Firearm Background Checks in
Colorado
In Fulfillment of Winter 2013 Graduation
University of Denver
Ariel Bravo
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................3
Overview ..........................................................................................................................................4
Firearm Ownership ......................................................................................................................7
Federal Regulations .....................................................................................................................9
National Criminal Background Check System ...........................................................................12
Colorado House Bill 1048..........................................................................................................16
Case Study: Georgia and Oregon ..............................................................................................19
Methods..........................................................................................................................................22
Proposed Solution ..........................................................................................................................23
Weaknesses and Limitations ..........................................................................................................31
Cost-Benefit Analysis ....................................................................................................................32
Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................................34
Social Costs and Benefits ...........................................................................................................34
Rural verse Urban Cost..............................................................................................................36
Political Viability .......................................................................................................................37
Unintended Consequences .........................................................................................................38
Strategic Recommendation ............................................................................................................39
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................41
References ......................................................................................................................................49
2
Executive Summary
Policy seeking to regulate firearms is a persistent effort to balance rights outlined in the
Second Amendment over against the enforcement of laws and regulations intended to protect the
safety of the public. Since 1982, 62 mass shootings have occurred1. Each additional occurrence
of unlawful gun utilization has increased the public opinion to make modifications to current
laws, hoping to increase safety and mitigate future instances of gun violence.
However, state budgets need consideration when discussing implementing any new
policies, since it is the state that has to fund these programs. For the most efficient utilization of
public resources, the State of Colorado can eliminate the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
operations as a Point-of-Contact in the Federal system to save nearly $2 million annually,
without undermining public safety. The State conducts it’s own separate background check that
duplicates the Federal background check and wastes money that could be better utilized in other
state programs. There are a number of State programs that are inadequately funded currently, due
to the TABOR amendment, which limits the revenue the State can collect to finance it’s
expenses. Critical money saved from eliminating the State-run background checks would benefit
other programs.
Completely eliminating the Colorado Bureau of Investigation operations in performing
background checks for the State is not the best option for Colorado due to public opinion
surrounding firearms currently. The State should establish a database for mental health records
that would also need to be checked, in addition to the Federal criminal background check, to
ensure those disqualified from owning a firearm are unable to purchase them.
1
Arosen, Gavin, Follman, Mark, & Pan, Deanna. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America." Mother Jones,
December 15, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
3
Problem Statement:
Resources spent on the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's operations as a point
of contact for the National Instant Criminal Background check are duplicative
and hinder efficient utilization of State expenditures.
Overview
There are no perfect, absolute, or definitive answers to the current gun dilemma in the
United States. However, there are certainly means of utilizing public resources more efficiently
without reducing safety barriers already in place. Gun laws have always aimed to ensure that
firearms are used safely while also protecting citizen’s rights as delineated by the Second
Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment state, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.2” This Amendment has been widely debated as to the extent that firearm ownership is
protected, and where limitations may lie. It is a delicate balance between rights outlined by the
Constitution and the interest of the State, which is the safety of citizens. States have a compelling
interest to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in order to accomplish the goal of
providing safety to their citizenry, using such means as background checks. While a “silver
bullet” solution is often the aspiration of firearms policy i.e., finding a balance between rights
and reasonable restrictions for protection purposes, achieving such is unrealistic.
Analysis of a sensitive issue, like firearm regulations, goes far deeper than what the data
we have may represent; it is a topic saturated with the complex variables of human life, crime,
and cultural values. Monetary transactions are far from enough to tell a complete story of the
U.S. firearms industry. Colorado unfortunately knows well the tragic impact guns can have on
the lives of those who have never owned or used firearms, given the State’s experience with 2
U.S. Constitution, amend. 2.
4
mass shootings. Having the goal in mind of providing maximum safety for both citizens who
own and do not own guns, background checks are one of the most relied on methods used by
government to protect the public from dangerous and mentally unstable individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that placing reasonable restrictions on acquiring and
using firearms is constitutional, so long as no part of the Second Amendment is directly
prohibited3. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller protects the rights of citizens to bear
arms, for traditionally lawful purposes, but also states that reasonable restrictions are allowable
for safety considerations. Therefore, an opportunity presents itself in how to make more efficient
background checks that still enable the vast majority of gun owners to exercise their
constitutional right to gun ownership.
There is one clear answer to any question about guns; they are not going away. Lessons
can be learned from the time of alcohol prohibition, where an attempt to eradicate another strong
industry was made. Those enthusiasts in the industry found illegal avenues to continue their
habit, which was more dangerous than the initial product4. Prohibition was the result of the
country being perceived as overly indulgent with alcohol and participating in dissolute activities
that were associated with drunkenness and saloons5. The movement found momentum in
demonizing alcohol and what it represented, such as the absent, drunk father, in the same manner
that firearms are sometimes characterized by6. However, the Prohibition era allowed for crime
organizations to develop effective means of organization and marketing to provide their
customers with alcohol, and even helped to form alliances between multiple crime organizations,
3
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Gerstein, Dean R., and Mark H. Moore. Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition.
Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981. (accessed December 30, 2012).
5
Okrent, Daniel. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York, NY: Scribner, 2010. Pg 11-13.
6
Ibid. Pg. 15
4
5
effectively increasing illegal activity7. Prohibition meant big money for anyone willing to
participate in the illicit alcohol market. It is approximated that in 1924 bootleg sales generated
the sum of $3.6 million,8 all of which was untaxed revenue. Due to the vast amount of wealth
that one could acquire through the trafficking of alcohol, a rise in violence and crime also
accompanied this time, with gangsters hiring “trigger men” to eradicate competition9.
Furthermore, Prohibition allowed for all the potential tax revenue the Federal government could
have collected to go overseas and benefit the people of another nation10.
Prohibition lasted for thirteen years, ten months, and nineteen days, using a vast amount
of public resources11. Proponents of Prohibition boasted that the government spent $141 million
in enforcement, but collected $460 million in fines and penalties12. What these numbers fail to
convey, however, are the social marginal costs13 that society had to incur during prohibition,
beyond any numeric descriptors could illustrate, being those of increased violence and a reduce
revenue collection for the federal government. After Prohibition was repealed by the twenty-first
amendment, the federal government collected $258,911,332 in alcohol taxes alone14. Prohibition,
while well intended, lead to an immense increase in criminal and illicit activities, none of which
benefited the nation. Many gun regulations follow the same path; where they are well intended,
however fail to accomplish any substantial changes to public safety and, potentially, create more
harm than good.
7
Ibid. Pg 272
Ibid, Pg. 274
9
Ibid. Pg. 276
10
Ibid. Pg. 268
11
Ibid. Pg. 384
12
Ibid. Pg. 331
13
The Social Marginal Cost is the entire cost that society has to incur as a result of policy option. This cost includes
monetary aspects, such as supply and demand, but also includes the costs to the external environment for society.
14
Ibid. Pg. 361
8
6
Beyond the unintended consequences of Prohibition, there was a Federal assault weapon
ban from 1994-2004, which accomplished little. The law was riddled with loopholes, including
an important one that any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law
went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell15. That was a huge exemption since
at the time there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million highcapacity magazines in private hands16. Firearm regulation requires special scrutiny, so as not to
repeat a mistake of the past.
Firearm Ownership
A Gallup poll found that four in ten Americans reported to having a gun in their home,
and nearly half of men reported that they personally owned a gun (47%). There is a difference
among party identification as to the rationale for owning a firearm. The same poll stated that
Democrats are more likely to own a gun for protection against crime, whereas Republicans are
more likely to own a gun for recreational purposes, like hunting. According to the FBI, firearm
purchases are increasing significantly. The Federal Bureau of Investigation said in 2011 their
office handled 16.5 million inquiries in regards to background checks for the purpose of firearm
purchases. This is an increase of approximately 15% from 201017.
In the same report, the FBI said that there has been a continual increase in firearm
purchases since 2006. In Colorado, specifically, gun purchases spiked in the months following a
public shooting. Within two weeks of the 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, gun
15
Plumer, Brad. "Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post." The Washington Post,
December 17, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-toknow-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/ (accessed December 30, 2012).
16
Ibid.
17
Kelleher, James. (2012, January 5). "FBI data shows spike in U.S. firearm purchases in 2011." Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-firearms-backgroundchecks-idUSTRE80407P20120105
7
related background checks surged with a 41% increase18. Whether or not the perceived
justification is correct, people feel that there is an indispensable desire to own firearms for
personal safety.
Gun ownership, compared to any other country in the world, is the highest in the United
States. The United States is home to only 5% of the global population, but owns roughly 3550% of all civilian guns in the world19. About 34.7% of Colorado residents own a gun, which
puts the state at a rank of 36th in the country for gun ownership20. The leading state for gun
ownership is a neighbor of Colorado, where Wyoming residents have a gun ownership rate of
62.8%.
The gun industry is a strong, robust business in the United States. This industry accounts
for a total of 209,750 jobs, creating $9,828,528,189 in wages21. What is more important, from the
perspective of government, is the tax revenue generated from this industry. The chart below
shows the tax revenue from the firearms industry in 2012 alone. The revenue the firearms
industry generates for the federal and state government come from business taxes, such as
property, income, and sales based levies, and excise taxes22.
Tax Impact23
Business Tax
Excise Tax
Federal Tax
State Tax
Total Tax
$2,503,904,614
$2,071,203,695
$4,575,108,309
$487,998,107
18
$487,998,107
Bender, Michael. (2012, July 24). "Gun Sales Spike After 12 Killed in Colorado Movie Theater." Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/gun-sales-increase-in-colorado-after-12-killed-in-movie-theater.html
19
Rogers, Simon. (2012, July 22). "Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country." The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
20
Bollier, S., & Haddad, M. (2012, July 26). Interactive: US, Yemen lead the world in guns. Aljazeera. Retrieved
from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/07/2012726141159587596.html
21
"Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report." National Shooting Sports Foundation.
www.nssf.org
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
8
The gun industry in Colorado accounts directly for 2,676 jobs, paying $85,025,020 in
wages and contributing $264,066,305 in output24. Such figures suggest this industry is clearly
significant to the State, and even more jobs, wages, and output are generated from secondary
market factors. Since guns are not going to disappear in the foreseeable future, some gun
regulations are needed. These regulations are left mostly up to each state. Nevertheless, all states
follow three basic processes when allocating weapons permits and allowing firearms to be
purchased. Each state is allowed to grant permits to citizens that desire to own and carry a
firearm, with the basic standards or regulations set at the Federal level; any further requirements
are set by each sovereign state.
Federal Regulations
For centuries political thinkers have agreed that one of the primary roles for a
government to exist is to protect and defend its’ constituency. Machiavelli wrote in The Prince
that the government existed to defend the citizen’s liberties and freedoms. Thomas Hobbes
continued this idea, in Leviathan, stating that the government’s role is to punish those who act unjustly. Hobbes laid out the idea that there is a social contract between the people and their
government, where an agreement is made determining laws of the land and consequences for
those who fail to follow the rules.
The sale and transfers of firearms is regulated by both the Federal government and each
State government. A State is given the right to regulate gun use via the Constitution that allows
for the States to pass laws to protect their citizens. However, individuals are given the right to
possess the weapons, also granted by the Second Amendment in the Constitution25. The Second
Amendment ensures that citizens are able to arm themselves if they feel it necessary, which the
24
25
Ibid
U.S. Constitution, amend. 2.
9
Supreme Court has upheld in two recent landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and
McDonald v. Chicago. These cases uphold citizen’s right to bear arms as they see necessary,
outside of military obligations, applying gun ownership as an uninfringeable right to be respected
by both the federal and state governments26. Specifically, the case of District of Columbia v.
Heller allows for individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish
to keep firearms for private use in their homes, to do so. The majority opinion, written by Justice
Scalia, stated, “In the Second Amendment’s clause, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed’, the phrase ‘the right of the people’ creates a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.27” He
continued, “[The Washington D.C. law] violates the Second Amendment as it makes it
impossible for citizens to use those firearms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.28” The
majority opinion found it to be unconstitutional to restrict firearms for lawful, non-military
related purposes for those who are found to be qualified to own a weapon. The court also
compared the fundamental right to bear arms to that of freedom of speech, where there are
instances where a citizen has the potentially to be more dangerous to society if the right is
uninhibited by any limitations. Therefore those who are deemed untrustworthy with firearms will
loose their right29, rather than if they were able to unrestrictedly exercise that right. For instance,
the court said that the mentally ill, or those with a history of crime, do not have the same right to
access firearms as other citizens given their higher potential to put society in danger.
The regulations that the Federal system provides are primarily related to ensuring that
those individuals that are disqualified cannot gain access to firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol,
26
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Scalia, A.) Pg. 5-7
28
Ibid. Pg. 58
29
U.S. Federal Bureau of Invesitgation. National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Washington: 2008.
27
10
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is the Federal body responsible for the supervision of
the Federal laws concerning firearms. This agency seeks to implement regulations for firearms
that all states must follow, and to centralize information in regards to firearms, such as the
criminal background checks.
There are four important federal regulations. The first is the National Firearms Act of
1934, which imposes a tax on the manufacturing and transfer of firearms and mandates
registration on those guns. This act was aiming to respond to the increase in gun violence that
emerged in the early 20th century, like the greater presences of machine guns, by imposing excise
taxes and mandates the registration of firearms30. Another regulation passed years later with the
Gun Control Act of 1968, where the Federal government sought to regulate the entire firearms
industry, including firearm dealers. The Act was in response to the vast gun violence that
occurred in the 1960s, for example the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This act
prohibited interstate firearms transfers except for transactions among licensed manufacturers,
dealers and importers, requiring those dealers to obtain a Federal Firearm License (FFL)31. In
addition, there is also the Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)32 that reforms part of the Gun
Control Act of 1968, where the act reopened interstate sales of certain long guns based on a
quota, and loosened registry requirements33. The Act states;
“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under
this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, recorded at or
transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State or any political subdivision thereof, that any system of registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”
30
National Firearm Act, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934).
Gun Control Act. Pub.L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968)
32
Firearm Owners Protection Act. Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (1986)
33
U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Federal Firearm Regulation
Reference Guide. Washington D.C., 2005.
31
11
The most recent Federal regulation is known as the Brady Law34, named after Jim Brady who
was President Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary. In 1981, there was an assassination attempt on the president, but the bullet missed the President and Jim Brady was struck35. It took nine years
for a law to be enacted in response to this event, which was fittingly titled the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This act amended introduced a mandatory waiting period of
five days that must occur when any firearm dealer makes a sale to a purchaser. The Act also
established a Federal background check requirement for any license or firearm purchase36. This
background check is known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS).
Nation Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS)
The NICS system was developed by the FBI with the ATF, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and state and local law enforcement agencies, from the Brady Law mandate. The NICS
system searches the names in three comprehensive FBI databases: the Interstate Identification
Index (III) to check criminal histories, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to check “hot files” such as warrants and protection orders, and the NICS Index which provides information on
both criminal and non-criminal records as to individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms;
including those previously denied from purchasing a firearm, those dishonorably discharged
from military, illegal aliens, and the mentally defective37. Once an individual wishes to purchase
or transfer a firearm, the dealer or manufacturer must consult the NICS system to see if that
individual is barred from owning a firearm. While the process is much more complex in practice,
34
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Ac,t Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993)
Simon, Scott. (2011, March 26) "Jim Brady, 30 Years Later." National Public Radio.
www.npr.org/2011/03/26/134878570/Jim-Brady-30-Years-Later
36
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Brady Law/NICS. Washington:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/.
37
Tien, James, Michael Cahn, David Einstien and Robin Neray. "Cost-Benefit of Point-of-Contact (POC) Versus
Non-POC Firearm Eligibility Background Checks." Structured Decisions Corporation (2003)
35
12
as seen in a Department of Justice study38, that is basic description of the process that the
consumer, dealer, and government follow when purchases of firearms are made.
Once the Brady law was implemented, states had three options within the NICS system
as to what types of operations were most appropriate for their firearm industry. These options are
referred to as full point of contact (full-POC), non-POC and partial-POC.
In full-POC states, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) first ask for NICS and respective
state files for information through one or more entity of the POC states. Then, if needed, the
staffs of the POC entity conduct follow-up research on the person in question, but this only
occurs if that person is flagged in one of the three wide-ranging federal databases or from the
state database. In non-POC states, FFLs contact the NICS Operations Center directly, either by
telephone or by internet. If there is any required follow-up research that is executed by the
NICS’s FBI staff rather than the state‘s staff. In partial POC states, FFLs consult the NICS
system and state files through a POC for handgun purchases or permits; however they contact
NICS directly for long gun purchases. While POC states charge a fee to the FFLs for each
background check, there is no charge in non-POC states, and Congressional appropriations to the
FBI allocate enough funding to waive such fees. However, these fees do not fully offset the cost
of operating a POC.
The process of the NICS system is fairly simple, as previously described. The Federal
Firearm License (FFL) submits a firearm related background check to the NICS system. The
FFL is required to gather information from the potential firearm purchaser: name, sex, race, date
of birth, and state of residence, social security numbers and other numeric identifiers are
optional. However, submitting numeric identifiers can help expedite the time of the background
38
Tien, James, Michael Cahn, David Einstien and Robin Neray. "Cost-Benefit of Point-of-Contact (POC) Versus
Non-POC Firearm Eligibility Background Checks." Structured Decisions Corporation (2003). Pg 11.
13
check and decrease the chance of a mistake being made in the process39. The information is then
sent through the three NICS databases, and if the purchaser reports that they are foreign born
then the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement also check
against immigration and neutralization databases to ensure the person in question is not
prohibited for any reason.
There are three outcomes that can occur once the information is processed: the purchase
or transfer can either proceed if no record prohibiting the person was found; the purchaser can be
denied if a record barring the person is found; or the purchaser can be delayed because the
person may have a record and further examination is required. If a case is deemed to be delayed,
then the firearms transfer may be postponed for up to three business days, while NICS examiners
attempt to determine whether the person is prohibited40. At the end of the three-day period an
FFL may proceed with the transfer, at his discretion, if he has not heard from the FBI about the
person in question. The FBI, in the meantime, will continue to work the NICS case for up to 90
days. The transaction is considered to be in an “open status” during this time. If the FBI finds
that the person has no record depicting denial of the person from seeking to acquire a firearm,
then the FFL will be contacted through the NICS system with a response. Conversely, if the
person is found to be prohibited from owning a firearm, the FBI will contact ATF and a process
to retrieve the firearm will be instigated.
Another important distinction to acknowledge is that if no disqualifying information is
immediately found in the NICS system, the agency does not approve the transaction, but rather
allows it to proceed41. In contrast, each individual FFL reserves the right to refuse a firearm if
39
Krouse, William. U.S. Congressional Research Service. 2012. Gun Law Legislation. Publication No. 7-5700.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf. Pg 23
40
Accessing Records in the System, 28 C.F.R. §25.6.
41
Ibid pg 16
14
they believe the purchaser is intending to use the weapon for an illegal or malicious intension42.
It is standard for many FFLs to refuse to sell firearms when the outcome of a NICS background
check is unresolved.
Unfortunately, the NICS system is not working as well as Congress intended. A study
conducted by the National Center for State Courts found in 42 of the 56 states and territories
only about half of the mental health records that should be in the NICS system actually are43. The
largest drawbacks of the NICS system, as former judge and current Congressman John Dingell
from Michigan reported, are a lack of updated electronic records from the states, inadequate
technologies to support the system, and the lack of funding to make appropriate improvements44.
While Federal grants are made available to states in order to improve their NICS systems, the
problem lies primarily with mental health records that are not as widely accessible in the Federal
NICS system. States like Colorado, for instance, maintain mental health records in courts or files
from doctors and psychiatrists, but the records are not centralized.
Nonetheless, the NICS system does allow for states to share information that helps
restrict the illegal acquisition of firearms. For example, the FBI denied 10% more felony
convictions or indictments than the state systems did from 1999-200945. As the graph below
shows, the number of background checks per year has remained basically steady since 2000,
with an increase occurring trend beginning in 2003. This indicates the NICS system has worked
well with respect to criminal background checks.
42
Ibid pg 16
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. 2011. Honorable John D. Dingell of Michigan speaking for the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. H.R. 1. 112th Cong., 1st sess. Congressional record 157,
pt. 25 (16 Feburary).
44
Ibid.
45
Krouse, William. U.S. Congressional Research Service. 2012. Gun Law Legislation. Publication No. 7-5700.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf. Pg 27
43
15
The FFL’s are not given
any information about why a
person is denied from obtaining
a firearm, but an individual can
challenge their denied status if
they feel that they have no
record that would result in a
prohibited status. The denied
person does this by writing to the agency, either the FBI or the POC agencies in their State,
requesting a reason for their denied status. The agency has five business days to respond to the
request. Once the individual has received a reason for the record denial, the denied person can
challenge the accuracy of that record. If the record is found to be incorrect, the denying agency is
legally obligated to correct the record46.
Colorado House Bill 1048
House Bill 1048 was sent to the Colorado legislature in 2012. The bill dealt specifically
with Colorado conducting operations as a POC State and firearm background checks. The bill
would have eliminated the State from its status as a POC. This bill was House Bill 1048 (HB121048). It was composed from a bipartisan effort, but was largely supported by Republicans with
modest support from the Democrats when the bill went to a vote. In the house, 33 Republicans
voted yes to pass the bill with four Democrats also voting yes. Those who voted against the bill
were unanimously Democrats, but the bill passed since only 29 “no” votes were cast. The bill
passed the House with a slim margin of 56.9% in favor of the bill.
46
Correction of Erroneous System Information, 28 C.F.R. §25.10
16
The POC status of Colorado is largely due to the events that occurred in the Columbine
High School shooting. The Columbine incident transpired when bullied teens brought guns to
their high school and opened fire on classmates, eventually killing 13 people, injuring another 21
students, and culminating in their mutual suicide47. After this incident, legislators felt that having
multiple backgrounds checks, one at the state level and one at the federal level, would ensure
greater public safety48. Ironically, the dual background check system does not allow for greater
safety in gun purchases and transfers, it only adds a superfluous element to the comprehensive
process that the Federal government already mandates. Eliminating the CBI background check
would allow public resources to be utilized in Colorado state-funded programs in more
meaningful ways, not to mention making the time it takes for credible citizens to acquire
firearms more reasonable, without reducing the overall effectiveness of the regulation system.
The State has a compelling interest to take such actions. As common knowledge
demonstrates, one role of the government is to protect the general public. The background checks
are a crucial piece of keeping firearms from those who would endanger society, but having
duplicative background checks can actually lead to more danger than safety. The duplicative
background check increases the workload on the databases that have to be checked. The
amplified inquires can clog the databases, which slows down the process of examining files that
have been flagged for further investigation. If the database is making replicated checks, a
disqualified individual will be flagged twice, which will equate to more work for the NICS
examiners. Then additional time and effort are added to the process. Consequently, more
prohibited individuals could actually access firearms due to the amount of labor the examiners
47
Ingold, John. "Columbine has triumphed over tragedy, lawmakers say." Denver Post, April 20, 2009,
http://www.denverpost.com/columbine/ci_12183773
48
Vorderbruggen, Henry. "From Columbine to Concealed Carry On Campus Gun Control in Colorado after
Regents." University of Denver Law Review (2012), http://www.denverlawreview.org/ (accessed October 30, 2012).
17
are asked to execute, especially to resolve flags within the three-business-day waiting period.
The NICS system is far from perfect, and there are discrepancies between the records that the
state has in its’ databases and what the federal databases contain. Seeing that the state holds more
records of mental illnesses, such as known drug users, than the Federal system, Colorado should
continue operations in performing background checks for mental health records, to be discussed
in further detail later.
The cost the State of Colorado is incurring to operate as a POC is significant and uses
important tax revenue49. A study from the Department of Justice asserts that the POC allow
states to have longer waiting periods beyond the federally mandated three days, but it is
expensive to do so and continues to consume even more public resources50. This means that
other State programs may be underfunded due to the resources misappropriated to these
background checks and running the POC program. The POC operation creates a negative
externality, imposing a damaging side effect unnecessarily onto a third party51. The third party
that has to assume these costs are the taxpayers of Colorado, given that their tax dollars are not
being used as efficiently as they could be. The Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) law
restricts the state government from increasing taxes for programs in need without voter approval.
State and local governments also cannot spend revenues collected under existing tax rates if
revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation and population growth, without voter approval52.
A recent study of Colorado’s State financial situation concluded that, due to
constitutional amendments passed by the citizenry of Colorado, the State has structural problems
49
According to Colorado House Bill 1048
Tien, James, Michael Cahn, David Einstien and Robin Neray. "Cost-Benefit of Point-of-Contact (POC) Versus
Non-POC Firearm Eligibility Background Checks." Structured Decisions Corporation (2003)
51
Boardman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. Cost-Benefit Aalysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. (accessed November 27, 2012). Pg 91
52
Colorado Department of Treasury. Constitutional Provisions. Denver, CO, 2012.
50
18
with the means in which it collects revenue that will lead to enormous complications in future
program expenditures53. The most problematic of the amendments to the State constitution are
the provisions that restrict the revenue the state is allowed to collect. The TABOR amendment is
the fundamental problem behind the revenue problem, because it has caused the largest
industries to be taxed at a much lower rate or completely tax exempt, therefore the State
government cannot collect enough revenue to properly fund programs. Colorado will find that
Medicaid and education growth, specifically, will start to crowd out of program funding because
of the restraints policy makers have in Colorado54. The revenue that is redirected from Colorado
abolishing its operations of a full-POC state for Federal NICS system will help other programs
that are in need of additional funds.
Georgia and Oregon
Two other states initially elected to be POC states when the Brady Bill first became law
in 1994. After a number of years, the State of Georgia opted not to continue operations as a POC
due to problematic economic conditions in their states55. The Department of Justice (DOJ)
commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of POC versus non-POC states per the State of Georgia’s request before deciding to remove their POC responsibilities. The Government Accountability
Office asked the Structured Decisions Corporation (SDC) to prepare the report, as well as collect
the information necessary to accomplish the goal of the analysis. SDC requested information
from NICS, Georgia’s POC entity, and Oregon POC entity for data on each transaction with
53
"Financing Colorado's Future:An Analysis of the Fiscal Sustainability of State Government." University of Denver
Center for Colorado's Future (2011), http://www.du.edu/economicfuture/documents/CCEF_ReportPhase1.pdf
(accessed January 28, 2013).
54
Ibid.
55
Tien, James, Michael Cahn, David Einstien and Robin Neray. "Cost-Benefit of Point-of-Contact (POC) Versus
Non-POC Firearm Eligibility Background Checks." Structured Decisions Corporation (2003)
19
respect to the cost associated with each deal. This allowed the SDC to make a comparison
between the cost of each POC and non-POC transaction.
SDC gathered information from March 2002 to May 2002 on background checks,
especially denial rates from just the state background checks and NICS background checks, as
well as the cost. This allowed for a more complete analysis because the cost of each transaction
is neither a full picture nor a goal of firearm background checks. The denial rate was included to
depict the effectiveness of only using the NICS system, by showing the number of denials in
each system. SDC found that a small number of duplications were found in both the states, where
two inquiries were submitted for the same transaction56. This is noteworthy because duplications
can congest the background checks at both the federal and state levels of government, consuming
even greater funds to make the necessary further investigations. The report also claims;
“One can consider the state-only files to add value if they enhance the likelihood
of denials to those prospective firearm purchasers who should be denied. It is
estimated that POCs are able to increase deniability by 19.5%, in comparison to
non-POC denials. This added benefit percent is significant and consistent with
other observations and findings.” (vi)
This added value the report claims is in large part due to the records that states maintain
and Federal databases do not contain. These records are typically mental health records or drug
abuse records, where a Federal record simply does not exist. Furthermore, our current gun
regulation system allows the possibility of individuals traveling to other, non-POC states, to
purchase firearms. This can occur if that person is able to pass the NICS background check in a
neighboring state that would not have passed in their state of residency. This would take place if
there is information in one state’s records barring them from passing a background check that the
56
Ibid, pg 6
20
NICS did not document, such as mental health issues. This is a small likelihood, but it is
important to recognize the means in which people are able to gain access to firearms.
The Brady Bill was altered once, with the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment57 that
retroactively added domestic violence convictions to the list of disqualifiers. However, in these
cases, research is often needed to determine if a past conviction, for something such as a simple
assault, meets the Lautenberg conditions. The Amendment gives ambiguous definitions as to
what constitutes a disqualification, but increases the time and resources needed to conduct a
background check. The matrix to determine eligibility from each state is found in Appendix A,
Figure 1 and Figure 2. The results from the collections in the study are shown below:
In Oregon, 11.6% of the transactions that were marked by the Oregon background check
for further inquiry were not flagged by the NICS. The report does state that Oregon casts a much
larger net in their background check than the Federal check does, thus names under investigation
were highlighted in some state files in which the NICS did not have access. This report stated
that 74 of the total 543 transactions in question were flagged by Oregon and not by NICS, then
the value added by Oregon is calculated in the following way; (74/543)x100=13.6% added value.
The study then compares the denial rates with the cost of each transaction, and what
additional factors add to the expense of a POC state. The chart below shows a detailed
description of how much each state spent compared to the cost of the NICS system.
57
Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, Pub.L. 104–208, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)
21
Georgia spent the most money relative to the other two entities. When adjusted for
inflation, Georgia spent $2,066,907.93 in 2000, and $1,951319.01 in 2001. For Oregon, the state
spent $614,272.97 in 2000 and $964,594.06. Colorado, in 2012, was projected to spend about the
same amount as Georgia in the years this analysis took place, after Georgia’s expenses were adjusted for inflation, totaling $1,852,948. This study recommended that the NICS and state files
be further merged to limit the number of records that are not checked in each state, and also to
bring the NICS and state background system into closer alignment for the same reason of
eliminating redundancies. SDC concluded that the value added from states remaining as POC
states is enough to overcome the fiscal obligations, although Georgia did not agree and elected to
operate as a non-POC58. It is important to note that this study was commissioned by the
Department of Justice, who had an interest in keeping POC states active.
Methods
58
U.S. Federal Bureau of Invesitgation. National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Washington: 2008.
22
This research constructs an ex ante cost-benefit analysis, where the analysis is taking
place before the proposed policy change has occurred59. The analysis assumes that current
Constitutional restrictions on revenue collection will persist, and is attempting to find an
alternative to the status quo program. The status quo for Colorado would be to continue to be a
POC for the NICS system. This research is also conducted under the assumption that the people
of Colorado support such procedure changes, and therefore success for any alternative will be
determined by the ability of an option to relieve CBI of its operations with NICS, saving the state
money and creating other opportunities for the expenditure of public funds. The major objective
of this policy memorandum is to find a way to reduce the economic impact that firearm
purchases and permits place on the state’s budget. This can be achieved by eliminating the CBI’s operations as a POC, while still continuing to check for mental health records.
Proposed Solutions
There are three options to address the CBI’s statute requirement to be a POC for the
NICS system; (1) the status quo; (2) eliminating the CBI’s operations as POC state for the NICS
system; and (3) eliminating the CBI’s operations as POC state for the NICS system, with the
exception of a mental health record check. The status quo would do nothing in regards to statute,
regulations, or costs. Each background check costs CBI $13 just to conduct the examination. For
a comparison, it costs Oregon an adjusted rate of $11.41 per check, and Georgia $9.07 per check
when both states were still a POC state.
The second alternative, however, would make a great change. This would reduce the
State’s expenditures on background checks by almost two million dollars a year, reducing costs
59
Boardman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. Cost-Benefit Aalysis: Concepts and
Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. (accessed November 27, 2012). Pg 3-5
23
from personnel services to operational expenses. The chart below categorizes the expenses that
CBI currently incurs from running the POC program.
These costs follow the assumption that if the bill had been passed in the regular legislative
session of 2012, the Governor would have signed it into law on May 1, 2012. Following the
confirmation of the bill becoming a law, it would have taken 60 days to complete the layoff
process of 26.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) state employees. The other costs associated with
employees would have included savings from reduced expenditures on health, life, and dental,
short-term disability, retirement benefit contributions, and shift differential payments. This
option would have cost the State $50,387 from breaking the terms of the leasing agreement, but
would then save $51,463 from no longer having to make lease payments for the rented space
each year. These savings would have been mostly be returned to the General Fund, which is the
funding resource for other core programs, like education, health services, and corrections60.
60
Colorado State Government. Revenue Structure, Spending Limits, and General Fund Expenditures.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=Mu
ngoBlobs&blobwhere=1251689443099&ssbinary=true. 2010.
24
The third option would still eliminate the CBI’s obligations as a POC to the NICS system, but would still require CBI to check the mental health records for individuals purchasing
or transferring a firearm. The Government Accountability Office reported that the total number
of mental health records that states made available to the NICS Index increased by 800 percent
from October 2004 to
October 2011, but this
was largely due to only
12 states, as the figure to
the right illustrates.
States have cited that
technological challenges
hinder their ability to
make mental health
records available on the
NICS system61.
In addition, there are some legal obligations that hinder record sharing of information as a
matter of individual privacy between patients and doctors. The Governmental Accountability
Office conducted a study, finding 3 of the 6 states reviewed stated the absence of explicit statelevel statutory authority to share mental health records was an obstacle to making such records
available to NICS. The study said, “For example, Idaho officials reported deferring to the protection of individual privacy until clear state statutory authority was established to allow state
61
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2012. Sharing Promising Practices and Assessing Incentives Could
Better Position Justice to Assist States in Providing Records for Background Checks. Publication No. GAO-12-684.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592452.pdf.
25
agencies to make mental health records available.”62 There is already a statute from the Colorado
Mental Health Practice Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, for instances of disclosure of
confidential communication63. While amendments would be necessary to properly address file
transfers to a State database, the foundations are in place to make this statutory modification.
In regards to mental-health records, legal restrictions remain the biggest barrier to
improving the NICS system. However, if CBI was responsible for checking mental health
records, the State would be able to access that information, even if the Federal agencies were not.
In addition, CBI would still need employees to administer mental health checks, therefore the
full 26.4 FTE would not be laid off. The State of New York uses an automated mental health
background check for all those attempting to acquire a pistol or rifle permit, which Colorado
could use as a model64.
At the Federal level, there is already a movement being made in regards to improving the
Federal mental health records in the NICS system. The House’s version of appropriations to
government agencies would give an addition $7 million to the Department of Justice in order to
help State’s databases that contain information about mental health records65. The Federal entity
already pays a portion of the cost to the collection and storage of records for background checks
from NCHIP and NARIP grants66. In fact, from 1995-2011 the Federal government spent
$556,190,065 on improving records collection and storage solely under the NCHIP grants.
62
Ibid. Pg 12
§12-43-218, C.R.S.
64
New Work Office of Mental Health, Mental Health Background Checks for Pistol Purchases and Employment
(Albany, NY, 2012), http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/mhbc/MHBC_pres.pdf
65
Kumar, Anita. "U.S. House looks to improve background checks after Va. Tech shooting anniversary." The
Washington Post, April 26, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/us-house-looks-toimprove-background-checks-after-va-tech-shooting-anniversary/
66
Krouse, William. U.S. Congressional Research Service. 2012. Gun Law Legislation. Publication No. 7-5700.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf. Pg 28
63
26
Colorado received $9,061,503 that was used on updating and incorporate all records67. Colorado
has not received any NARIP grants, but states that have received more grant money are deemed
as pioneers in background checks, such as New York68. Colorado already has a record system
that would need further improvements in order for the electronic health records to be utilized by
the State in checking mental health records for firearm purchases and transfers. The State is
working towards improving making the health records electronic in the health care industry,
which could also help with mental health documentation69.
Improving health care records is a priority of both State and Federal agencies. Both
entities are providing grants to many health care facilities to create and maintain databases of
health records, as well as a statewide database for information record sharing70. Therefore, the
State would not need to accrue additional costs in setting up an electronic system such as this,
but rather would simply need to pay the costs to initiate and maintain the system. Such a cost
would be almost negligible compared to the monetary and non-fiscal benefits of having accurate,
accessible mental health records to mitigate against further, costly, gun violence. The Executive
Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Reggie Bicha, said “Our goal is to help ensure we have the capacity and quality of mental health supports, services and resources to meet
the needs of Coloradans, thereby keeping communities safer for everyone.71” Once again, the
interest of the State is to ensure public safety without hindering citizen’s right to own firearms. 67
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. NCHIP Funding For 1995-2011. available from
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=471
68
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “State-by-State Summaries
for FY2011 NICS Improvement Amendments Act Grant Awards,” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.
69
Griffin, Laura. "Health Information Technology in Colorado." The Colorado Health Foundation (2008),
www.ColoradoHealth.org (accessed November 14, 2012).
70
Ibid.
71
"Gov. Hickenlooper introduces plan to redesign, strengthen Colorado’s mental health services and support system." Colorado Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.colorado.gov/
27
In order to continue to respond to the tragedy in Aurora in July of 2012, where gunman
James Holmes allegedly opened fire in a movie theater killing 12 people and injuring many
more, the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, has made a plan to increase funding to help
those with mental illness. As apart of his plan, the Governor suggested a strategy to fund the
development of a system that consolidates mental health and substance abuse files72. This new
database would be apart of the files to be checked for firearm background checks, and would
instantly transfer important information to the FBI. Currently, mental health information is sent
via CD-ROM by the Colorado State Judicial System to the NICS system twice a year73. The real
time data transfer would allow disqualifying mental health information to be immediately
transferred to the CBI Colorado Crime Information System (CCIC) and then transferred
electronically to the NICS data base.
The Governor requested $1,391,865 for the development of such a database in his budget
request. The State would loose $696,530 in revenue from no longer collecting the fee associated
with the CBI background check. This is increasingly important because the number of firearms
background checks in Colorado has been increasing each year, the graph below shows the trend
since 2008.
CBI Background Checks by Year
286424
251307
202772
+2.5%+2.5%
2008
72
73
214748
208028
+3.1%
2009
+12.3%
+14.5%
2010
Ibid.
Ibid.
28
2011
2012
Developing a database to encompass mental illness would utilize definitions and statues
that are already set. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines Mental illness
is defined as “collectively all diagnosable mental disorders” or “health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof)
associated with distress and/or impaired functioning.74” That definition is helpful, but not
specific as to what types of individuals are disqualified. Furthermore, the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual defines mental illnesses as;
“Each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant
behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and
that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e.,
impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly
increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.
In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and
culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a
loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a
manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the
individual.75” The definition given above allows for more specific diagnoses to be used in making a judgment
as to what types of mental illnesses will be included. The definition suggests that chronic
disorders are the major descriptor that should be used in creating firearm policies. If an
individual is perpetually found to have stress, or any other disorder, that would disqualify their
rights to own firearms, and not an isolated incident that results in a temporary heightened time of
stress in an individuals life.
There is an additional disqualification for drug users or addicts to any controlled
substance from possessing or receiving a firearm. The ATF has more definitions that are specific
74
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, 1999.
75
Bolton, Derek, K.W.M. Fulford, Kenneth S. Kendler, Katharine A. Phillips, John Z. Sadler and Dan J. Stein.
"What is a Mental/Psychiatric Disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V." National Institutes of Health Public Access
40(11) (2010), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/ (accessed March 5, 2013).
29
to the individuals who are barred from possessing a firearm. The ATF defines an unlawful user
or addicted to a controlled substance as “A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the controlled substance and any person
who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed
physician.76” The ATF also defines “adjudicated as a mental defective” as a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to
himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs77.
Finally, the AFT has defined the term “committed to a mental institution” as a formal
commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use78. These
definitions are useful in determining the types of files that should be included to a mental health
database. Using the definitions allow for a speedy development of a mental health database, and
will help CBI to understand what files need to be collected and placed into that database.
It is beyond the scope of this analysis to give the specific mental illnesses that would
need to be documented into a database. In Colorado, the General Assembly is charged with the
authority to pass statutory laws79. This means the General Assembly would have to pass bills that
defined which mental illnesses would be incorporated into the database. It would be the will of
the elected officials to decide which mental illnesses are severe enough to be included in a
76
27 C.F.R. § 478.11.
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
79
Colorado General Assembly, Legislative Process (Denver, CO) Pg. 1-7.
77
30
mental health database. The definitions given above are recommended to use in the compilation
of statutes.
Weaknesses and Limitations
A weakness of this argument is the political viability of passing such legislation given the
current climate surrounding firearm acquisition. This debate has become increasingly political
given the numerous incidents involving the use of firearms within the last calendar year.
Constituents would need to understand the details of a bill proposal such as this, but they may
not, making this bill less viable in the present divisive climate surrounding firearms regulations.
Firearm regulations tend to elicit a heated debate around the scope of regulations as it relates to
impeding on the Second Amendment or just providing safety precautions. Passing a bill dealing
with firearms is less likely to pass in the next legislative session due to the rise of incidences
ending with more victims of gun violence. Passing of the bill is also less likely because of the
strong emotions gun control advocates feel with such a short time span from the latest incident of
gun violence. In addition, any issue encompassing firearms extracts strong emotions in the public
that are not possible to accurately monetize, and therefore the political side of this debate will be
left out, until the sensitivity analysis.
The numbers for the local costs and benefits are approximations based off trends and
reported estimates for state expenditures on background check expenses. These figures are not
exact since it is reported by the state and not localities. These figures should not been seen as
exact figures, but estimations to illustrate how local governments could be effected.
Moreover, the specific sphere where the money should be directed will not be discussed.
The money will be dispersed back into the State’s general fund, to be utilized the in a manner that legislators and their constituents feel is most appropriate. Also, the House Bill would
31
increase the workload on the local law enforcement agencies. The funding would be reduced at
the State level, but would increase the effort by the smaller agencies that might be equally be in
need of additional funding.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Cost-Benefit analysis outlines the primary market stakeholders for the three
alternatives indentified, and how the costs and benefits will affect each individually. The
calculations will take into account the social costs and benefits that society, as a whole, will
incur, as well.
The Cost-Benefit analysis is outlined by Boardman et. al. in Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Concepts and Practice. The stakeholders are defined, as well as their costs and benefits, and the
alternatives for policy options are weighed to achieve the most effective alternative for all
stakeholders. The major stakeholder involved is the State of Colorado, seeing that the state
government must fund and oversee any option that is decided upon. Public safety is included
within the Colorado stakeholder, since that it the goal of the State. Again, any option pursued
will have the most dramatic impact on the State government. The other main stakeholders are the
Federal regulatory entity given their responsibility to conduct background checks regardless of
the option Colorado carries out. Local law enforcement will also be impacted, and the second
and third alternatives require additional work for the counties.
The goal of the analysis is to find the option that provides the most efficient use of public
resources from the three alternatives. The alternatives are summarized below.
Alternative 1: Status Quo. The status quo would require CBI to continue
operations as a POC state for the NICS system. The costs that the State is
32
currently expending on the background checks would continue, and this option
would not require any cost shifting.
Alternative 2: Eliminating CBI’s Status as a POC state. This alternative would
require CBI to no longer conduct background checks, but, rather, the FBI would
conduct all firearm background checks. This alternative would find savings in the
cost it takes to conduct a background check, as well as the wages and benefits of
the employees who conduct the checks.
Alternative 3: Eliminate CBI’s Status as a POC state, except Mental Health Records. The final alternative would also require FBI to conduct all criminal
background checks, but CBI would conduct a background check for mental health
records. CBI would centralize all mental health records that are currently scattered
among court and doctor or psychiatrist files. This alternative also saves some
money from wages and benefits, but salvages some of the jobs of the CBI.
See the Appendix for details of cost and benefit calculations associated with the Cost-Benefit
model.
Costs
Colorado (.5)
Wages and Benefits
Operational Costs
One-time Costs
Social Cost
FBI (.2)80
NICS Personnel Cost
NICS Operational Costs
Status Quo
Eliminate CBI’s Status Eliminate CBI’s Status as a as a POC state
POC state, except Mental
Health Records
$1,323,366
$360,075
$168,431
$44,759,844
$0
$696,530
$50,387
$44,759,844
$0
$70,000
$410,000
$44,759,844
$30,918,864.14*
$28,668,869.80*
$30,918,864.14*
$28,668,869.80*
$30,918,864.14*
$28,668,869.80*
80
The cost at the Federal level remain the same regardless of the option chosen by the State of Colorado because the
FBI will have to continue normal operations in regards to background checks. The FBI will run the same number of
background checks even if Colorado chooses a proposed alternative, since the Colorado background checks
duplicate that of the FBI. Therefore, no additional work will be required by the FBI.
33
Law Enforcement (.3)
Background Checks
Total Costs
Benefits
Colorado (.5)
Wages and Benefits
Operating Costs
Lease Payment
Break Lease Payment
Social Benefit
FBI (.2)
NICS System
Law Enforcement (.3)
Provider Savings
Total Benefits
Net Benefits
$0
($106,199,449.94)
Status Quo
$22,698,628
($127,793,122.94)
Eliminate CBI Check
$081
($104,827,577.94)
Eliminate CBI Check, except
Mental Health Records
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,945,127
$1,323,366
$360,075
$168,431
$50,387
$463,945,127
$0
$40,000
$0
$50,387
$463,945,127
$0
$0
$0
$0
$463,945,127
$367,745,677.06
$0
$465,847,386
$338,054,263.06
$1,310,50082
$465,346,014
$360,518,436.06
Each alternative would cost all the stakeholders over $100,000,000 when social costs are
accounted for. Conversely, the benefits from each option compensate for the cost, and each
would result in a net benefit to Colorado. Eliminating CBI’s status as a POC state produces the
highest benefits, but also is coupled with the highest costs. The status quo is not the most cost
effective alternative for the state, and, additionally, yields the least benefits, as well. Finally,
eliminating CBI’s status as a POC state, with the exception of checking mental health records, is
the least expensive option for Colorado, and would produce almost the same amount of benefits
that just eliminating CBI’s status as a POC state making it the most appropriate alternative for
the State.
Sensitivity Analysis
Social Cost and Benefits
81
The mental health records check would not create an additional cost to local law enforcement agencies, since the
mental health checks will occur at the State level.
82
The anticipated provider saving from implementing a mental health record database ranges from $840,000$1,781,000. The average of these figures was taken for the benefit of implementing such as system.
34
Gun ownership is a topic that encompasses elements stretching far beyond the simplicity
of fiscal transactions, which produces tax benefits. These items have the potential to be
incredibly dangerous to the greater public. Given that firearms have a plausible ability to hamper
the lives of others, there is a social cost to gun ownership in the United States. Researchers Cook
and Ludwig, from Stanford University and Duke University, found that the cost of gun
ownership increases with each additional homicide per year83. The researchers then took an
average homicide rate of 10/100,000 and calculated that rate with the homicide elasticity finding
that, “Each additional 10,000 handgun owning households is associated with one additional
homicide per year84.” Cook and Ludwig also found that each assault-related gunshot injury costs
society $1 million85. Therefore, they use the value of $1 million with an average homicide
elasticity of +.10. Using the same number of 10,000 additional gun-owning household with the
homicide elasticity and the cost of an assault-related injury, the researchers found that society
pays $100 per year for every hand-gun owning household86. The Small Army Survey reported
that the United States has approximately 89 firearms per every 100 people in the country87.
Using that value and applying it to Colorado, it would indicate that there are about 447,598.44
guns in the state currently. This would equate to $44,759,844 in social costs per year.
Conversely, there are also benefits to the proposed policy option. The money that would
be saved from the elimination of CSI’s POC operations would be refunded into the State’s General Fund. This would allow for other programs, currently underfunded, access to additional
funds.
83
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. "The Social Costs of Gun Ownership." The National Bureau of Economic
Research (2004), http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN04-07.pdf. Pg 5
84
Ibid.
85
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. "The Social Costs of Gun Ownership." The National Bureau of Economic
Research (2004), http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN04-07.pdf. Pg 23
86
Ibid. Pg 25
87
"Small Army Survey: Guns and the City." Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva (2007),
www.smallarmysurvey.org/de/publications
35
In addition, research from a formal statistical analysis indicates that the average
American household would be willing-to-pay an additional $239 per year to reduce gun violence
and to fund programs intended with achieve the same goal88. The Census Bureau reports that
there are 1,941,193 households in Colorado in 2011, meaning Colorado could have an additional
tax benefit of $463,945,127 per year for reducing gun violence.
Rural verse Urban Costs
The number of background check inquiries varies based on geographical location. As
expected, areas with higher populations tend to have higher background check inquiries. The
number of background checks in each county is not recorded, only the total number of
background checks conducted by the State. The United States Department of Health and Human
Services reported that 34.7% of people in Colorado own a gun. Using this percentage the number
of guns per county can be calculated with census population figures. The Census Bureau defined
any county that has a population greater than 50,000 people to be an urban county. Dividing
Colorado into urban and rural categories, the total number of guns based upon the 34.7% gun
ownership would indicate that there are 1,504,977 gun owners in urban areas, and 240,379 in
rural areas. See the Appendix for details on these calculations. However, Colorado does not
require the registration of firearms89. Therefore it is not possible to know exactly how many guns
are present in the State. The figures are a mere representation that the number of firearms is
higher in urban areas than in rural areas, therefore it can be concluded that urban counties would
have higher cost than rural counties in their operations of conducting background checks.
While there are more inquiries in urban centers, the number of gun owners is actually
higher as a ratio of the population in rural areas. The number of firearms is a higher presence in
88
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. "The Costs of Gun Violence against Children." Children, Youth, and Gun
Violence 12 (2002), http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Future_of_Children_2002.pdf. Pg 95
89
CRS 29-11.7-102
36
rural areas than urban areas, in both handguns and long guns. Many rural gun owners are
hunters, and tend to use rifles or shotguns. The percentage of citizens owning handguns has also
been higher in rural areas than in central cities, 23 versus 15 percent90. There are far more rural
counties in Colorado than urban counties, by a large ratio. Rural areas have been found to value
gun ownership at a higher level than urban areas, given the culture of hunting and sport shooting
in rural areas91. In addition, the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania
reported, “The risk of firearm death in very rural counties is the same as the risk for big cities.
Rural areas have higher risks for firearm suicide and unintentional injury, while the risks for
firearm homicide and assault are greater in urban areas.92”
Political Viability
Firearms are inherently a politically charged topic, given the subjectivity in trying to
attain a balance of reasonable restrictions without obstructing the ability for citizens to own
firearms. There is a National outcry for reform to the process in which people gain access to
firearms and other weapons, derived from many instances of careless gun violence. Once again,
the United States has seen 62 mass murders involving a firearm since 1982; a majority of these
incidences took place at the hands of someone who was mentally ill93. In 2011, the PEW
Research Center found that 58% of Americans said that they felt like incidences in Tucson or the
Virginia Tech shootings were isolated and occurred at the hands of troubled individuals. Since
the recent Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that view has already dropped 14%,
90
Wright, J.D., P.H. Rossi, and K. Daly. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America. New York:
Aldine Publishing Company, 1983, p.106.
91
Cook, Phillip J. and Jens Ludwig (1996) Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive Survey of Gun Ownership
and Use. Washington D.C.. Police Foundation.
92
"Firearm Injury in the US." Firearm and Injury Center at Penn.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf (accessed January 14, 2013).
93
Arosen, Gavin, Follman, Mark, & Pan, Deanna. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America." Mother Jones,
December 15, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
37
and 44% of Americans view mass shootings as isolated incidents by troubled individuals94.
There have been nine instances of mass shootings since the poll by PEW was administered after
the Tucson shooting, which is most likely the reason for the large decrease in public opinion.
Specifically, in Colorado the Governor is requesting an $18.5 million increase in the
State’s funding in order to strengthen mental health, including instant mental health updates
available for gun background checks95. Since the gun debate has already started to focus on
mental health as a major issue for those who are buying guns, the time to give CBI authority to
make mental health checks is optimal at this time.
Unintended Consequences
The proposed recommendation for the State of Colorado’s procedure in conducting background checks for mental health records should produce benefits to the citizens of the State
of Colorado. However, policy change always has the potential to elicit unforeseen ramifications.
This proposal would not be able to capture every single gun transfer or transaction. Colorado
does not have a registration requirement for any firearms,96 therefore if a person inherited a
firearm they would not be subject to registration. This could still allow those with mental illness
to unintentionally obtain access to a firearm. Likewise, those who already own a firearm could
develop a mental illness later in life, when they already own a firearm. That person may not be
conscious that they have such an illness until later, and, possibly, decline help in fear of having
to relinquish ownership of their firearm due to their mental illness.
94
Roberts, Amy. "By the numbers: Guns and mental health." CNN, December 21, 2012,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/politics/btn-guns-and-mental-health/index.html
95
McCrimmin, Katy. "‘Raw’ from tragedies, governor calls for mental health overhaul." Solutions, December 18,
2012, http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/12/18/raw-from-tragedies-governor-calls-for-mental-healthoverhaul/
96
Ibid
38
Even more frightening, the additional mandate of mental health checks may increase the
presence of an illicit firearm market. There are already a variety of means in which criminals, or
others barred from owning a firearm, are able to gain access to them. Most guns are illegally
obtained from licensed dealers that perform “over-the-counter” transactions with cash from an
FFL, straw purchases, from gun thefts, or unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns
through illegal transactions or from a one of the previous methods97. A straw purchase is when
someone who is disqualified from possessing a firearm pays another individual to make the
purchase of the firearm, so that the background check will not be conducted for the person that
will end up with the firearm98. Since Colorado does not have a registry mandate, this could
become a big problem for the State.
Strategic Recommendation
Although the benefits are greater for CBI to completely eliminate the POC operations, the
social benefits from implementing a mental health records check is influential enough to make
the best alternative for Colorado. The political element that is discussed above will play an
influential role in the marketing of the bill. The memory of the Aurora shooting is still so fresh in
the minds of the people of Colorado that the bill can easily be misconstrued as a means to allow
easier access to firearms, which is not necessarily the case. Eliminating CBI’s operations as a POC will still require background checks for firearm purchases and transfers, maintaining the
same safety precautions already in place. Including the modification of CBI running a check on
the mental health records of those trying to transfer or purchase firearms could be a compromise
for the State Republicans and Democrats, while improving public safety.
97
98
Noyes, Dan. "Hot Guns." PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/gun
Ibid.
39
In addition, the abolishment of CBI’s role as a POC state in the NICS system will save the Colorado money that can be better used in other programs that are currently inadequately
funded. The State would still have to spend some money on the electronic records system, but is
a fraction of the cost that Colorado is currently expending on background checks for firearm
purchases or transfers. Given the sociopolitical environment of the State, it seems that the third
alternative would also be the most feasible, where each stakeholder must sacrifice some small
degree of benefits for the interest of the State and safety for citizens.
40
Appendix A- Disqualification matrix for firearm background checks in Georgia and
Oregon, given by the Structured Decisions Corporation.
Figure 1
Figure 2
41
CBA Construction
Costs to develop a mental health records database given by Colorado’s Governor, John Hickenlooper
42
Outlined benefits for creating a mental health background check database.
43
Gun ownership calculation by Colorado County used to project the number of firearms in
the state, as well as the costs local law enforcement may face.
44
1,504,977 + 240,379 = 1,745,356 Total guns in Colorado
1,745,356 x $13/background check= $22,698,628 expense to localities
45
Rural County Breakdown
46
47
References
Arosen, Gavin, Follman, Mark, & Pan, Deanna. "A Guide to Mass Shootings in America."
Mother Jones, December 15, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/massshootings-map
Bender, Michael. (2012, July 24). "Gun Sales Spike After 12 Killed in Colorado Movie Theater."
Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/gun-sales-increase-incolorado-after-12-killed-in-movie-theater.html
Boardman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. Cost-Benefit
Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. (accessed
November 27, 2012).
Bollier, S., & Haddad, M. (2012, July 26). Interactive: US, Yemen lead the world in guns.
Aljazeera. Retrieved from
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/07/2012726141159587596.html
Bolton, Derek, K.W.M. Fulford, Kenneth S. Kendler, Katharine A. Phillips, John Z. Sadler and
Dan J. Stein. "What is a Mental/Psychiatric Disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V."
National Institutes of Health Public Access 40(11) (2010),
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/ (accessed March 5, 2013).
Carroll, J. (2006, February 16). Gun ownership higher among republicans than democrats.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/Gun-Ownership-Higher-AmongRepublicans-Than-Democrats.aspx
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2001.
North Carolina: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/technical_infodata/pdf/2001DQRHandbook
Colorado General Assembly. House of Representatives. House Journal. 68th Cong., 2nd sess., 18
April 2012.
Colorado Department of Treasury. Constitutional Provisions. Denver, CO, 2012.
Colorado State Congress. Legislative Council. Concerning Relieving the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation of its Statutory Duties as a Point of Contact for the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System in Cases of Firearms Transfers. Denver, CO, 2012.
Cook, Phillip J. and Jens Ludwig (1996) Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive Survey
of Gun Ownership and Use. Washington D.C.. Police Foundation.
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. "The Costs of Gun Violence against Children." Children,
Youth, and Gun Violence 12 (2002),
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Future_of_Children_2002.pdf
48
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. "The Social Costs of Gun Ownership." The National Bureau of
Economic Research (2004), http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN04-07.pdf
Gerstein, Dean R., and Mark H. Moore. Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of
Prohibition. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1981. (accessed December 30,
2012).
"Gov. Hickenlooper introduces plan to redesign, strengthen Colorado’s mental health services and support system." Colorado Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDHS-Main/CBON/1251575083520
Griffin, Laura. "Health Information Technology in Colorado." The Colorado Health Foundation
(2008), www.ColoradoHealth.org (accessed November 14, 2012).
Hobbes, Thomas, and A. D. Lindsay. Leviathan. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1914.
Ingold, John. "Columbine has triumphed over tragedy, lawmakers say." Denver Post, April 20,
2009, http://www.denverpost.com/columbine/ci_12183773
Kelleher, James. (2012, January 5). "FBI data shows spike in U.S. firearm purchases in 2011."
Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-firearms-backgroundchecksidUSTRE80407P20120105
Krouse, William. U.S. Congressional Research Service. 2012. Gun Law Legislation. Publication
No. 7-5700. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf
Kumar, Anita. "U.S. House looks to improve background checks after Va. Tech shooting
anniversary." The Washington Post, April 26, 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/us-house-looks-to-improvebackground-checks-after-va-tech-shootinganniversary/2012/04/26/gIQAlscejT_blog.html
"Financing Colorado's Future: An Analysis of the Fiscal Sustainability of State Government."
University of Denver Center for Colorado's Future (2011),
http://www.du.edu/economicfuture/documents/CCEF_ReportPhase1.pdf (accessed
January 28, 2013).
"Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report." National Shooting Sports
Foundation. www.nssf.org.
"Firearm Injury in the US." Firearm and Injury Center at Penn.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf (accessed January 14,
2013).
Machiavelli , Niccolo. The Prince. 1515. http://0-reader.eblib.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/
49
McCrimmin, Katy. "‘Raw’ from tragedies, governor calls for mental health overhaul." Solutions,
December 18, 2012, http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/12/18/raw-fromtragedies-governor-calls-for-mental-health-overhaul/
"No Shift Toward Gun Control After Tucson Shootings Most Point to Troubled Individuals, Not
Broader Societal Problems." PEW Research Center (2011),
http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/01/19/no-shift-toward-gun-control-after-tucsonshootings
Noyes, Dan. "Hot Guns." PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/gun
Okrent, Daniel. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York, NY: Scribner, 2010.
(accessed February 25, 2013).
Plumer, Brad. "Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post." The
Washington Post, December 17, 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-needto-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/ (accessed December 30, 2012).
Roberts, Amy. "By the numbers: Guns and mental health." CNN, December 21, 2012,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/politics/btn-guns-and-mental-health/index.html
Rogers, Simon. (2012, July 22). "Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country." The
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicidesownership-world-list
Simon, Scott. (2011, March 26) "Jim Brady, 30 Years Later." National Public Radio.
www.npr.org/2011/03/26/134878570/Jim-Brady-30-Years-Later
"Small Army Survey: Guns and the City." Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva
(2007), www.smallarmysurvey.org/de/publications.
Tien, James, Michael Cahn, David Einstien and Robin Neray. "Cost-Benefit of Point-of-Contact
(POC) Versus Non-POC Firearm Eligibility Background Checks." Structured Decisions
Corporation (2003)
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Brady Law/NICS. Washington:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/.
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2010: Summary Population and Housing
Characteristics: Colorado. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011.
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2010: Census Urban and Rural Classification and
Urban Area Criteria. Washington: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural2010.html.
50
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. 2011. Honorable John D. Dingell of Michigan
speaking for the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. H.R. 1. 112th
Cong., 1st sess. Congressional record 157, pt. 25 (16 Feburary).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon
General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services,
National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. List of Rural Counties And Designated
Eligible Census Tracts in Metropolitan Counties.
ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/eligibility2005.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Federal
Firearm Regulation Reference Guide. Washington D.C., 2005.
U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Background Checks for Firearm
Transfers, by Michael Bowling, Matthew J. Hickman.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft05.pdf, 2005.
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Washington: 2008.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2012. Sharing Promising Practices and Assessing
Incentives Could Better Position Justice to Assist States in Providing Records for
Background Checks. Publication No. GAO-12-684.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592452.pdf
Viscusi, W. Kip. "The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry."
Harvard Law Review (2003),
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/422.pdf
Vorderbruggen, Henry. "From Columbine to Concealed Carry On Campus Gun Control in
Colorado after Regents ." University of Denver Law Review (2012),
http://www.denverlawreview.org/ (accessed October 30, 2012).
White , Alan, Donna Hurd, Shier Victoria, Rebecca Sweetland, Tiffany Radcliff, David West,
Monica McNulty, Debbie Liebrecht, Betsy Hubbard, Andrew Kramer, and Dee Smyth.
"Evaluation of the Background Check Pilot Program." Final Report 500-00-0015 (2008),
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-andReports/Reports/downloads/White8-2008.pdf
Wright, J.D., P.H. Rossi, and K. Daly. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in
America. New York: Aldine Publishing Company, 1983, p.106.
51