Lie-and-Try Laws

Have you seen the statistics on the high number of failed background checks compared to the low number of prosecutions for those failed checks? Remember when an NRA representative spoke with Biden about this topic?


Well, it flew under my radar that some states are now doing something about it. To be 100% clear, the laws are over lying on the background checks- so-called “lie-and-try”. Tennessee is the latest to join seven other states that now require law enforcement to be notified of failed checks. It seems that no state requires police to follow up, but there are many more investigations happening due to the law.


According to The Trace, data from Pennsylvania State Police shows a very big raise in investigations.



Personally, bravo. It’s about time people get more serious about criminals instead of law abiding citizens. Now, I could endlessly pick a bone with someone for hours over who should be labeled “criminal”, such as people who have served their time for minor offenses, but I will save that for a different day. However, I think this is a step in the right direction if people are serious about decreasing crimes committed with guns by repeat offenders. I do not like that if someone with someone with a minor offense is being blocked from purchasing a firearm. Perhaps they are less likely to be prosecuted fully, if at all? But if someone is a convicted murderer, then yeah sure, hit them hard.


I don’t enjoy any infringements on my rights, but this type of law is less toe-crushing than many of the things typical “anti-gunners” want.


Have a nice day, everybody.



  1. This is a positive development, IMO.

  2. I was arrested for a traffic warrant while getting my pistol out of pawn……anyone think that is appropriate?

    • What traffic warrant is a felony? That’s the only thing that precludes you from having a gun.

    • John Stephens : May 10, 2016 at 9:11 am

      No sympathy. If you have a warrant out, you should expect it to pop up anytime you deal with any sort of authority, at any time. That’s the whole point of a warrant. If you don’t like this, then take care of business BEFORE it takes care of you.

  3. This may be an unpopular opinion and feel free to have a debate with me. But I believe there should be NO background checks. Only show proof of USA citizenship. Back in the late 1700s I believe all our founding fathers would have been called felons and I for one am dang happy they didn’t give up their guns. I do not care what crimes someone has committed in the past. If a person has done a crime they are sent to prison where they do the time/punishment for their actions. Once released from prison/jail they are supposed to be rehabilitated. If they are deemed well enough to walk among the general public, then they should have all their rights as a US citizen. If they committed a crime with a gun in the past and charged with a felony crime, once they are out if they wish to do another crime with a gun they will find a way to get one. This goes into that whole a lot crimes are done with illegally obtained guns. The only thing these laws do is take away someones right to have a gun to hunt with or to protect themselves and their loved ones. The “felons” not being able to have a gun means we do not believe that a person can change. It means we believe that their past mistakes or bad choices means that their life is not as important and neither is anyone who lives in their household. The law only hurts those who do not wish to break laws again. Now please do not give me some line like “So if a person goes and shoots up 10 people he should be allowed to have a gun again?” Because 1) That person is most likely going to be serving a life sentence. and 2) if that person does get out of prison and wants to do it again he will find a way. These kind of laws is just a way the politicians have created boxes to put people in to help disarm the general public using a fear tactic. I hate that 6 letter word (safety) they use to push laws through that take away American rights. Anyways that’s my thoughts on background checks feel free to say you disagree and why.

    Side note: I am not a felon, I own multiple firearms, grew up in a military family, and served as an infantryman in the US army. Putting that out there so one does not think I am angry that my right to have a gun was taken. and know that I have been around guns my entire life. I just do not wish to see fellow Americans put into a box/category and have their American rights taken away.

    • Braden Lynch : May 9, 2016 at 9:33 pm

      When I started learning more about my firearms rights I came to your viewpoint. If there is anyone who needs a firearm it is a felon returning to his violent gang infested neighborhood where he may be targeted.

      I would think that denying voting rights is still valid though.

      • Hey Braden, About the voting rights, that’s something I never put much thought into. It’s always struck me as a strange thing to take away, so any chance you can give me your thoughts on why denying people the right to vote is good? Is it as simple as someone who made such a bad decision in the past might vote for bad things in the future?

        • Braden Lynch : May 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

          The rationale I heard was that they would vote for politicians who would be soft on crime.

          The weak validity is that it is not some thing listed in the Bill of Rights.

  4. Good! Let’s enforce current laws and see how well that works out

  5. In Tennessee, some godawful percentage (like 80, but don’t quote me on that) of denials are because the police notified the TBI of an arrest/summons for something, but the judicial clerk never notified the TBI that the charges were dropped, reduced, or vacated. TBI denies them because they don’t know the disposition of the charges.

    Almost all our denials are false positives, and almost all denials are reversed when they’re appealed.

    That information is based on a conversation I had several years ago with the director of the handgun carry permit unit.

  6. […] we were completely honest with ourselves, the reason prosecutions are so low for people who fail background checks is that most of them are ha…, and probably had no idea they were prohibited. A lot more people are prohibited for mundane […]

  7. The Trace is full of baloney. Yes, investigations increased more than fourfold (from about 750 to more than 4,000). However, the arrests look like they doubled (from about 400 to 900), and the convictions also looked like they also doubled (from about 200 to 400). All that increased time, effort, and money spent investigating failed background checks for a mere 200 additional convictions? Great going geniuses. What they did show is that the VAST MAJORITY of failed background checks are mistakes not worthy of prosecution.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

%d bloggers like this: