The MSM can’t get it right: about the gun
And I don’t think they care. Just the narrative, Ma’m, just the narrative.
Case in point: how many times, in how many places, did you read that Roof’s father gave him a gun for his 21st birthday, which occurred in April?
Just about everywhere. The information appears to have originated in an interview with Roof’s uncle.
It seems as though this would be important enough information to have wanted to authenticate it or to at least get a second source on it before printing, because it implicates Roof’s father, who would be presumed to have known that Roof was facing felony charges at the time stemming from his arrest for narcotics possession.
Nevertheless, it was printed, re-printed, re-printed again and discussed as though it were an example of Roof’s father’s negligence and even perhaps a crime on his part.
Now it turns out it’s not true—that is, if we can believe this CNN report (which I happen to think has a decent chance of being more accurate, because this time the information is quoted as having come from two unnamed “law enforcement officials”):
One key part of this horrific scheme — the weapon — came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development. His grandfather says that Roof was given “birthday money” and that the family didn’t know what Roof did with it.
This makes more sense. Perhaps over time we’ll even learn which report is actually true.
I have another question, though. If the above is indeed true, how did a person such as Roof, who was facing felony charges at the time, buy a gun legally?
This article from yesterday mentions that, as an accused felon, Roof would not have been allowed to purchase a gun. The rest of the article operates on the assumption (now disproved??) that the gun was a gift from Roof’s father, and explores the legal ramifications of that. But the initial question remains, and I don’t see many people asking it: how did Roof evade the background check if in fact he purchased the gun himself?
Seems like this would be important to know, because if there’s a glitch in the process of gun purchase that allows those charged with a felony in a pending case to get guns that easily, then it needs to be fixed.
Hmmm, charged but not convicted? I would have thought that the prohibition on firearms purchases would come after the conviction (I mean, what if he’s found not guilty?), but The Blaze seems very certain.
Neo,
Innocent unless proven guilty, remember? Unless Roof was convicted then he would not show up in the NIC system. While tragic in this case, it is as it should be: civil rights are not lost until conviction.
I will not be surprised if it turns out that the gun was bought legally and Roof passed a background check. It simply proves that background checks are not really that useful for preventing crime. They are Kabuki theater, like theTSA.
Left coast conservative:
It appears you are wrong about the law for purchasing guns in South Carolina.
This is the rule (see the third paragraph):
Also see here:
I am assuming that “receive” means purchase or get as gift or possess.
In the article I quoted in the post, it says this:
He was innocent till proven guilty, but that has nothing to do with the gun purchase laws. If someone is charged with a felony, while the case is pending they are not allowed to purchase a gun.
In South Carolina, law abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are allowed to carry their legal, concealed handguns in public.
However, South Carolina Code Ann.§ 23-31-215 prohibits them from carrying their guns in “churches or other religious sanctuaries.”
This “gun-free” zone did not prevent Dylann Storm Roof from murdering nine innocent people, but it did prevent those innocent people from being allowed to defend themselves.
Alternately, he could have just bought an illegal gun.
organized crime has as booming market, practically world wide. Criminals with money can buy a gun in most places in the world. It costs a great deal more money than a legal purchase, but they can get one.
The gun laws are about tracking legitimate owners, and always was.
The real culprit, of course, is the vicious and insane culture–or rather the parody of one–that the left has forced on us.
Take one look at at that guy; he is a product of the liberal world, not “Gun culture” or Southern “white boys”.
One of these days, the left is going to actually stagetheir very own “Reichstag fire” around this sort of thing. They have too. As they get their NWO, which seems to be happening now that the TTP is going through, they have to disable the populous, particularly the white working and middle class. Otherwise they will nt be able to walk down the street.
my post didnt make it and i dont want to repeat it
basically they keep reporting that dad gave it to him and so that violated a loop hole.. which is wrong
and the law in the gun control act does not state a felony indicthment as people are saying, but only one in which the sentence is over a year…
so in essence, since its simple posession, he would get a deferred sentence of treatment for first cases, and that is not a felony sentence of over one year, and so he could buy a gun.
thats that.
Artfldgr:
I gave links and quotes from several websites that specialize in South Carolina re guns, and they all say the same thing, which is that anyone facing pending felony charges cannot get or possess or carry a gun South Carolina.
If you have information to the contrary, please cite a reference.
Wouldn’t a heavy drug user have contacts from which avail himself of firearm(s)?
If you have information to the contrary, please cite a reference.
i did…
but the dam n system ate it..
i looked up south carolina STATE law, which is what he is charged under… and i looked up the gun control act and quoted it.
It is illegal in South Carolina to possess CDS without a valid medical prescription. Penalties vary according to the type and amount of CDS involved in the violation, as described below. (S.C. Laws Ann. §§ 44-53-370(c).)
Possessing any other Schedule I,II, III, IV, or V CDS is a misdemeanor (excluding cocaine). Penalties for a first offense include a fine of up to $1,000, up to six months in jail, or both. Second or subsequent offenses incur a fine of up to $2,000, up to one year in jail, or both.
suboxone is schedule III…
and 44-53-450 says the sentence for this is usually a conditional discharge with treatment.
The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
so the federal law does not say what the papers and everyone else is saying… it says the above.
anyone else want to bother looking up laws, schedules and such BEFORE they copy horrid journlists copying other horrid journalists?
oh, and the link you gave for the gun thing was an article that claimed he got around the law by getting it from his dad… so they got that wrong, and no one bothered to actually look up the statuted and the sentences… and compare that to the federal law..
one really should not believe the press and their agenda and that they would say anything valid as to actual gun laws… your talking about people who dont know that its a magazine not a clip, that semiautomatic is not automatic, and on and on.
the interesting thing is that once you start looking yourself, you start to really see who is telling the truth, who is gilding the lilly, and who is outright lying or copying lies…
Arfldgr:
No, I gave a bunch of links in my comment, here. That’s what I’m referring to; perhaps you didn’t see the comment. Those sites are sites explaining South Carolina law. I was not relying on the newspaper article.
And Roof’s felony charge could be punishable by at least one year in prison, anyway. See this chart.
See this post for information on the felony charges against Roof. They apparently included meth and cocaine, as well as a narcotic substance.
I do like your channeling of Joe Friday, Neo — “just the narrative, ma’am, just the narrative”. 😉
A report today said that gun sellers rely on an FBI data base, and that it does not include pending felony charges.
I do not know if that is accurate. The last guns I bought were in Virginia, and I thought that they queried a State Police data base. Presumably, you cannot cross state lines and buy a gun, so that makes some sense.
There are loop holes. There are also a lot of questions. A room mate said that he had been planning this for months. Where was that room mate? Was he really on some mood altering drugs? If so, shouldn’t that have been reported?
As usual the media is having a field day, and Obama is trying to make political hay. In his remarks yesterday he could not resist a “shot” (pun is intended) at the U.S. However, his statement that this does not happen in other developed countries has encountered push back. Steve Hayward at http://www.powerlineblog.com cites the many instances of multiple murders in Europe, where gun control is universal. Just the number in the past 5 to 10 years is impressive. The most horrific occurred in the very civilized country of Norway. The most recent, of course, in Paris. I guess Obama assumes that he can lie with impunity, because most of the media will cover for him.
I think you answered your question here in your other post today, asking yourself what else can’t the government do. Just one more to add to the list.
Nevertheless we are assured, if the government outlawed guns altogether, they would never make the mistake of letting a nut get his hands on one. Yes, I can see how this makes sense.
neo-neocon Says:
“I gave links and quotes from several websites that specialize in South Carolina re guns, and they all say the same thing, which is that anyone facing pending felony charges cannot get or possess or carry a gun South Carolina.”
A: Illegal yes
B: shows up in the federal database; not sure (charged but not resolved). That could be the weak link.
MSewerM can’t get miner deaths, iraq, Afghanistan, elections, polls, economics, Syria, Rhodesia, Benghazi, Somalia, and so on, they can’t get any of those right either.
The feds are retarded, and that’s on a good day. On the bad day, they are working for Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Hussein O, and Holder’s Authorities and Orders.
A good federal operation by the on the ground commander and intel gatherer, is the one that raided the house of that Democrat activist in California and found bomb making materials.
See, when the feds profile Dems and they aren’t Muslims, it somehow works out, nobody dies.
Any commenter here ever bought a gun? And filled out the Instant Check form? The Buyer’s name, DOB, driver license data are called in to the FBI. Your SSN is requested but is “optional”. There are yes/no questions as to depression, drugs, arrests, restraining orders, prior domestic abuse, but it is the Honor System at work…only the Yes answers are reported to the FBI over the phone, along with the gun and its serial #.
Been a while, but that is what I recall about the FBI check on gun purchase eligibility.
Seems to me it does not work as a screen any better than TSA screen works against terrorists. Does generate a data base though, so FBI knows what I have, gun-wise.
That SC bans gun purchase if one is awaiting outcome of felony arrest is, again, I suspect, the honor system at work.
The failure of honor systems is symptomatic of our societal decline.
Frog:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Here’s a description of the way it works:
More at the link.
If Roof’s father gifted him the gun directly, of course the system would not apply; that is on the honor system, although the transaction would still have been illegal. If Roof bought it, there would have been an obligatory check, and the only question is whether a pending felony would have shown up in the database or not. The background check for purchases, as described in the quote above, is not on the honor system.
Neo: I’m with Frog. The forms I’ve filled out require my name, but I don’t believe it was checked against my ID. Likewise I was advised to enter my SSN, so as to speed up the check and avoid misidentification, but it’s not required.
In other words, the NICS check is by no means foolproof. I have no idea if the Charleston killer — I choose not to refer to him by name — is clever enough to deliberately subvert the system. But it’s certainly not impossible.
And, as others here have pointed out, a person with a known history of purchasing illegal drugs might well have had contacts for purchasing a black-market gun. (This seems more plausible to me.)
I guarantee that, if he purchased his .45 handgun at a legal gun store, this fact will come out soon, and the gun store in question will be hounded in the press non-stop. If we do not see this happening, then this, to my mind, increases the likelihood of a black-market purchase.
Daniel in Brookline:
I certainly don’t think the system is foolproof; far from it. It does seem to have failed in Roof’s case, doesn’t it?
I also pointed out that many guns are purchased illegally on the black market in today’s post on the subject.
Neo: I am so glad you take the word of CNN over my observation as a gun-buyer, and Daniel in Brookline’s. And place your trust in digital links.
Frog:
My goodness, what makes you think I’m saying they are right and you are wrong? I’m saying that’s what the law reads, the letter of the law, and I’m relatively certain that is the experience that some people have, perhaps even many. I do not think you are lying about what happened to you, nor do I think your experience is unique to you. I just don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of why it happened (as against what the law reads), and how often that happens.
Neo: you and Frog seem to be arguing over theory vs. practice. You’ve linked to a description of how NICS is supposed to work, and how it in theory works. Frog and I are describing how we’ve seen it work, in practice, and how there seem to be multiple opportunities to game the system — i.e. to get the system to fail to flag you as someone who ought not be allowed to buy a firearm — if you’re clever (and a little lucky).
I certainly don’t think the system is foolproof; far from it. It does seem to have failed in Roof’s case, doesn’t it?
Only if we assume that he purchased his .45 legally. CNN is making that claim, yes… but CNN has certainly been wrong before, and the possibility of a black-market purchase still seems to me at least as likely, barring evidence to the contrary.
Pingback:Kaufman: Obama’s Hypocrisy on Gun Control | Jack's Newswatch (refresh frequently)
Hussein’s Regime was caught ordering legal gun stores to sell to Mexican cartels and drug dealers, in order to ramp up the civilian casualties and confiscate US guns.
Do people really think they aren’t on Fast and Furious 2.0?
The case for schizophrenia:
1) ““He turned into a loner in the last couple of years and no one knew why,” said a woman reached at the house of his [Roof’s] former stepmother.” LONER.
2)”Mr. Roof told his horrified victims that African-Americans were ‘raping our women’. ” PARANOID DELUSION
Quotes are from a 6/18 WSJ story.
Not conclusive for a diagnosis yet. But more will emerge, I expect.
}}} Seems like this would be important to know, because if there’s a glitch in the process of gun purchase that allows those charged with a felony in a pending case to get guns that easily, then it needs to be fixed.
No problem, Obama is On The Case.
He plans to outlaw guns entirely as the solution.
Baby, bathwater, anyone?