Someone's gonna pay....Dylan Roof failed background check....

[Amputee Marksman]

How about in this case they do a couple of things.

1. Admit the computer system was lacking in some features (or buggy if you prefer) and make a commitment to fix the problems (in this case the geographics of a city in 2 counties was the problem I believe).

2. Terminate or discipline the employee(s) who made mistakes on this specific background check.

 

[Hvymax]

How about in this case they do a couple of things.

1. Admit the computer system was lacking in some features (or buggy if you prefer) and make a commitment to fix the problems (in this case the geographics of a city in 2 counties was the problem I believe).

2. Terminate or discipline the employee(s) who made mistakes on this specific background check.

Never Happen.

 

[NHAtHeart]

Never Happen.

Exactly, no accountability for where the failure actually happened, just a cry for moar gun lawz!!! Rar rar rar!!

 

[Kevin_NH]

this is just a reason they are going to use to tighten up background checks. instead of releasing a gun after 3 days, dealers will be required to hold until they get a clear "go" they will also use this as a reason to slow down the process and make it "more thorough" to "prevent tragedies"

This may be their agenda, but it won't survive a court challenge, and SC Governor isn't helping them any:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said on Sunday that she did not support increasing waiting periods to allow federal officials ample time to conduct background checks even though flaws in the current law allowed Charleston shooter Dylann Roof to purchase a gun. "When the FBI called us, we were told that it was an FBI issue, that it was not a state issue," she said.
“I think we need to look at the fact that it’s not about time,” she continued. “It’s about technology. You know, this is something, when someone has a charge filed against them, it should go into a database and it should be shown immediately to anyone that’s looking at it.”

“So, I would be more interested in what went wrong. What sort of — why are they dealing with paperwork and not dealing with technology that they wouldn’t have had this.”

If they just stick with demanding that the 3 day delay time frame be increased, they'll have a better shot at it.

That's not happening, given that the number of NICS fail-open delays which turn out to be legit denials" is a statistically insignificant number. The danger zone here is really in mental health restriction pandering, because then they get to use the argument of "Well you don't want crazy people to have guns, do you?" etc. Worse yet depending on what kind of bullshit they come up with theres a good possibility much of it will withstand legal tests in a court of law as "reasonable restrictions".

I agree -- the NICS "delay loophole" is not a good issue on which to hang their hats, it's too difficult to explain in a soundbite and raises too many questions they don't want to answer (why so few prosecutions for felons who attempt a purchase and are denied outright?). Much better for them to stick with the original plan, push states to do more to get both criminal and mental health records into the system.

 

[Ezra]

the NICS "delay loophole" is not a good issue on which to hang their hats, it's too difficult to explain in a soundbite and raises too many questions they don't want to answer (why so few prosecutions for felons who attempt a purchase and are denied outright?). Much better for them to stick with the original plan, push states to do more to get both criminal and mental health records into the system.

This. If he did actually 'fail' a background check, just a little later than the three days, this means that the FBI knew for two months that he is prohibited, and had a pistol. And the FBI did absolutely nothing.

 

[kevin9]

This. If he did actually 'fail' a background check, just a little later than the three days, this means that the FBI knew for two months that he is prohibited, and had a pistol. And the FBI did absolutely nothing.

According to the OP article Roof did not fail a background check, at least in time for it to make any difference: "About a week after the shooting, examiners officially denied the Roof application." It appears that either he passed an incorrectly done background check, or more likely, IMNSHO, work on the check was stopped after 3 days leaving it in a "delayed" state.

An interesting legal question is how could the FBI deny an application that's over 2 months old given current law and regulation restricting the retention of NICS records:

Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. ... If the record is not able to be updated, the purchaser continues to be denied or delayed, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted on every subsequent purchase.

 

[soloman02]

According to the OP article Roof did not fail a background check, at least in time for it to make any difference: "About a week after the shooting, examiners officially denied the Roof application." It appears that either he passed an incorrectly done background check, or more likely, IMNSHO, work on the check was stopped after 3 days leaving it in a "delayed" state.

An interesting legal question is how could the FBI deny an application that's over 2 months old given current law and regulation restricting the retention of NICS records:

The answer: They are breaking the law and have compiled the NICS info into a database.

 

[kevin9]

The answer: They are breaking the law and have compiled the NICS info into a database.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

 

[MachineHead]

Jail Clerical Error Acknowledged in Church Shooting Gun Buy

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...dged-church-shooting-gun-buy-32422432?ts=true

...so do you think the moms will pack up their anti-liberty rants and concede that "gun control" doesn't work? [sarcasm]

 

[KBCraig]

All of these MSM horror stories show a typical lack of journalistic curiosity: none of them ask the important question of, "Was it a felony drug charge, or a misdemeanor?"

Every report that I've seen that actually tracks down that answer, says it was a misdemeanor. And thus, no, it wasn't a failure of NICS.

 

[bigblue]

My reading was the clerk error mistakenly changed a misdemeanor to a felony and put the charge in the wrong county.

Since when does a misdemeanor drug charge make someone a PP?

 

[mikem317]

My reading was the clerk error mistakenly changed a misdemeanor to a felony and put the charge in the wrong county.

Since when does a misdemeanor drug charge make someone a PP?

It doesn't. Unless you answer truthfully on 11e on 4473, right? He obviously checked "no", that's why the check was phoned in by the FFL.

"But we need moar gun lawz!"

 

[bigblue]

So he answered a question "incorrectly" that would not have disqualified him and thus should have been disqualified?

Dumbest. Form. Ever.

I think it was written by one of my old accounting profs. Jackass used to double up on the same question when he was too lazy to think of a new one.

 

[KBCraig]

Having been charged with misdemeanor possession, even if he admits guilt doesn't make him "addicted to or an unlawful user of any controlled substance".

Oh, hey, remember when you pulled your back and took a Vicodin that was left over from your wife's oral surgery? ILLEGAL DRUG USER!

 

[drgrant]

So he answered a question "incorrectly" that would not have disqualified him and thus should have been disqualified?

Dumbest. Form. Ever.

I think it was written by one of my old accounting profs. Jackass used to double up on the same question when he was too lay to think of a new one.

Most retarded part is "were going to ask the potential bad guy whether or not he did bad things and then hope/see if he's stupid enough to be honest."