data we interviewed knowledgeable individuals about the procedures for creating these data, and reviewed the internal controls in place within these systems. We determined that this data was reliable for the purpose of our reporting objectives. We spoke to state and local investigators and prosecutors in these states to discuss the investigative processes followed and the frequency of prosecution. Though these prosecutors tended to lack hard data on the number of these cases prosecuted and the outcome of these prosecutions, they were able to share their experiences prosecuting these cases, and to estimate the approximate quantity of these cases that have been addressed by their offices. We believe their experiences provide an understanding of the demands these prosecutions place on prosecutors’ offices and the value these prosecutions have for the jurisdiction in question. To describe the challenges, if any, federal and selected state law enforcement agencies face in investigating and prosecuting firearms denials, for federal denial investigations, we used the denial referral data provided by ATF to identify the field divisions that received the most denial referrals for investigation. We found that 6 field divisions received about 60 percent of the total ATF standard denial referrals over the 2011 through 2017 fiscal year period. These six field divisions also received more than half of the delayed denial referrals distributed to the 25 ATF field divisions over that time period. To assess the reliability of the referral data and the case data, we discussed the internal controls in place with knowledgeable officials and received a copy of the ATF quality assurance plan for review. We determined that the data was reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We contacted officials in these six field divisions and discussed the investigative process for standard and delayed denial investigations as well as the challenges these investigations posed to the ATF staff in these field divisions. We also evaluated ATF’s investigative procedures and internal controls in place against the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also discussed the types of cases that each field division referred to the appropriate USAO for prosecution, and were provided detailed examples from ATF headquarters of these denial cases for each of the six field divisions. We spoke to EOUSA officials to discuss the circumstances that would lead a USAO to prosecute a firearms denial and the challenges faced in these prosecutions. For state denial investigation challenges we spoke to state troopers and local law enforcement to learn about the procedures for conducting these investigations, the challenges that investigators face, and how and when these firearms denial investigations are referred to prosecutors. We also spoke with multiple prosecutors from each of these states and discussed their offices’ policies for accepting these denial cases, how often these cases were prosecuted in these localities and the general outcome of the cases. Though we did not speak to a representative sample of prosecutors across our selected states, we believe their views provide insights into the types of challenges faced by prosecutors in those states. To identify the circumstances that lead to investigations and prosecutions of firearms denials, we reviewed federal denial investigations by visiting the ATF DENI Branch, the office that uses USAO criteria to screen federal NICS denials for referral to ATF field divisions. There, we observed how denials are screened and discussed internal controls. We also requested USAO referral criteria from the 34 USAO districts that comprise the six ATF field divisions that received the most denial referrals from 2011 to 2017. We also analyzed standard and delayed denial referral data that captured the prohibited categories of the referrals to those field divisions. Further, we analyzed standard and delayed denial case data for the investigations that were referred for prosecution for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, and those that were ultimately prosecuted. To assess the reliability of the data we discussed the internal controls in place for entering the data and the quality assurance plan in place after data was entered. We determined that the data was reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. Officials from our 6 selected ATF field divisions also provided examples of denial cases investigated and referred for prosecution. These case examples included the specific circumstances that convinced the field division to investigate and refer the case for prosecution. For these federal denial prosecutions, we identified firearms denial cases in PACER and LEXIS for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 to identify the specific circumstances of the cases prosecuted, the statutes used to charge the defendants, and the outcome of the cases. We also spoke to EOUSA officials and discussed the reasons that certain denial cases were prosecuted while thousands of others are not. For state denial investigation circumstances, we spoke with state and local investigators from the three selected states that investigate and prosecute denials and discussed the circumstances—to include state priorities, the prohibiting category and criminal history of those investigated—that resulted in state firearms denial to be referred for prosecution. We also spoke with multiple prosecutors from the same states and asked them to describe the characteristics of cases they are more likely to prosecute, as well as those they are less likely to prosecute. While we did not speak to a representative sample of investigators and prosecutors from these states, we believe their experiences and viewpoints provide insights into how these investigations and prosecutions are conducted and prioritized in these states. We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 through September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This appendix includes information on the investigation and prosecution of individuals denied firearms purchases in the state of Oregon. In the state of Oregon, the Oregon State Police (OSP) Firearms Unit serves as the point of contact responsible for conducting background checks for firearms transactions. OSP’s Firearms Instant Check System (FICS) unit conducts criminal background checks to determine the eligibility of individuals attempting to transfer or purchase a firearm. Oregon law requires that gun dealers request that the OSP conduct a criminal history record check on the purchaser before a firearm is delivered to a purchaser. Dealers may submit these requests either by telephone or online. The FICS unit determines from criminal records and other available information whether the purchaser is disqualified under state or federal law from completing the transfer or is otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm. Generally, for gun shows, Oregon law prohibits a transferor who is not a gun dealer from transferring a firearm unless the transferor requests a criminal background check prior to completing the transfer, receives a unique approval number from OSP indicating that the recipient is qualified to complete the transfer, and has the recipient complete the form for transfer of a firearm at a gun show, or completes the transfer through a gun dealer. Generally, for private firearms sales, Oregon law requires a transferor to complete the transfer of a firearm to a transferee through a gun dealer. Prior to the transfer of the firearm, both the transferor and the transferee must appear in person before a gun dealer, with certain exceptions, with the firearm and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on the transferee. Process for Conducting a Background Check When a FICS background check is requested, Oregon law requires the seller to provide information about the firearm—so OSP can ensure it has not been reported stolen—and the purchaser in order to conduct a criminal history check. If the purchaser is qualified, a unique approval number is provided to complete the transaction. The dealer then enters this number on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) background check form (Form 4473), and a thumbprint form, which is attached to the Form 4473 and retained for 5 years. By statute, if OSP is unable to determine if the purchaser is approved or denied within 30 minutes, OSP is required to notify the dealer and provide an estimate of when the check will be completed. These checks are placed in a pended/delayed status until sufficient record information can be obtained to complete the request. Federal law provides that if the FBI or state agency cannot complete a background check within 3 business days and make a final determination (i.e., proceed or denied), the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) may transfer the firearm pursuant to federal law, unless state law provides otherwise. Regardless of the FFL’s decision to transfer or not transfer the firearm, OSP will continue to research missing information in order to complete the background check request and provide either an approval number or notice that the person is denied for the FFL’s records. Typically, a case is placed in “pend” status because the record is missing information necessary to make a final determination. For example, domestic violence charges may not include details about the relationship needed to make a determination; state, local, or federal agencies may not have the resources to respond in a timely manner to requests for missing information; or it may be unclear whether prior charges were a felony or misdemeanor. When a transaction is denied, it is either labeled a Priority FICS Call, and is dispatched to the first available trooper or local law enforcement officer, or it is labeled a Cold FICS Call, and dispatched to the appropriate OSP office and next available trooper or local law enforcement officer. Priority calls are those that involve a convicted felon, a serviceable warrant, a stolen gun, or a restraining/stalking order. Oregon Executive Order 16-12 requires notification of certain officials after a transaction is denied if the prohibited person is on probation, on parole or post-prison supervision, subject to a court-issued release agreement or protective order, or subject to supervision by a Psychiatric Security Review Board. Figure 7 shows the process for purchasing a firearm from a dealer in Oregon. According to OSP officials, 95 to 97 percent of background checks are approved and less than 1 percent are denied within minutes of initiation, while roughly 3 to 5 percent are placed in pend/delay status. According to FICS officials, about 95 percent of pend/delay transactions are ultimately approved. A challenge phone line is available for individuals who have been denied or pended and wish to find out the reason, or to challenge a denial determination. The gun dealer may be asked to fax the ATF form 4473 and thumbprint form to the FICS Unit to assist in the challenge process. The purchaser is provided a reference number upon request to be used to appeal the determination through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) program. Oregon law prohibits individuals that have been convicted of certain offenses from possessing firearms. For example, Oregon prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person found to have mental illness and subject to a court order for treatment or commitment that prohibits them from purchasing or possessing a firearm as a result of mental illness. Finally, an individual is prohibited if while a minor, was found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for having committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a felony or misdemeanor involving violence and was discharged from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court within the last 4 years. Table 2 shows Oregon firearms denials by prohibiting categories. From 2011 through 2017, prohibited persons convicted of a felony was the most common category among firearm denials, followed by individuals on probation, individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the previous 4 years, and wanted persons. The two largest prohibiting categories, convicted felons and individuals on probation, made up 32 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of all denials in 2016. In 2017, convicted felons fell to 29 percent and individuals on probation increased to 28 percent. Wanted persons, the fourth largest group in 2016, made up 10 percent of all denials that year, but fell to less than 5 percent of all denials in 2017. Total firearms denials fluctuated during that span from more than 2,400 denials in 2012, to 1,050 in 2017. From 2015 to 2017, denials declined each year. Total firearm transactions fluctuated as well, but generally increased during that span, increasing from less than 200,000 in 2011 to over 287,000 in 2017. From 2015 to 2017, denials fell by 45 percent while total transactions increased by 9 percent. Oregon has had the policy of investigating all persons denied a firearms purchase since 2014. Prior to 2014, OSP only investigated a small percentage of persons denied firearms purchases, with a priority placed on denied persons with an active warrant. According to OSP, the FICS unit provides the initial source of information in a denial investigation packet, which generally includes but is not limited to: FICS Transaction Report, which includes information regarding the denied transfer, the subject firearm, the point of sale location, the denied transferee, and the specific reason for denial; Oregon Criminal History data; Interstate Identification Index information; FBI’s NICS information; and Court records, police reports, or other records specific to the individual transferee and the denial in question. Before an investigation is started, OSP must determine whether the investigation should be conducted by OSP or local law enforcement. If the jurisdiction where the transaction took place has an agreement with OSP to receive training on firearms investigations, then the local law enforcement agency will conduct the investigation. Otherwise, OSP will conduct the investigation. In 2016, 26 percent of denial investigations were conducted by local law enforcement, up from 22 percent in 2015. The percentage covered by local law enforcement rose to 28 percent in 2017. In September 2017, three large local jurisdictions agreed to receive firearms denial referrals from OSP. For the last three months of 2017 the proportion of denials referred to local law enforcement was about 33 percent. OSP has five troopers dedicated full-time to FICS denial investigations in specific locations across the state. These troopers have essentially been pulled off of regular patrol duties and dedicated full-time to firearms denial investigations, according to OSP officials. These troopers cover the denials for most of the major metropolitan areas in Oregon. Except for the highest priority cases, the denial cases are tasked to the dedicated FICS troopers if the case falls within their geographical area of responsibility. According to Oregon officials, the five specialized troopers in the state investigated more than 1,100 of the almost 2,600 firearms denials referred for investigation in 2016. OSP troopers are required through OSP executive leadership directives to investigate each FICS case and submit the case, with all available facts and evidence, to the appropriate District Attorney’s Office for review, regardless of findings. With this information, the prosecutor makes an independent charging decision. When there is a recommendation included with the investigator’s report, it is most often to not file charges, either because the evidence indicates no crime was committed, or because there are specific mitigating circumstances involved in the case. Finally, OSP generates a report tracking denial investigations and the dispositions of any new criminal cases initiated after the investigation is completed. There is no current mechanism for reporting actions taken following an investigation and therefore OSP has no data regarding the total number of prosecutions accepted and convictions obtained. According to OSP officials, potential state level criminal conduct associated with denied firearm transfers are established in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 162 and 166. These crimes include but are not limited to: Or. Rev. Stat. § 162.075 False swearing. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.270 Possession of weapons by certain felons. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.416 Providing false information in connection with a firearm transfer. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.418 Improperly transferring a firearm. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.425 Unlawfully purchasing a firearm. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.435 Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons; requirements; exceptions; penalties. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.470 Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms. Generally, Oregon’s Constitution requires the election by districts of a sufficient number of prosecuting attorneys (District Attorneys), who are the law officers of the state, and of the counties within their respective districts, and are to perform duties pertaining to the administration of law. District Attorney responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, representing the district in felony prosecutions, misdemeanor prosecutions, grand jury proceedings, mental commitment hearings, family abuse prevention hearings, and juvenile delinquency hearings. After a trooper completes an investigation, they submit a report to the District Attorney’s office. A prosecuting attorney then reviews the case and decides whether to charge an individual or individuals with a crime. When a case is not prosecuted, a rejection memo is provided to the trooper that submitted the report. According to two Oregon county prosecutors we interviewed, from late 2014 through 2017, their offices accepted about 140 of the more than 700 firearms denial investigations referred to their offices, with most prosecuted successfully. According to OSP officials, the most common types of cases resulting in convictions are related to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, followed closely by prior felony convictions. The officials said that a new working group was created in 2016 to review gun relinquishment protocols in domestic violence cases, review outcomes and make recommendations to improve the safety of domestic violence survivors. With regard to sentencing, these prosecutors said common penalties in firearms denial cases include fines (usually in the hundreds of dollars), and probation ranging up to 1 year, depending on the criminal background of the denied individual. According to OSP, data is not collected on what prosecutions and convictions result from investigations by prohibited category. However, anecdotally, investigators and prosecutors said the prohibiting category of convicted felons is the most common among persons prosecuted for FICS denials. Prosecution outcomes are not automatically reported back to OSP; each county’s District Attorney must be contacted to obtain their agency’s respective case outcome data. Reporting disposition of firearms denial cases back to FICS is voluntary and can be done via an online form. The participating local agencies are requested to report back to OSP on the findings of their investigations; however, this reporting is voluntary and according to FICS officials, many agencies do not consistently submit this information. This appendix includes information on the investigation and prosecution of individuals denied firearms purchases in the state of Pennsylvania. Since 1998, Pennsylvania has served as a Point-of-Contact (POC) state for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) acts as the state point of contact for NICS for determining an individual’s eligibility to acquire, possess, transfer, and carry firearms. PSP conducts instant records checks using the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS). PICS uses a voice response component and a web-based application that allows users to initiate firearm and license to carry (also known as concealed carry) background check requests. In Pennsylvania, a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer is required to request by means of a telephone call that the PSP conduct a criminal history, juvenile delinquency history and a mental health check prior to selling or delivering any firearm to another unlicensed person. In addition, the firearm may not be transferred until the licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer has received a unique approval number for that inquiry from the PSP and recorded the date and number on the application or record of sale form. Generally, for any person that is not a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer who wants to sell or transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person, the person must do so at the place of business of a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or county sheriff’s office and follow the procedures related to the transfer of a firearm for a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer. Process for Conducting a Background Check At the point of purchase, once the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 background check form is submitted, a PICS automated firearms check is initiated. The licensed firearms dealer contacts the PICS unit to determine if the applicant is eligible to purchase a firearm. The initial PICS check, which takes about 10 to15 minutes, searches the state’s repositories and NICS to identify any criminal history records or prohibitions. State databases searched as part of the check includes but are not limited to: Pennsylvania criminal history records; Juvenile records, contained within the criminal history record file; Mental Health File, containing involuntary commitment information and adjudication of incompetence; Pennsylvania Protection From Abuse File; Pennsylvania Wanted/Missing Persons File; and Bureau of Motor Vehicle records. If there is no record in the system for the applicant, the transaction can be approved automatically without any manual evaluation. The gun dealer is provided a unique approval number, which is required to authorize the transfer of the firearm. Any firearm purchase check that hits on a record is transferred to a PICS operator. According to PSP officials, if a PICS operator cannot immediately approve or deny a firearm purchase on the phone, the firearm purchase application is put in “research” status, and the PICS unit has 15 days to determine if the firearm purchase can proceed. During this period, the PICS staff attempts to obtain clarifying information from the state’s repositories. In many of these instances, the PICS staff needs to obtain the final disposition to an arrest, according to PICS officials. If after 15 days, PICS staff cannot make a determination, the applicant’s status becomes “undetermined” and the applicant is not allowed to purchase the firearm. If the automated check comes back with a red flag, the applicant is denied the purchase, and the information is sent to the PICS Challenge Unit, according to PSP officials. Generally, any person who is denied the right to receive, sell, transfer, possess or carry a firearm as a result of the procedures may challenge the accuracy of that person’s criminal history, juvenile delinquency history or mental health record pursuant to a denial by the instant records check by submitting a challenge to PSP within 30 days from the date of the denial. If challenged, PSP is required to conduct a review of the accuracy of the information forming the basis for the denial and has the burden of proving the accuracy of the record. Within 20 days after receiving the challenge, PSP is required to notify the challenger of the basis for the denial and provide the challenger an opportunity to provide additional information for the purposes of the review. PSP is to communicate its final decision to the challenger within 60 days of the receipt of the challenge with the decision containing all of the information which formed a basis for the decision. If after the challenge period the denial is upheld, the PICS Section sends the denied firearm application to the local police department or state police field station to investigate for falsification of the background check form and potentially refer the case for prosecution, according to PSP officials. In addition to handling firearms denial appeals, the Challenge Unit prepares case files for appeals through the Office of the Attorney General, testifies at appeal hearings when required, and attends and testifies at relief hearings for restoration of firearms rights, which are conducted in the various county courts of common pleas throughout the state. Finally, the Challenge Unit handles enforcement investigations involving individuals who knowingly and intentionally provide false information in the attempt to acquire a firearm in violation of Pennsylvania law. Figure 8 shows the process for purchasing a firearm from a dealer in Pennsylvania. According to PSP officials, in 2017, the PICS conducted about 1.1 million background checks for licensed firearm dealers, sheriffs and law enforcement throughout the state. Of these requests, 56 percent were approved within minutes by the system, while an additional 41 percent were approved during the initial check with operator assistance. The remaining 3 percent were placed in research status to obtain additional information. The Challenge Unit reversed 32 percent of all state background check denial challenges, which include licenses to carry, in 2017. According to Pennsylvania officials, the state of Pennsylvania does not have delayed denials, in which a firearm is transferred to an individual before determining whether the individual is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm under state or federal law, and the purchase is subsequently denied. Generally, under Pennsylvania law, a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer may not sell or deliver any firearm to an unlicensed person until having received a unique approval number from PSP. Pennsylvania law prohibits individuals that have been convicted of certain offenses from possessing firearms. For example, under Pennsylvania law, an individual who has been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance on three or more separate occasions within a 5-year period is prohibited from possessing a firearm. One prosecutor told us that most of the denials in his county stemmed from second and third offense DUI convictions. Table 3 shows Pennsylvania firearms denials by prohibiting category. According to PSP officials, from 2014—when Pennsylvania began investigating denials—through 2017, the most common category was “persons convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years,” which comprised 42 percent of all denials. The second most common prohibiting category was mental health-related denials, at 16 percent. During this span, the number of denials increased from 2014 to 2016, only to decline in 2017. Since 2014, PICS policy has been to investigate all firearm denials, according to PSP officials. Prior to 2013, Pennsylvania used risk-based criteria to investigate a much smaller percentage of denials. Criteria used included violent felonies, drug trafficking, domestic violence, involuntary mental health commitment, active warrants, and straw purchases, among others. After PSP began investigating all firearms denials in 2014, according to PSP officials, the number of denials remained largely the same, but the number of investigations rose from 620 to 4,154. PSP officials told us they believe that the policy to investigate all denials acts as a deterrent, and that as prohibited individuals learn that investigations follow a denial these individuals will not attempt to purchase a firearm. According to PSP officials, as PICS refers all confirmed firearms denials for investigation, PICS does not use screening criteria to make determinations about whether firearms denials should be referred for investigation, or which denials are more likely to be accepted for prosecution. However, PICS does prioritize and determine which denials involve more serious criminal violations. According to PSP’s Firearms Unit staff, many referrals are not pursued based on the investigator’s assessment of the case or a prosecutor’s declination of the case when the referral was received. The PSP partners with local law enforcement to investigate firearms denials. Investigations are split up between the PSP and municipal police departments based on the jurisdiction of where the applicant submitted the firearms purchase. In 2016, 68 percent of cases referred for investigation were referred to state police, while 32 percent were referred to local law enforcement. In 2017, cases referred to local law enforcement increased to 62 percent, while 38 percent were referred to state police. If the subject is federally prohibited, a case may be referred to ATF for investigation, though based on our analysis this is relatively uncommon. In 2015 and 2016, 16 and 5 cases, respectively, were referred to ATF for investigation, while in 2017 one case was referred to ATF. Firearms denials are automatically funneled into a state investigative database where an investigation file is created according to PSP officials. When a denial is referred to a PSP troop for investigation, it is assigned to a state investigator if the state police has jurisdiction. If local law enforcement has jurisdiction, the PSP troop or PSP investigation staff will pass the referral to local law enforcement, according to PSP officials. Though some PSP units have investigators that specialize in firearm denials cases, generally denial investigations are assigned to the next available investigator, according to PSP officials. After an investigation is assigned, the investigator will review all provided documentation and verify that the subject is actually prohibited, according to PSP officials. The investigator will then pull an incident number and take steps to obtain necessary documentation. The investigator will then respond to the location of the violation, review the ATF Form 4473, and attempt to interview the employee who handled the attempted transaction. Finally, the investigator will locate and interview the subject of the denial. Cases are not prioritized for investigation because all firearms denials are investigated and are immediately assigned to an investigator upon receipt from PICS, according to PSP officials. While no denial categories are designated as priority, protective orders may be investigated more vigorously when there is an indication of violence, according to PSP officials. PSP does not track the length of time or resources required for conducting investigations of firearms purchase denials, according to PSP officials. Some jurisdictions may send the subject a letter to notify them that they are prohibited and under investigation, according to PSP officials. Other jurisdictions may send a letter only when prosecutors decide not to press charges, explaining to the recipient why they were denied, that they are not eligible to purchase a firearm, and that they could have been prosecuted for that reason. If the case is considered for prosecution, the investigator may meet with the District Attorney’s office and review the case for prosecutorial merit, according to PSP officials. If prosecution is sought, the investigator will type up the charges, process the subject, and arraign. If prosecution is approved, the investigator will notify the Firearms Unit and attend all court proceedings. The investigating unit is to inform PSP’s Firearms Unit of the outcome of the prosecution. According to prosecutors and PSP officials, denials are primarily referred for prosecution on the basis of the violations under: 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 - Unsworn falsification to authorities 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6111(g)(4) - Sale or transfer of firearms. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6105 - Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms. According to PSP officials, in Pennsylvania, the District Attorney is the chief law enforcement officer for each county, and in most instances, cases are accepted for prosecution based on their discretion. As such, discretionary decisions vary by county, and there are no internal criteria. District Attorneys may also refer cases for prosecution to the State Attorney General due to lack of resources or a conflict of interest. Trials for firearms denials are extremely rare in Pennsylvania, according to prosecutors that we spoke with. Only a small percentage of referred denials are ultimately prosecuted, mostly due to the difficulty proving the suspect “knowingly and willingly” provided false information on the background check application, according to PSP officials. According to PSP officials, the conviction rate for firearms denial cases is about 10 percent of all denials referred for investigation. Based on our discussions with Pennsylvania prosecutors and PSP Firearms Division staff, most cases that are prosecuted result in misdemeanor pleas, rather than felony convictions, and common penalties are probation and fines. One county prosecutor told us that most convictions reduced to a misdemeanor are for “statement under penalty,” a third degree misdemeanor. Other cases might be pled down to misdemeanor disorderly conduct, which carries a $300 fine, according to PSP officials. According to county prosecutors that we spoke with, there is an occasional prison sentence for denied felons which can result in about 12 months in prison, and have resulted in sentences of almost 2 years in prison. One prosecutor told us the most frequent firearms prohibitor among convictions is a crime punishable by greater than 1 year in prison, such as a second or subsequent DUI conviction within 10 years, as many of those are graded as misdemeanors of the first degree, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Typically, when asked, these individuals are unaware of the maximum penalty. Another state prosecutor we spoke with stated that the most prosecuted prohibiting categories also involved felony DUIs, as well as matters related to mental health and domestic violence. He added that, typically, more recent crimes are treated with more severity. One county prosecutor told us they prioritize prosecution of persons with a history of violent behavior. According to state police officials, upon conclusion of a prosecuted case, the investigator will document the disposition of the court. The entire investigative process is documented in a PSP incident report, which includes all interviews, queries made, investigative steps taken, and consultation with the District Attorney. The result of the investigation is then forwarded to the PSP investigation staff. Finally, an email summarizing the entire investigative process is sent to the Troop Crime Commander, Troop Administrative Manager, and the PSP Firearms Unit. Table 4 shows the disposition of firearms denial cases in Pennsylvania. While no annual statistics are recorded at the unit level, according to PSP officials, the state of Pennsylvania does track prosecutions resulting from firearms denials. In 2016, there were convictions in about half of the approximately 730 arrests made and about 6,500 denials referred for investigation. This represents a 39 percent increase in referrals over 2015, but a 67 percent decline in convictions and 68 percent decline in arrests. In 2017, the number of cases referred for investigation declined by 16 percent to about 5,500. Numbers for 2016 and 2017, including arrests, convictions, and prosecutions returned to numbers more representative of a typical year, according to PSP officials. Neither PSP nor the municipal departments track enforcement actions associated with investigations, or the specific sentencing results of investigations referred for prosecution beyond whether the investigation resulted in a conviction or declination. This appendix includes information on the investigation and prosecution of individuals denied firearms purchases in the state of Virginia. The Virginia Firearms Transaction Center (FTC), established in 1989, performs background checks at the point of sale by accessing state and federal databases. The FTC is the federally designated point of contact for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and is responsible for any investigations of firearms denials. The Virginia State Police (VSP) is responsible for conducting background checks using VCheck, Virginia’s Internet-based instant background check program, and for enforcing state and federal laws related to firearms purchases in Virginia. Under Virginia law, generally, a licensed dealer is required to obtain written consent and other identifying information— including but not limited to the name, date of birth, gender, race, citizenship, and Social Security number of a potential unlicensed purchaser—and provide the Department of State Police with this information and request criminal history record information by a telephone call to or other communication authorized by the State Police prior to selling, renting, trading, or transferring any firearm from the dealer’s inventory. The FTC provides personnel to conduct transactions onsite at anticipated high volume gun shows. Pursuant to Virginia law, the Department of State Police are to be available at every firearms show held in Virginia to make determinations, in accordance with the procedures set out for background checks required for the transfer of certain firearms, of whether a prospective purchaser or transferee is prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm. One prosecutor we spoke with estimated that 25 percent of his illegal possession cases are from private sales at gun shows. At a gun show, when an individual attempts to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, the individual has to complete the state background check form (SP-65B) and the federal form (ATF 4473) and the FTC will conduct a full NICS check. Should the transaction be denied, the trooper may arrest the applicant depending on the reason for the denial. A Virginia prosecutor explained that in his jurisdiction when two private parties, neither of whom is a FFL, initiate a sale outside of the state transaction system, troopers may approach the purchaser and ask questions related to his or her eligibility to purchase a firearm. If the purchaser appears to be prohibited based on their testimony they may be subject to arrest as well. Process for Conducting a Background Check For transactions conducted through an FFL, the gun dealer submits a background check request to VSP via a toll free number or through an online application. Upon receipt of the request, VSP reviews the applicant’s criminal record information to determine if the applicant is prohibited from possessing or transporting a firearm by state or federal law. This check includes a review of an applicant’s entire criminal history, with no exclusion based on when the prohibiting offense occurred, according to FTC officials. For example, a recent prohibiting felony conviction is treated the same as the same conviction from decades ago. The applicant’s information is submitted to the FTC, where it is checked against databases at the federal and state level. Information is screened through NICS, National Crime Information Center, and the Virginia Criminal Information Network. The FTC provides an instant response to approve the transaction or place it in delayed, research status. Databases maintained by VSP and accessible by the Virginia Criminal Information Network include: Virginia’s wanted and missing persons files and protective orders; Virginia’s criminal history record files; and Virginia’s database of adjudications of legal incompetence and incapacity, and involuntary commitments to mental institutions. If the instant VCheck search indicates that the purchaser is approved, a unique computer-generated approval number that is required to transfer the firearm is provided to the dealer to complete the transaction. If a possible identification is made in the state or federal databases, the instant check produces a “delayed” status and a review is conducted to determine identification and eligibility of the purchaser. If a background check enters delayed status, the dealer will be requested to provide additional information about the purchaser. The dealer is to be notified immediately upon a final determination of eligibility. Pursuant to federal law, if the dealer has not been notified of a final determination by the end of the third business day, the dealer may complete the sale and transfer of the firearm. If a firearm is transferred prior to a final determination of eligibility, the dealer is requested to notify VSP immediately. When a delayed transaction is ultimately approved or denied, the FTC updates the dealer on the status of the transaction by telephone or online depending on how it was entered. When research efforts have been exhausted, if no clear reason to deny is identified, the transaction is approved. More than 99 percent of delayed applications are resolved before 30 days, according to FTC officials. All transactions that are not immediately approved and enter delayed status are assigned a priority level, based on the possible prohibiting category. Virginia investigates a subset of all denials based on risk, but prioritizes denials with active warrants, active protection orders, mental health issues, and certain felony convictions. According to VSP officials, a “priority 1” transaction is a possible hit for mental health reasons, a protective order, or a possible wanted subject. A “priority 2” transaction is any possible hit in NICS, such as convicted felons and out-of-state mental health cases. A “priority 3” transaction is any hit in the Interstate Identification Index, or Virginia’s Computerized Criminal History. According to VSP officials, convicted felons are normally a priority 3 unless they appear in the NICS database. A “priority 4” transaction is a hit from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, namely an alien or immigrant attempting to purchase a firearm, or a possible request for information, such as a Be On The Lookout or Alert notice, from a police agency or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). According to VSP officials, while a transaction may be given an initial priority level, VSP moves some priority 3 and 4 hits to the front of the list, such as those involving recent felony indictments or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Denial decisions undergo supervisory review to verify that the denial is correct and accurate, including a review of the police report to document findings, and to ensure that the prohibited person’s rights have not been restored, according to VSP officials. According to a VSP official, in practice, there are rarely any transactions in Virginia in which a firearm is transferred before the purchaser is determined to be ineligible, known as a delayed denial. According to an FTC official, there were no delayed denials in the previous 2 years. After 3 business days of conducting a background check, at which time firearms dealers may transfer a firearm, firearms dealers typically contact the FTC to notify them of the possible transfer, and ask whether to hold the gun for a few more days, according to VSP officials. If the FTC believes the purchaser will ultimately be denied, they will suggest the firearm be held, but it is up to the dealer to decide whether to do so. The FTC will also ask to speak with the purchaser to explain that if they accept the firearm and are later denied, VSP would have to send an officer to retrieve the firearm and charges may be filed against the purchaser for illegal possession of the firearm. VSP will then advise that if unsure of his or her prohibited status, the applicant should wait until the background check is complete. According to a VSP official, there are advantages to being a point-of- contact state, such as the ability to provide better service to citizens and to build relationships with FFLs that would not be possible as a NICS state. For example, VSP conducts training sessions and regular outreach to firearms dealers. VSP officials estimate that in 80 percent of cases involving firearms purchases on behalf of a prohibited person, sometimes referred to as “straw purchases,” leads come from dealers notifying VSP of something suspicious. According to VSP officials, straw purchases are treated very seriously, and can result in prison sentences of 5 to 10 years. Figure 9 shows the process for purchasing a firearm from a dealer in Virginia. Individuals denied the right to purchase a firearm may exercise a right of access, review, and correction of criminal history record information or institute a civil action within 30 days of the denial. Typically, after a denial, individuals are provided a Virginia Firearms Transaction Program brochure or referred to the VSP website for appeal procedures if they believe that they are not prohibited by state or federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. These individuals may contact the FTC via phone or e-mail to discuss the determination and provide additional information, provide fingerprinting to facilitate future transactions, request a correction of record, or institute a civil action. Denied persons may also challenge the accuracy of the record in writing to the FBI. Generally, individuals prohibited from either purchasing or possessing a firearm under Virginia law include, but are not limited to: any person who has been convicted of a felony, or adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of certain offenses (including murder, kidnapping, robbery by threat or presentation of firearms, or rape), or under the age of 29 who was adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of a delinquent act which would be a felony if committed by an adult; any person who has been acquitted by reason of insanity and committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services on a charge of treason, any felony or certain offenses punishable as a misdemeanor or certain ordinances of any county, city, or town similar to other outlined offenses; any person who is subject to certain protective orders; or any person who, within a 36 consecutive month period, has been convicted under Virginia law of two misdemeanor offenses for possession of controlled substance or marijuana without a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice within 5 years from the date of the second conviction. The top prohibiting categories for individuals denied firearms purchases are felony convictions, which comprise 21 percent of all denials from 2011 through 2017, followed by drug-related prohibitions (19 percent), and mental health-related prohibitions (13 percent). One prosecutor we spoke with said that denials tend to not involve violent career criminals, and typically involve non-violent felonies, such as grand larceny, or involve drugs, and most occurred 20 years ago or more. From 2011 to 2017, the total number of denials increased from about 2,000 to about 3,600, an increase of almost 80 percent, while the total number of transactions increased from about 320,000 to about 500,000, an increase of more than 50 percent. Table 5 shows Virginia firearms denials by prohibiting category. Virginia has investigated firearms denials since its instant check system was introduced in 1989. Virginia does not refer all firearms denials for investigation, instead using risk-based criteria to refer a sub-set of prohibited categories for investigation. The following conditions trigger an automatic investigation for a firearms denial: felony conviction, including juvenile felony conviction, or felony indictment; misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; involuntary mental health treatment; nonimmigrant or illegal alien; and dishonorable discharge from the military. All Virginia denial investigations are handled by VSP with the exception of some fugitive and warrant-related, protective order, and mental health cases, as well as purchases at gun shows, which may involve municipal or local police, according to VSP officials. When FTC’s background check unit refers a case for investigation involving mental health or protective orders (both which are priority 1), the package is sent to both the VSP division and the local police department. According to VSP officials, to initiate a denial investigation, FTC sends requests for investigation to the VSP division headquarters, where it is referred to the appropriate section where the gun transaction took place, then to a state trooper to conduct the investigation. A file with a copy of both the federal background form, ATF Form 4473, and the state background check form, SP-65, is sent to the investigating trooper. The trooper then collects necessary information, such as information about the denial from VCheck, the criminal history of the purchaser, and court records. As necessary, the investigator verifies the information in the FTC file at the FFL, and interviews the subject. Part of the investigation involves trying to prove the purchaser “willingly and knowingly” answered falsely on the state and federal forms. Some VSP sections, typically those in more densely populated areas, have troopers dedicated exclusively to firearms denial investigations due to the higher volume of denials in those areas. According to VSP officials, every area may assign troopers to work exclusively on firearms denial investigations. However, most areas either cannot afford to remove a trooper from road coverage availability, or don’t investigate enough firearms denial cases to make it an effective use of resources. These sections assign denial investigations to troopers on a case by case basis. Prosecutors are often consulted as to whether a case will be prosecuted, where the prosecutor comments on the strength of the case based on the evidence available, according to investigators and prosecutors we spoke with. Investigators told us that prosecutors are generally more agreeable to taking on firearms denial cases involving recent felony convictions. They also said that if the case is accepted for prosecution, the trooper will obtain warrants to make an arrest. If the Commonwealth Attorney finds that the case does not have prosecutorial merit, the case is closed and the name of the Commonwealth Attorney consulted is put in the case management system report, according to a VSP official. Table 6 shows Virginia denial investigations from fiscal years 2011 through 2017. According to VSP officials, the time spent on denial investigations depends on the type of denial, location, and the information needed to bring charges or close the case. However, on average a case may involve about 4 hours of investigation. Officials in another division stated that in-state convictions can range from 4 to 6 hours of investigative work, while out-of-state convictions can take significantly more time, from 4 to 15 hours. Obtaining records from out of state can be difficult, and can take weeks or months. For example, one state requires a fee per conviction copy, which requires a check to be mailed, processed, and then for the files to be mailed back to the investigator. VSP officials told us that cases involving straw purchases can take 50 hours or more, however, these cases can result in longer prison sentences of 5 to 10 years. They added that additional time may be spent on search warrants, examining video from firearms stores, reviewing phone records, and conducting interviews. Further, denial investigations involving dishonorable discharges and mental health denials from out of state typically take the longest to investigate, in part because some states won’t release these records for the purpose of prosecution. Locating old felony documentation is also a challenge for investigators, according to VSP officials. According to investigators and prosecutors, the most common state statutes used for attempted firearm purchases include: Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(K) Willfully and intentionally making a materially false statement on the consent form; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.1:3 (Usually prosecuted as an attempt) Prohibition against purchase or possession of a firearm by someone involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient mental health treatment; and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.1:4 (Usually prosecuted as an attempt) Prohibition against purchase or transport of a firearm by someone subject to a protective order. Virginia’s chief prosecutors, the Commonwealth’s Attorneys, are elected at-large for a 4-year term. They are responsible for prosecuting all felonies and some misdemeanors, in addition to handling certain civil matters. According to a prosecutor we spoke with, Commonwealth’s Attorneys offices receive referrals for prosecution directly from state troopers. We interviewed Virginia investigators and prosecutors from four counties, including from localities where a high volume of firearms denial referrals occur. These prosecutors said they tend to work with Virginia troopers who specialize in denial investigations and report high prosecution rates for the cases they accept. One investigator with a high referral rate to prosecutors told us he benefits from operating in a high-volume, relatively compact jurisdiction, while in other parts of the state, investigators may have to cross several counties to gather the paperwork needed to establish a denial case, interview the purchaser, and make an arrest. According to a county prosecutor, a key component of successful prosecutions is a willing Commonwealth Attorney because charging decisions are at their discretion. An investigator and prosecutor that work together stated that in some jurisdictions, attorneys may not welcome firearms denial cases, while in other jurisdictions specialized investigators working with an attorney willing to prosecute these cases for public safety and deterrence value can yield a high prosecution rate. Two county prosecutors we spoke with said approximately 90 percent of firearms denial convictions are pled down to misdemeanors, and the penalties imposed tend to include probation or community service, but there is an occasional prison sentence. According to investigators and prosecutors we spoke with, some prosecutors prefer to avoid the use of fines while others may use them occasionally. Of the few cases that go to trial, according to prosecutors, most go before a judge rather than a jury, and typically involve a felon in possession of a firearm, resulting in a felony conviction and likely probation. Judges have discretion to reduce sentences, while juries are constrained to issuing more severe sentences if they find the defendant guilty, and typically hand down more prison time, according to prosecutors we spoke with. The severity of penalties handed down for firearms denials depends on the prohibited category, according to one county prosecutor. Another prosecutor said protective order violations tend to be easier to prosecute because the records are available and indicate a clear violation. Other cases where accurate records are difficult to obtain, such as juvenile denials, mental health denials, and out of state cases, prosecutions are difficult to prosecute, according to investigators and prosecutors. One prosecutor told us that a subject’s criminal history also makes a big difference as to whether they might receive a harsher or more lenient sentence. Several prosecutors we spoke with said that while prison sentences are rare, for a felon with a history of violence, sentences of 7 months to more than 24 months in prison have been imposed. One prosecutor told us they typically agree to no prison time on a felony conviction unless there are indicators of violence on the record, such as destruction of property or assault and battery. If a person has no record, the prosecutor would be far more willing to forego a felony and sometimes even a misdemeanor, and propose community service instead. One prosecutor questioned whether it makes sense to make a person a felon over a firearms denial; however, if a person has a consistent misdemeanor history of getting into trouble then they would be less convinced that this particular offense is out of character and may not make any non-felony offers. Prosecutors also may reduce the charges to disorderly conduct or providing false information to police during a plea in these cases to try to get a conviction, according to one prosecutor. Data on prosecutions, dismissals, and convictions resulting from investigations, are not collected at the state level, and are only accessible at the VSP divisions that conduct investigations and the courts where they are prosecuted, according to Virginia officials. Table 7 shows examples of firearms denial cases that our six selected ATF field divisions referred to U.S. Attorney’s Offices for prosecution during fiscal years 2014 through 2017, including the types of circumstances that could lead to referral for prosecution, the range of charges filed, and the severity of sentences that resulted. All the cases involved 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), falsifying a background check form. While all were not ultimately charged under that statute, they were selected for investigation by ATF for that reason. Occasionally, federal and state law may prohibit similar types of criminal conduct, allowing both federal and state prosecutors to pursue the case. U.S. Attorney’s Offices may also refer a case to a state prosecutor that is not deemed appropriate for federal prosecution. In addition to the contact named above Eric Erdman (Assistant Director) and Anthony DeFrank (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this assignment. Daniel Kuhn, James Lawson, Billy Commons, Susan Hsu, Michele C. Fejfar, and Eric D. Hauswirth made significant contributions to the work.
In 2017, approximately 25.6 million firearm-related background checks were processed through NICS, and about 181,000 of the attempted purchases at the federal and state levels combined were denied because the individual was prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law. Individuals who certify that they are not prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm and are subsequently determined to be prohibited could be subject to investigation, and if prosecuted, a fine, imprisonment, or both. GAO was asked to examine firearms denials. This report (1) describes the extent to which federal and selected state law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms denial cases; (2) examines related challenges faced by these agencies; and (3) describes the circumstances that lead to investigations and prosecutions. GAO reviewed laws and regulations; analyzed federal and state data from 2011 through 2017; and interviewed officials from ATF headquarters, 6 of 25 ATF field divisions (the 6 that investigated the most cases), and the 13 states that process all NICS checks within their state. Results from state interviews are not generalizable but provide insights on state practices. Investigations and prosecutions. Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney's Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018. At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions. Challenges. ATF and selected states reported challenges in investigating and prosecuting firearms denials. Officials from six selected ATF field divisions said that investigating the increasing number of denial cases referred to field divisions—which increased from about 5,200 in fiscal year 2011 to about 12,700 in fiscal year 2017—has been time intensive and required use of their limited resources. ATF policy provides that field divisions may send “warning notices” to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but ATF has not assessed field divisions' use of these notices, which could provide greater awareness of their deterrence value and inform whether any policy changes are needed. Officials from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys said that prosecuting denial cases can require significant effort and may offer little value to public safety compared to other cases involving gun violence. Selected state officials said that denial investigations can take law enforcement officials away from their core duties. State prosecutors said gathering evidence to prove individuals knew they were prohibited was a challenge. Types of cases. ATF field divisions investigate denial cases based on USAO criteria and generally only refer cases to USAOs for prosecution when aggravating circumstances exist, such as violent felonies or multiple serious offenses over a short period of time. Officials from two of three selected states refer all denial cases for investigation, while one state uses risk-based criteria for selecting cases that include conditions such as felony convictions and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Prosecutors from these three states said they generally pursue cases that involve indications of violence, though individual prosecutors had differing priorities based on public safety concerns. GAO recommends that ATF assess the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notifications as an enforcement tool, which would inform whether changes to policy are needed. DOJ concurred with GAO's recommendation.