Trends in firearm background check applications and denials

• Date: 01 August 2017
• Author: Ronald Frandsen,David G. Mueller
• Published date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1616

■Academic Paper

Trends in firearm background check

applications and denials

David G. Mueller*and Ronald Frandsen

Regional Justice Information Service Commission (REJIS), Saint Louis, Missouri, United States

There is little previous research on firearm background check applications and denials despite the potential for such

research to significantly benefit policy and practice. The U.S. firearm background check system is complex with fed-

eral, state, and local laws creating a patchwork system intended to increase public safety and reduce mortality. State

characteristics may play an important role in changes in application and denial rates. We examined the relationship

between application and denial rates and state characteristics such as poverty, race, gender, existing firearm owner-

ship, and population density. Multi-level longitudinal modeling was used in an ecological study design with the state

as the unit of analysis spanning a time period between 2005 and 2010, inclusive. Results indicated that application and

denial rates significantly increased over time. Population density and poverty level were negatively related to appli-

cation and denial rates. Firearm ownership, male population size, and percent of residents that were white were pos-

itively related to application and denial rates. Percent of African–American residents was negatively related to

application rate. The importance of understanding the factors that predict firearm prevalence and the need for addi-

tional research on the denial of firearms is discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The permanent provisions of the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act created the National

Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The NICS allows a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL)

to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

or a state Point of Contact (POC) agency for a back-

ground check on an applicant for a firearm transfer

or permit. The background check is the primary

mechanism for enforcing the prohibitors identified

in the Federal Gun Control Act (FGCA) and state

law. After a background check a firearm transaction

can be ‘allowed to proceed’or be ‘denied’.

There is no previous research that has investi-

gated changes in and correlates of firearm back-

ground check applications and denials. If there are

patterns evident it could have implications for

criminal justice and public health policy and prac-

tice. For criminal justice, it may help policy makers

understand trends in the population so that future

policy decisions can be evidence based. For public

health, understanding the factors associated with

the legal prevalence of firearms could be important

for reducing firearm violence.

Research usually places background check appli-

cations in the context of firearm prevalence. Others

have comprehensively reviewed the body of previ-

ous research on firearm prevalence and mortality

(Hepburn & Hemenway, 2004; Stroebe, 2013). A

more focused examination of this literature pro-

duces only three studies that have examined the

utility of background check applications as a metric

of firearm prevalence. Briggs and Tabarrok (2014)

created a composite index consisting of the propor-

tion of the percent of suicides by gun, accidental

firearm death, and firearm background check rate.

This composite index significantly predicted firearm

*Correspondence to: Dr.David G. Mueller, Regional Justice Infor-

mation Service Commission, 4255 W Pine Blvd, Saint Louis, MO

63108-2803, United States.

E-mail: dmueller@rejis.org

Portions of this manuscript were presented at National Forum on

Criminal Justice Conference and Washington University’s An-

nual Public Health Conference. Research reported in this publica-

tion was supported by the National Institute of Justice under

award number 2014-R2-CX-0008 and the Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics under award number 2011-BJ-CX-K017. The content is solely

the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily repre-

sent the official views of the Regional Justice Information Service

Commission, the Department of Justice, or any of its Agencies.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 8

Journal of Public Affairs

Volume 17 Number 3 e1616 (2017)

Published online 24 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library

(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1616