arma virumque cano (et alia)
In other words, he passed the vaunted background check (contrary claims notwithstanding), thus meaning that making such checks "universal" would have done precisely zero to avert this horror. And you people will keep flogging that dead and rotting horse, anyway.
Yes, Kurt that is the point. Not only do we need to close the so-called private sale loopholes, we also need to tighten up the existing system.
Not only do we need to close the so-called private sale loopholes, we also need to tighten up the existing system.Good luck with that ;-).
"Close all the "flaws" you want but as long as these idiots can resort to private sales, the problem still exists." Huh? how exactly does passing an NICS check from an FFL have to do with private sales? In fact, Roof even contributed to making himself a prohibited person by confessing to drug possession. And it sounds like they even took the whole three days allowed for the background check.
"And it sounds like they even took the whole three days allowed for the background check." It appears that I was mistaken on this statement. It appears that five days elapsed before Mr. Roof returned to the gun store to complete his purchase. For some reason, there is no mention of what happened in the two months after Roof took possession of his pistol. The NICS is supposed to continue to research Delay findings until there is a final determination. If they determine the person should have been denied after the buyer has taken possession, the NICS notifies the ATF, who have the responsibility to retrieve the firearm. "Firearm Retrieval ReferralsBecause of the NICS Section's commitment to public safety and national security, the search for needed disposition information continues beyond the 3 business days to provide a determination as stated in the Brady Act. In some instances, the information is subsequently obtained and a final status determined. However, if the final status (determined after the lapse of 3 business days) results in a deny decision, and the FFL advises the NICS Section staff that the firearm was transferred, the NICS Section notifies the ATF that a prohibited person is in possession of a firearm. In 2014, the NICS Section referred 2,511 firearm retrieval actions to the ATF."https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2014-operations-report So NICS had about two months to research Roof's status. So did they just stop looking even though there was a recognized issue in not being able to find the correct police department? I caught wind of this through an article by Bob Owens, and the data seems to check out with the FBI statement.https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-comey-regarding-dylann-roof-gun-purchase
As I said to Kurt, not only do the private sale loopholes have to be closed, but the existing system needs to be tightened up.
"Flaw" is really not the right word. The system says he is not allowed to buy a gun- but somebody goofed. And to Mike, since someone at the FBI goofed, gun owners should be punished by making it a serious crime to sell, loan, or let somebody handle a gun under broad circumstances. This is the mentality we are up against.
Stop your exaggerated whining. Some of the proposals we've seen have allowed exemptions for family members. Yet you keep harping on it.
I said "under broad circumstances". As in there are limited exceptions to these crimes. No exaggeration on my part. But go ahead and tell me that you guys wouldn't whine about "the family loophole" if the shooter's father gave him the gun as originally reported. Tell me how you would stand firm to the exceptions you guys agreed to- just like you did for the Brady Bill.
So far we have heard both these arguments regarding the Charleston shooting:Yeah, I know he passed a federal background check that he wasn’t supposed to, but he *could have* gotten a gun privately. Ban private sales!!!Yeah, I know he didn’t use an assault rifle, but he *could have* bought an AR-15- and think about how much worse that would have been. Ban Assault Weapons!!!Situation doesn’t fit the narrative? Make it fit using imagination, and push the same old narrative anyway. I wonder what’s going to be next:Yeah, I know the parishioners weren’t wearing body armor, but they *could have been* and the shooter then *could have* used those green-tip assault bullets. Ban armor piercing bullets!!!Yeah, I know the nearest condor is 2500 miles away, but what if they ate some of those lead bullets and got lead poisoning? Ban lead ammo!!!
The last time we went around on this, the FBI had not released their report on his background check. The new information is that the FBI officer confessed her failure to find Roof's recent arrest report. So the sale was allowed to proceed simply because three days had already elapsed. If that's not a loophole big enough to drive a train through, I'm not sure what we are talking about here.Surely you can't believe that counts as passing the background check? This guy was yellow lighted and the greedy gun dealer took advantage of the flaw.Beale's post sourced from the NYT article on the subject explains it quite clearly. What happened is called a default proceed.
"Beale's post sourced from the NYT article on the subject explains it quite clearly. What happened is called a default proceed." An interesting article FJ, however it still doesn't answer the question I had posed as to what happened in the two months between the time Roof took possession of the firearm and he committed murder. Their policy states that they keep investigating purchases on a delay status until they come up with a definite proceed or stop decision. If they had determined in those two months that Roof was prohibited, then the ATF would have been notified and they would have gone to recover the firearm. We haven't heard any mention of that. If, due to whatever flaws outlined in the system, they decided the purchase should proceed, then the fact that he took possession while in delay status is meaningless because even if he had been forced to wait longer, he eventually would have legally purchased the firearm. I haven't heard anything either way as to what the final determination of his NICS check was. Maybe I skipped over it. Has anyone else seen anything?
I haven't heard anything either way as to what the final determination of his NICS check was. Maybe I skipped over it. Has anyone else seen anything?That's a very astute question, SSG. I haven't seen it answered, either, and agree that the answer would be very instructive.
Well, for what it is worth, he wasn't disqualified for simply being arrested on a controlled substance charge. Had he been disqualified it would have been for confessing to the police that he was in possession of a controlled substance.
Just another example that those laws are not detailed/strict enough to catch the people who should not have guns, from getting guns.
"Just another example that those laws are not detailed/strict enough to catch the people who should not have guns, from getting guns. "Anon, we currently have no idea at what point they determined that Roof was a prohibited person. Or even if the check came back as prohibited at all. If they eventually sent out a proceed status, then the three day deadline was meaningless. Even if he had been forced to wait, he would have still gotten the gun. When the Brady Bill was working its way to becoming law, before the NRA was able to get an amendment passed with the three day "loophole", the waiting period was five days. So if the amendment pushed by the NRA has not been put in and Roof acquired his gun after the five day waiting period, would everyone be blaming Handgun Control Inc., who were the original sponsors of the Brady Bill?
Thanks for describing how the NRA wants to make laws that are already to weak to work properly, even weaker. Another example how you gun loons could care less how many innocent people die needlessly from gun violence.