The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 12, 2015, 05:07 PM   #1
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,618
Background check fail

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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 05:15 PM   #2
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,464
If I read correctly, he admitted in some official documents to being a drug user.
raimius is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 05:20 PM   #3
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
I didn't think just an arrest would flag you in NICS.
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.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 05:41 PM   #4
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths
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.
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 06:02 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 7,383
Form 4473

Look at questions number 11.b and 11.e. Then read the instructions for those questions.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 06:58 PM   #6
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,240
Roof admitted to police that he had committed a dope offense.
thallub is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 07:05 PM   #7
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
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;
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).
natman is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 07:09 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,434
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?

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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 12, 2015, 11:18 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,292
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.??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 12:26 AM   #10
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,618
OK, thanks for the info.

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?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 01:41 AM   #11
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
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?
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.

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

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.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 05:25 AM   #12
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Interesting. So just being charged will cause one to lose 2A rights?
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...

Quote:
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
Are you advocating repeal of the 8th Amendment while beating the drum in favor of the 2nd?

Last edited by Salmoneye; July 13, 2015 at 03:04 PM.
Salmoneye is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 06:06 AM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,434
Quote:
IMHO, it has two chances of becoming law: Slim and None.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 08:10 AM   #14
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,415
There have been a few cases in my area where there has been arrests made from NICS/PICS denials.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 10:06 AM   #15
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
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.
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 10:24 AM   #16
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
Or, possibly, how about not allowing someone charged with a crime that would make them a prohibited person to walk about loose???
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 10:49 AM   #17
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,434
Quote:
Why didn't you arrest the law breaker LE? Put the pressure back on LE where it belongs.
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 10:55 AM   #18
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,760
Before we focus on new laws, we might take a look at existing laws that were problematic in this incident.

Quote:
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.
Emphasis added.

http://www.usacarry.com/south_caroli...formation.html
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 02:41 PM   #19
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,292
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 03:05 PM   #20
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,240
The Lexington county, SC sheriff says a "clerical error" allowed Roof to purchase a gun.

Quote:
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.
thallub is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 03:59 PM   #21
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,023
Actually President Obama has made criminal justice reform an agenda item for his last years in office. While I haven’t seen any specifics I doubt “ending the war on crime” means they plan to lock up more bad guys. To me it seems kind of strange that he wants to go easier on actual criminals while increasing restrictions on law abiding citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politi...ers/index.html
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

Last edited by BarryLee; July 13, 2015 at 04:39 PM. Reason: More current link
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 04:05 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 7,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Or, possibly, how about not allowing someone charged with a crime that would make them a prohibited person to walk about loose???
I hope you'll reconsider that proposal.

Remember, under our constitution a person is considered innocent until he/she is convicted of having committed a crime. Not everyone who is arrested is guilty (in fact, not everyone who is convicted is guilty, but that's another story for another day), and not all cases go to trial quickly. What you are proposing is that nobody who is charged can be eligible for bail. That's going to affect a LOT of innocent people.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 13, 2015, 09:54 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,292
There are many possible "proposals", and not all are acceptable. Some are not practical, and some not even possible, but they get proposed anyway.

Sorry, for not being more clear, but "how about..." is not the same as "I think we should..."
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 14, 2015, 02:47 AM   #24
Dreaming100Straight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2013
Posts: 1,048
In California, where the CDOJ screens gun purchases the state has 10, not just 3, to deny a purchase and if during those first 10 days the examiner sees anything indicating that the buyer may be a prohibited person the CDOJ notifies the dealer that decision will be delayed. It then has 30 days from the date the sale was reported for it to deny. If it does nothing in those 30 days, it does not approve or disapprove anything and it is up to the dealer if it wants to deliver a firearm to you. Many will not and they usually retain a substantial restocking fee from the purchase price.

Expect to see something like the California system proposed.
Dreaming100Straight is offline  
Old July 14, 2015, 05:54 AM   #25
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,434
Quote:
Expect to see something like the California system proposed.
That's what worries me. I had a few customers who got the whole 3-day delay every time they bought a gun. Each time, they had to wait for it to time out. In some cases, it would be a month or more before I got a final result. Sometimes, it never came.

Under a system that "fixes" the "3-day default release" period, their purchases could be put on hold indefinitely.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Tags
nics charleston roof

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13510 seconds with 9 queries