"The gunmen who committed the callous attacks in Charleston, Chattanooga and Lafayette should not have been able to acquire firearms," said Jim Johnson, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, a coalition of police organizations that includes the Major Cities Chiefs Association. "Yet, reports indicate that the three alleged perpetrators were able to buy guns either through federally licensed gun dealers or through an online website listing firearms for sale, demonstrating the need to both strengthen and expand background checks."
It makes three recommendations.
- Background checks should be expanded to cover both purchases from federally licensed firearms dealers and private sellers. Currently, only sales from licensed dealers are included in the background check requirement.
- As proposed by the Shooting Sports Foundation, states and federal agencies should share all disqualifying information to the background check system.
- Gun sellers shouldn't sell a gun until the transaction is cleared by the background system, even if it takes more than the currently permitted three days.
"Last year, the FBI reported more than 2,500 guns were sold to people who should have been barred, but sales proceeded nevertheless," said Johnson, the Baltimore County (Md.) Police chief. "As the Charleston shooting rampage painfully shows, there are some cases where more time to investigate before a firearm is transferred would mean more lives saved."
"As the Charleston shooting rampage painfully shows, there are some cases where more time to investigate before a firearm is transferred would mean more lives saved.
ReplyDeleteDylan Roof picked up his gun not three days after having his name entered into the NICS system, but five days. Then, he waited two months (the entirety of which the investigation into his eligibility to purchase a firearm was supposed to be ongoing, and if he'd been found to be a "prohibited person," the gun would be confiscated, and presumably Roof arrested), before he committed his atrocity.
So apparently not only is three days not enough, but nor is five days, nor even two months and five days. What an easy way for a government to shut down gun commerce--just "investigate" every prospective buyer indefinitely.
"Dylan Roof picked up his gun not three days after having his name entered into the NICS system, but five days."
DeleteKurt, the law actually says three business days, and since he tried to buy on a Saturday, it and Sunday doesn't count in regards to the law. Though they do still seem to be operating. I'm still waiting for the promised review to find out at what point, did they discover Roof was a prohibited person, or if they ever did find out till after the fact.
Much has been made of the three day limit on delaying a purchase to allow for a background check with much blame being heaped on the "evil NRA"
DeleteHowever, the original bill sponsored by the group that eventually came to be called the Brady Campaign, mandated a five day waiting period. If the original bill had passed without amendments, would we all now be blaming the group that used to be called Handgun Control Inc.?
Kurt, the law actually says three business days, and since he tried to buy on a Saturday, it and Sunday doesn't count in regards to the law.
DeleteOops--you're right, of course, and as usual. Thanks for the correction.
That's SS, blaming something on a bill that never passed.
DeleteIn addition to Kurt's good description of the details about the Charleston shooter, what exactly what laws would have stopped the terrorist in Chattanooga? I've not seen anything that suggests that he was either a prohibited person or used prohibited weapons.
ReplyDeleteNone of your 3 comments mentions the suggested positions mentioned in the article. But it's OK for you to go off (divert from) the topic, but no one else can. So to make it clear SS, do you support the 3 positions stated in this article?
DeleteActually two of my comments discussed the NICS background check system and how it worked in regards to one of the shootings mentioned in the article. Namely the shooting in Charleston.
DeleteThe third comment was in regards to another shooting mentioned in the article, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga and my observation that the shooter wasn't a prohibited person.
I think the second position is a good one. You likely wouldn't approve of it because that position was authored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry organization. The NSSF also said in the article,
"The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun dealers, said the focus shouldn't be on the "back-end of the background check system." Instead, it said, that the focus should be on ensuring that states submit all disqualifying criminal and mental health records to the background check system and that the system gets "the support it needs at the federal and state level." It said 99 percent of delayed background checks eventually end in the approval of the transaction."
And I agree with that too.
"what exactly what laws would have stopped the terrorist in Chattanooga?"
DeleteThat's a trick question. I've told you many times you cannot work backwards from one single incident unless you're going to accept all hypothetical scenarios.
Let's see, if we had really strict gun control, any number of laws MIGHT have prevented this. He might have lost his gun rights due to a dropped gun or a negligent discharge. He might have been known to the local sheriff as a problem kid and denied the gun licence under the may issue system, etc., etc.
"That's a trick question. I've told you many times you cannot work backwards from one single incident unless you're going to accept all hypothetical scenarios."
DeleteNot a trick question at all Mike. From everything I've read, the only contact Joe Terrorist had with law enforcement was a DUI. While I'm sure that's on your list for lifetime disqualification to possess firearms, currently it doesn't even do that for cars or even a license to drive one.
As for your assertion that you cant work backwards from one incident, isn't that exactly what Mr. Johnson from the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence is attempting to do by using these events to advocate for even more gun laws?
There's SS again thwarting the improvement of gun laws so they actually work.
DeleteAnon, there are enough exceptions to the assertion that more gun laws work to suggest there are, as Mike often says, "other factors" that contribute to high or low violent crime rates above and beyond strict gun laws.
DeleteSo continuing to fixate on more laws when they don't necessarily improve things isn't logical.
Your kill crazy gun loon side won't let them work. If 3 days isn't enough time, you fools anything longer than 3 days, is unconstitutional, just one example. I fixate on people like you who could care less about preventable death. You are sick.
Delete