If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
The Department of Safety leveraged a $10 million contract with Microsoft - awarded to 7 out of state companies, none NH based - to manage and store its Gun Line data.
That's the big question, and it's not clear what the answer really is.I have no dog or informed opinion in this argument. Big and simple question-
What is the cost/benefit to the state and to gun owners for maintaining a duplicate system?
. . .
What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
I'll be posting the award from NH DOIT to NH DAS, the awards to the 7 different companies, and the "MOU" signed by the NH DOS and Microsoft last November. But not here. I do not provide info to people who do not use their real names. Mine, by the way, is Susan Olsen.Not doubting that, but do you have a source you can link here to read.
****
RE SB141. I'm for killing the gun line. All it has done for me is wasted time and gas whiledelayingdenying me exercising my 2A rights. I've bought firearms in NH, MA, NC, LA, TX, IN, and AK. The only state that caused any problems was NH and its broke ass built in waiting period gun line.
The Feds require the check. They already run that check for many states. Let them run it so NH can shift the staff and budget to something more useful.
I'll be posting the award from NH DOIT to NH DAS, the awards to the 7 different companies, and the "MOU" signed by the NH DOS and Microsoft last November. But not here. I do not provide info to people who do not use their real names. Mine, by the way, is Susan Olsen.
It is working very well last I checked, 5 to 10 minutes on the top end. 95% of the problem seems to be staffing, which they waited a long time to address in the last bout of problems but seem to be able to quickly solve once motivated.
<snip>
They ought to just legislate fixing it instead of wasting time and accomplishing nothing.
What is the cost/benefit to the state and to gun owners for maintaining a duplicate system?
What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
Does NH have control over this process?These are two separate issues.
The bill addresses whether or not NH will retain control over the gun check line for handguns OR if it delegates it to the whim of the feds.
For all its warts over the years.....I'd rather that NH retain control over this process.....the alternative of deferring to the Fed where we have ZERO say is unpalatable......y'all realize that its only a matter of time before the current administration gets around to playing shenanigans with the contractors currently running the fed gun line for the FBI.......
It may be working well now and has worked in the past, but the fact it failed for months on end last year is too much to ignore. This wasn't the typical fed glitches where NICS may be down for a couple of hours. This was months of unmitigated failure by the state of New Hampshire and its employees. The band aid fix right now is to pull resources from other agencies to slowly keep this running.
Why bother propping up a system that NH allowed to fail? The feds already have this system in place and it is faster than 5-10 minutes. Can the state use the resources we want to throw at this redundant system elsewhere?
and no disputing the multiple circular arguments by all sides on this
Every D voted to kill it.
Something in that fact.
What is the benefit for them to kill it? I do not know either way but curious about that part.
Every D voted to kill it.
Something in that fact.
What is the benefit for them to kill it? I do not know either way but curious about that part.
So #3 is the NICS "E-Check" process, where an FFL submits the provided information online and gets an online response with a reference #, often within a couple of minutes.. . .
3. Use an application/electronic, this is an alternate method FFL's can use.
1 and 3 apparently rely on FBI to take some action in background
2 doesnt require/involve FBI......only state police accessing the records......this is one of the reasons to retain state processing on handguns
research report submitted to DOJ said:It should be noted that, in essence, a complete NICS check occurs in two steps. First, an automated check of the NICS system (i.e., the above three identified databases) is carried out for every prospective firearm purchaser. Second, if necessary, a follow-up step is carried out by NICS’s FBI staff to obtain, for example, a missing disposition. As explained below, while every state uses the NICS system, some states employ their own staff to carry out the follow-up research.
So maybe there is a little value in a properly-functioning state gun line?Of the 592 transactions NICS denied (i.e., row 3), Georgia immediately proceeded 28 (4.7%) and proceeded 225 (38.0%) after research. There are at least two known situations in which this difference in outcomes would arise: (i) when the purchaser became disqualified in the interim between the POC and NICS checks and (ii) where the purchaser had been arrested for a domestic violence misdemeanor and convicted for a lesser offense (e.g., a spousal assault charge was reduced to disturbing the peace). To be thorough, it is also possible that Georgia could have researched a III record with a firearm disqualification flag, found no prohibitors, but did not update the record or remove the flag. It is NICS’s policy to deny automatically on such flags with no research. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive of such a large fraction of the NICS denials falling into these categories.
. . .
In row 3 of Exhibit 3-9, it is seen that of the 189 transactions NICS denied, Oregon proceeded 73 (38.6%). Again, NICS denies and Oregon proceeds in cases of an arrest for a domestic violence misdemeanor that results in a conviction for a lesser offense. It is also possible that the purchaser had been convicted of a disqualifying offense some time between the POC and NICS checks[
. . .
Second, the ND/SP outcome states that Georgia and Oregon proceed 29.4% and 22.5%, respectively, of the transactions that NICS denies. As noted earlier, the difference in outcomes could arise when the purchaser became disqualified in the interim between the POC and NICS checks or when the purchaser had been arrested for a domestic violence misdemeanor but convicted of a lesser offense (e.g., a spousal assault charge was reduced to disturbing the peace). Third, one should return to the critical question: What value do the POC, or state-only, data files add to the overall efficacy of firearm eligibility checks? Clearly, such files would only add value if they enhance the likelihood of making accurate and timely determinations regarding the eligibility of prospective firearms purchasers. However, in the simulated setting of the study, where NICS was unable to research and resolve the “unresolved” transactions (i.e., as NICS would if they had been actual non-POC state eligibility checks), such a comparison is not possible/quote]
Untrue from personal experience.NH seems to have worked ok until it was overwhelmed by covid demand.
What value do gun owners get out of maintaining a state level system that parallels NICs?
If info I've read and that below is correct, you are wrong. It is currently a dual system. First POC clears you and then forwards your info to NICS for final clearance. In non-POC states, it all goes thru NICS directly and you are GTG. So NH you have 2 stop-points instead of one! Not a benefit.These are two separate issues.
The bill addresses whether or not NH will retain control over the gun check line for handguns OR if it delegates it to the whim of the feds.
For all its warts over the years.....I'd rather that NH retain control over this process.....the alternative of deferring to the Fed where we have ZERO say is unpalatable......y'all realize that its only a matter of time before the current administration gets around to playing shenanigans with the contractors currently running the fed gun line for the FBI.......
The bold part here is the important part in Kevin_NH's post quoted above.Ultimately if the FBI said to deny, the transaction is denied:
View attachment 481990
Reading the 2015 audit (link and snippet above), maybe there is a slight difference in appeals?
Does NH have control over this process?
The Feds allow NH to act as a Partial POC on the condition that the gun line runs every request through NICS and abides by the answer NICS returned; so does NH have control?
From the same document as above, per the brady law:
View attachment 481995
Looks like our partial POC adds an additional layer of bureaucracy which has the power to deny/delay a purchase the federal check would have allowed, but lacks the power to override the feds response (or non-response) and allow a purchase?
See my followup above "...of the 189 transactions NICS denied, Oregon proceeded 73 (38.6%). Again, NICS denies and Oregon proceeds in cases of an arrest for a domestic violence misdemeanor that results in a conviction for a lesser offense. It is also possible that the purchaser had been convicted of a disqualifying offense some time between the POC and NICS checks..." from a 2008 studyUntrue from personal experience.
The 3 handguns I have bought since I've been in NH all took ~1 hour to clear POC/NICS. Sig told me to go somewhere for dinner and then come back and it should be clear. This was Dec. 2019, well before we ever heard the word COVID!
In 40+ years in MA, I have gone thru ~100 NICS checks and it never took more than 5 minutes.
If info I've read and that below is correct, you are wrong. It is currently a dual system. First POC clears you and then forwards your info to NICS for final clearance. In non-POC states, it all goes thru NICS directly and you are GTG. So NH you have 2 stop-points instead of one! Not a benefit.
The bold part here is the important part in Kevin_NH's post quoted above.
So #3 is the NICS "E-Check" process, where an FFL submits the provided information online and gets an online response with a reference #, often within a couple of minutes.
I found one public document from 2008 with extensive details on NICS and POC, it suggests that the initial process of submitting a "gun line" federal check is substantially identical to the E-Check process used by FFLs (e.g. for long guns in NH):
From the above document, the POC state process appears to differ from E-Check in how delays are researched and how appeals are handled. See page 25 of the PDF (document page 12).
The document used Georgia and Oregon for a deeper dive, and found cases where the state POC overrode a NICS denial:
So maybe there is a little value in a properly-functioning state gun line?
Good luck challenging the "commerce clause" at this late date.What gives the fed any right to be involved in New Hampshire gun sales?
2 doesnt require/involve FBI......only state police accessing the records......this is one of the reasons to retain state processing on handguns
Some think just sending to the feds is without issue. That is not completely true. There are some unintended consequences. We have no control over that bureaucracy and they could create a delay just like the state gun line did. There are issues if you are denied in getting the proper information to resolve the issue. You need to provide a SS# and fingerprints on any appeal.
There are names that are on the state list that are not in NICS. NH might be forced to send more more names to NICS that we currently do not... (the list goes on)
The system does not make the decision if you are a proceed/delay/deny, that is a human operator somewhere. (Do we want those beholden to Biden for their jobs to be the ones making this decision or do we want to have this done with local resources?)
The problem has always been that when a dealer calls the gunline one of two things happens. Either they are told “we will call you back,” then at some later time, the dealer is asked for the customer’s information (name, date of birth, etc.) Or NHSP takes the buyer’s information on the initial call and just says “we will call you back.” Lately the call backs seem to be taking days or weeks and sometimes months. That is the problem. The FBI has always processed the checks while the dealer is on the phone. No call backs...Thanks both of you for summing up. Readers may not realize that was literally the big question discussed among the groups and misc NH pro-2A people, and of course was part of the discussion by JR personally. It's not about "deny" results - it's about delay results or non-responses. I think a lot of people assumed the NHGL calls and does the federal check like an FFL. The reality of the check's technical flow wasn't clear to even most people with strong opinions. Now it's clear that the person or staff that can be told to slow down can be NH or federal. That staff could be intentionally understaffed, and combined with looming federal legislation to eliminate the 3-day non-response legal permission to "proceed," means a hostile administration could literally stop all legal purchases by simply understaffing, calling "pandemic" or whatever.
I don't like it, but keeping it where it is for now, ensuring it is improved, and keeping an eye on things is probably for the best until bigger fish are fried.