Background check fail

T

Tennessee Gentleman

New member
So, my first question is whether it is true that the DB that did the Charleston Church shooting really prohibited from buying a gun?

He had not been convicted of anything I am aware of so why would they have stopped the sale?

Do you think they (Congress) will try to modify the law to say no sale without full clearance?

IIRC, when the Brady Bill was passed it was the Brady's that said three days and then the NRA wanted it to be instantaneous so the compromise was that after three days the sale could happen.

If they change the law to make it indefinite, couldn't they slow walk purchases?

Forgive my not remembering all this but I didn't think just an arrest would flag you in NICS.
 
I didn't think just an arrest would flag you in NICS.
Click to expand...

Just an arrest wouldn't necessarily, but Roof was charged with a felony crime. That means he was under indictment and therefore ineligible to possess a firearm. Also, because it was a drug crime, he would probably be considered a habitual user, and therefore ineligible for that reason as well.
 
Gary L. Griffiths said:
Just an arrest wouldn't necessarily, but Roof was charged with a felony crime. That means he was under indictment and therefore ineligible to possess a firearm. Also, because it was a drug crime, he would probably be considered a habitual user, and therefore ineligible for that reason as well.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So just being charged will cause one to lose 2A rights? Also, admitting you used drugs too? No conviction? Not doubting you, but that is much stricter than I originally thought.
 
Question 11.b. - 11.l. Definition of Prohibited Person:
Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less) ; is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance;
Click to expand...

Note that you have to be convicted of a crime of domestic violence or a felony, but all you have to do is BE a drug user or fugitive from justice.

One of the odd wrinkles of the difference between federal and state law is that you can legally get a medical marijuana card (state law), but it automatically prohibits you from buying a gun (federal law).
 
Roof should have failed the NICS check. Unfortunately, there was a snafu of some sort when local authorities reported the indictment to the FBI.

Furthermore, Roof lied on the 4473 when he denied being an unlawful user of drugs.

...which means we need to expand that system to cover all private transfers, right? :rolleyes:

Apparently, he was delayed, but the check timed out after 3 business days (which is the law) and the dealer released the gun. I'm expecting calls for legislation to close that "loophole" by prohibiting dealers from releasing a gun until they receive an actual proceed.

The end result? People will be put on delay and left in the cold when a result never comes back.
 
how about "closing the loophole" by requiring a response within the three days??

Or, possibly, how about not allowing someone charged with a crime that would make them a prohibited person to walk about loose???

Of course, either of those would require money, and actual WORK to make happen, so they won't choose those. Better to order everyone to wait for approval before they can exercise a constitutionally enumerated right...simpler, easier, cheaper...

the real flaw in the system is the assumption that a background check is any kind or preventative OR accurate predictor.

Sure, the nutjobs are obvious, AFTER THE FACT, right?

Didn't one of the Columbine killers have a webpage full of peace, love, brotherhood, celebrate diversity etc.??
 
I suspect there will be a push to modify the Brady Bill to say no issuance until green light from NICS.

Do you think that will happen?
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly some bill to that effect will be introduced in Congress. At least there is some logic to that approach, rather than "fixing" this problem by requiring universal background checks. :rolleyes:

IMHO, it has two chances of becoming law: Slim and None. :cool:

A more cogent question is why didn't the ATF use the 62 days between the time Roof took his purchase home and the time he shot up the church, to put the habius grabbus on him. :eek:
 
Interesting. So just being charged will cause one to lose 2A rights?
Click to expand...

No...

It makes one inelligible to purchase until the charges are dropped or they are found not guilty...

I have never heard of anyone under indictment being forced to relinquish all of their guns...May have happened, just that I am unaware...

Or, possibly, how about not allowing someone charged with a crime that would make them a prohibited person to walk about loose???

...

Better to order everyone to wait for approval before they can exercise a constitutionally enumerated right
Click to expand...

Are you advocating repeal of the 8th Amendment while beating the drum in favor of the 2nd?
 
Last edited:
IMHO, it has two chances of becoming law: Slim and None.
Click to expand...
I disagree on that. They're going to push it as a "moderate" and "common sense" measure. Consider this rhetoric:

"All we're asking is that dealers wait for a definite response. Most delays are resolved within 3 days anyway. Isn't it worth a slight, occasional delay if it just saves lives?"

If they beat the drum loud and long enough, we'll have a hard time refuting that. I heard the same arguments about Manchin-Toomey. It was claimed we just didn't want to put up with a little inconvenience.

What worries me is that many, many gun owners will agree. There are still plenty of "I own a gun, but..." types harping about universal background checks, claiming they just make sense.

A more cogent question is why didn't the ATF use the 62 days between the time Roof took his purchase home and the time he shot up the church, to put the habius grabbus on him.
Click to expand...
In my experience, that rarely happens. The ATF is slow and reluctant to act on small, local cases. They usually kick the can down to the local authorities, who generally don't act. Had the gun not been used in a shooting, they likely would never have involved themselves at all.
 
Tom Servo said:
In my experience, that rarely happens. The ATF is slow and reluctant to act on small, local cases. They usually kick the can down to the local authorities, who generally don't act. Had the gun not been used in a shooting, they likely would never have involved themselves at all.
Click to expand...

True enough, but a good push back to any proposed law.

Why didn't you arrest the law breaker LE? Put the pressure back on LE where it belongs.

I think most agree that the real answer to crime is LE. If they're locked up they can't shoot up churches.
 
44AMP said:
Or, possibly, how about not allowing someone charged with a crime that would make them a prohibited person to walk about loose???
Click to expand...

That gets closer to the issue.

We have a system for people who can't be trusted to act freely, either as a result of some malice or incompetence. We have prisons and involuntary commitment proceedings.

It is true that those systems aren't perfect and sometimes a person with malice in his heart or voices in his head does something terrible.

Treating the general population as malicious and incompetent unless they prove otherwise to the satisfaction of the state is a poor solution. Politically, the problem is that some will prefer a bad "solution" to no solution.
 
Why didn't you arrest the law breaker LE? Put the pressure back on LE where it belongs.
Click to expand...
I've asked. I get excuses about manpower, jail crowding, and docket backlog. They're the same excuses as to why we're not prosecuting gun crimes like we should.

While those are all valid concerns that need to be addressed, we don't need to be passing new laws if we can't enforce the existing ones.
 
Before we focus on new laws, we might take a look at existing laws that were problematic in this incident.

The following is a list of places that are off-limits when carrying a concealed weapon in South Carolina:
1.Law enforcement office or facility
2.Detention or correctional facility
3.Courthouse or courtroom
4.Polling place on election days
5.Office of or the business meeting the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district
6.School or college athletic event not related to firearms
7.Daycare or preschool facility
8.Place where federal law prohibits the carrying of firearms
9.Church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body10.Medical services facilities unless expressly authorized by the employer.
11.Place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 23-31-235. Except that a property owner or an agent acting on his behalf, by express written consent, may allow individuals of his choosing to enter onto property regardless of any posted sign to the contrary. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, may only be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection.

Except as provided for in item (11), a person who wilfully violates a provision of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

http://www.usacarry.com/south_carolina_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
 
I've asked. I get excuses about manpower, jail crowding, and docket backlog. They're the same excuses as to why we're not prosecuting gun crimes like we should.
Click to expand...

When asked why they were not prosecuting actual prohibited persons who failed the check (because a prohibited person trying to buy a gun is a crime)
The second highest administration official, the VICE PRESIDENT, himself, said.

"We don't have time for that!"

I saw him say it. And NO ONE challenged him on it.

With leadership like that, is it any wonder we get what we now have?

I understand the anti gun people will call for more of what didn't work, and claim that it will work. What I don't understand is why anyone would believe that.

One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing, over and over and expecting a different result."

another way to look at it is, it's kind of crazy to believe that more of what didn't work, will somehow, magically, work.

And, if we're "too busy" and "don't have time" to even make the effort, how can ANY of it work?

OK, the system failed. Welcome to reality. Don't tell me that more of the same system won't fail as well. That's not reality.
 
The Lexington county, SC sheriff says a "clerical error" allowed Roof to purchase a gun.

LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) — A jail clerk made a mistake when entering information about a drug arrest for church shooting suspect Dylann Roof, the first in a series of missteps that allowed Roof to purchase a gun he shouldn't have been able to buy two months before the attack, authorities said.

Lexington County Sheriff Jay Koon told The Associated Press in a statement that the jail discovered mistakes two days after Roof's arrest, but the change wasn't corrected in the state police database of arrests. So when a FBI examiner pulled Roof's records in April, she called the wrong agency, and Roof was eventually allowed to buy the .45-caliber handgun that would be used in the June 17 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, authorities said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top