Dylann Roof and the gun purchase
In this post I asked the following question about the Charleston shooter: “how did Roof evade the background check if in fact he purchased the gun himself?”
Now comes an answer—except it’s not much of an answer at all:
The man accused of killing nine people in an historically black South Carolina church last month should not have been able to buy a gun, the F.B.I. said Friday in what was the latest acknowledgment of flaws in the national background check system.
A loophole in the check system allowed the man, Dylann Roof, to buy the .45-caliber handgun despite his having previously admitted to drug possession, the bureau said.
“We are all sick this happened,” said the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. “We wish we could turn back time.”
The article goes on for a while longer, but never explains what that loophole might have been and how it worked. This article, however, goes into it a bit more:
He said Roof went to a West Columbia, S.C., gun shop on April 11 to buy the gun. Under federal law, the FBI had three days to block the purchase.
But an FBI examiner in West Virginia failed to get notice of a March drug arrest of Roof that would have likely resulted in Roof being disqualified from purchasing the weapon…
Comey said the drug charge itself would not have automatically blocked the sale. But if examiners had talked to prosecutors, they would have learned that in the police report Roof admitted he had possessed the drug. That confession would have been enough to deny the gun sale, Comey said.
So, it seems that (1) there was a law on the books that would have, and should have, stopped the sale (most likely) had it been followed; but (2) there was a slip-up where the information either was not entered into the database or was not noticed or accessed if entered. The FBI examiner “failed to get notice”—what on earth does that mean? Do they even have a clue what happened, or do they know and they (or the newspapers) are being cagey about saying, because the truth reflects so poorly on them?
But the third time’s the charm. In this article we get a glimmer of information about how it happened:
Comey said, the FBI background check examiner who evaluated Roof’s request to buy a gun never saw the arrest report because the wrong arresting agency was listed on the list rap sheet that she reviewed.
I’m not quite sure what that means. Why does the arresting agency matter? Isn’t it done by name and address of the person applying, and isn’t the check for a rap sheet nationwide? What difference does the arresting agency make? Does it mean she saw that Dylan had a drug charge against him but couldn’t locate what agency to call about it? What kind of system is this? And I bet the database is rife with similar typos and careless errors.
This news will not stop the drumbeat of partisan calls for more gun laws. Why not just enforce the ones we already have? I know, I know; it’s not about that, it’s about getting more of those laws on the books in order to stifle second amendment rights.
It’s not even “2A rights” for many of the gun-controllers. It is about enforcing their culture, which finds guns icky, on the rest of us. At base, they believe that if everyone were like them we would all be safe.
It’s OK, South Carolina has taken down the Confederate flag at its state house, and the Houses has legislation to ban the flag from federal cemeteries, so this will prevent any other shootings.
Right?
In Andy McCarthy’s book Willful Blindness he records so much incompetence on the part of our government when it comes to security issues, “no fly” lists, etc. that it would take a great deal of faith to believe that our government is really living up to its responsibilities. And is there ever any resultant punishment (firing?) for those that don’t do the job? We just have to look at Benghazi to see how high the criminal negligence (I’m being generous here) goes.
The whole reason the left refuses to enforce the laws we have is so they can make new, more authoritarian laws to enforce instead.
The whole premise of FBI checks is silly to start with. I have completed he Ohio CCW mandated class and have a permit. A complete background check is required, with photos. I have the CCW permit with my photo. Each time I buy a firearm from a dealer, I fill out the form 4473 and it is called in. Each time the agent has to talk to a supervisor to get my purchase approved, this has been going on for years. Someone once told me it was because of my having a Top Secret security clearance when I was in the Air Force forty years ago. Could be, I have never been turned down, just delayed for a few minutes while a supervisor wastes everyone’s time.
Your refs explain but don’t explain. I have purchased guns from legitimate gun shops. The background check (at least in my case) was done electronically and took all of two minutes. With the national database approval, I was permitted to purchase the guns.
There are, however, BIG loopholes. Some locations (SC?) do it all by hand and the data is phoned in to somewhere. VERY DUMB. If you can’t get the computer hookup, you shouldn’t be able to sell guns!
Another huge loophole is the so-called”Gun Show exemption” Same comments apply – either have a computer or don’t sell guns.
However, the biggest loopholes are the local police and medical professionals do not always report to the national database all people they have dealt with who should not be able to buy guns. Failure to report should be a felony!
Fix all these loopholes and you significantly slow down gun related violence. Add to that a change in law so that use of a gun in a felony mandates that you get 5 years in prison (state or federal). Do all that and you have a reasonable system
If you want to reduce the sales of guns to felons, druggies and the mentally unstable, this is how to do it.
The form used in firearms purchases is called a 4473 (Firearms Transfer, Over The Counter). There are several questions on the form, one being “Have you been convicted of a felony”, another which is “Are you under indictment for a felony” (the actual language is a bit more detailed).
While Roof had been arrested, I believe that he was neither under indictment nor had he yet been convicted. If that was the case, then an answer of “no” to those questions, while misleading, was not in fact a lie.
On the other hand, if he had indeed be convicted and the paperwork was not properly processed, that’s a different story.
What really smells here is that no one is discussing the details of Roof’s legal standing at the time of purchase nor the ATF records of the processing other than what has been mentioned above. “We need more money and more laws” is an inappropriate response given the fraud and abuse already rampant in the agency. Of course they are going to say he shouldn’t have passed (although that technically may not be true); blaming the “system” is a cop-out.
And the oft-quoted “gun show loophole” does not in fact exist. All transfers from FFLs at gun shows must pass through a background check (and the great majority of sellers at shows are indeed FFLs).
The only transfers that do not require checks are direct person to person transfers that can be conducted in any environment and don’t require a gun show. This typically consists of parents transferring firearms to their children or other family members.
There was an example from a school shooting not far from here (Marysville Pilchuck, for the curious) that shows one way these systems can fail.
The boy used his father’s gun which his father had purchased, when he shouldn’t have been able to — because the reservation hadn’t shared its records with other jurisdictions.
(If you want more details, you can start by following the footnotes in this Wikipedia article on the shootings.)
Molon Labe:
The situation was that Roof was under indictment, but for misdemeanor drug possession rather than a felony (back when the crime first occurred, I had originally read that it was a felony charge, but that turns out to have been incorrect). However, he had confessed to possessing drugs (a narcotic).
The point is not whether Roof lied on the form (I doubt that he did, if it never asked about drug use or possession, but merely asked about felony charges). The point is that:
The reason the drug charge itself would not have automatically blocked the sale is that it was not a felony charge. But apparently the correct procedure, on learning of the misdemeanor charge pending, should have been for the FBI examiner to have spoken to the prosecutors to get more details. Had she done so, she would have learned he had already confessed to possessing drugs, and denied the gun sale.
The problem was not that Roof lied on his application—no one is saying he did. The problem was that when they ran his name through the database either the misdemeanor charge didn’t appear, or it didn’t appear in such a way that the examiner could do the proper follow-up because the information about which arresting agency to get in touch with was incorrect.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accused-charleston-shooter-should-not-have-been-able-to-buy-gun/2015/07/10/0d09fda0-271f-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html
The details are supposedly in there now.
The FBI human checker saw his record and then had to get verification before denial. So they called up the police department, except it was the wrong district. It was the other district, so the police department she called up had no record. It then passed the 3 day limit, and the sale went through.
Bureaucratic errors, even though humans did notice the arrest on his file. More or tougher gun control laws won’t stop that, it just lets the Left selectively decree who will or will not be allowed.
All the laws in the country concerning firearms are useless in stopping crimes where a gun is present. Laws will not stop a determined thug or psycho from obtaining or misusing a firearm. And the gun grabbers with IQ above single digits know this to be true. The laws are designed solely to infringe on the right of responsible citizens to keep and bear arms. As the joke goes… ATF should be a convenience store.
Switzerland has a system that works, but the Left looks at it and says that they need more gun control, so we should be like them and Obey. If the system is working, why do they want to fix it? Because they want to break it, that’s why. Same happens here.
If the system works well most of the time, they will force it to Fail and thus engineer a collapse, a Reichstag.
If the system works well most of the time, they will force it to Fail and thus engineer a collapse, a Reichstag.
Steyn:
The Stupidity of Sophisticates.
Your Libtard family, ‘friends’, neighbor, colleagues, acquaintances do.not.mean.you.well!
Having Liberals as pets is very dangerous ….
Can some one enlighten me?
What is the connection between committing a crime and not being allowed to own a gun?
Is the rationale that you forfeit a right (like a felon losing the vote), or that committing (fill in the blank) means you are more likely to abuse gun ownership?
And totally unrelated, when a human being makes a mistake which in 100,000 other circumstances would have no adverse consequences to anyone, but in one circumstances might have saved the lives of nine people had it not been committed, what are the principles used to distinguish the significance of the one mistake?
Neo, here is going to be the playbook:
The law will be castigated as so full of holes that it needs to be changed so that the FBI has “time” to do the check. Then after the law is changed, the FBI takes years to do a check, during which time you can’t buy your gun. This has been the goal of the check law since the beginning. Second Amendment supporters in Congress knew this, and that is why the FBI is required to act quickly, or the purchase is allowed. The gun banners want it changed so that the FBI can delay all purchases.
Ton, removal of rights from due process.
A person normally has the right to pursue happiness and life, but those can be taken away by violence or due process + authority.
A citizen normally has the duty to defend their civilization. However, they cannot accomplish that duty if they are reliant on some other faction for their agency, their freedom, their economic independence, or their security.
The ATF will try to take this power from the FBI. Because we all know the ATF is more humane and efficient than the FBI, just look at Fast and Furious.
i own 6 rifles, 1 shotgun, and 3 handguns, all obtained legally. I am a lifetime nra a member, a marksmen instructor for the local boy scouts, and have never used a gun in an irresponsible or illegal manner. It is the height of bureaucractic absurdity to have me fill out a 4473 if I decide to buy another firearm. Meanwhile an illegal alien, a known crimimal, obtains the stolen handgun of a federal agent and murders a young woman in SF, but the feds want me, a citizen born on our soil, to fill out a stupid form.
How f&%ked up can you imagine?
The feds want weapons to prop up their Authority with violence. They call it budget wars, but that’s the end goal one way or another.
The citizens are not expected to fight for the US, because the domestic traitors don’t fight for the US. The domestic traitors expect the citizens to either Obey Authority or rebel, since the traitors understand that treason in the US is not good until it can be called patriotism or homo pro marriage at least.
FBI Director Falsely Claims Background Check System Failed In Charleston Church Shooting
Worse than the worse third world stinkholes …..
neo:
Fist of all – well reasoned discussion. Very much appreciated, which is one reason I read your blog consistently.
Second – see Eugene Volokh’s discussion of the legal situation regarding Roof.
I will admit to being a bit paranoid…but not being paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you……
As others have stated, when was the last time the government apologized for a mistake that was not made? If there is no mistake here (and it seems possible that is the case outside of human “data entry” error which as I read it is NOT what the FBI is alleging) then it would seem that saying there was a mistake is a politically expedient lie.
The follow up is then a discussion of motive and intent (of the government in lying). Ultimately, this becomes a confusing distraction from the real issue. Which happens to be: criminals (be definition) do not follow the law. Even if the weapon was legally obtained, time being what it is, it is always possible that someone who legally owns a firearm later uses that same firearm in an illegal act. Is it possible? Of course it’s possible and has happened throughout history. It’s not a question of legal ownership of weapons (whatever the current weapons technology happens to be at the time). Self defense is a human right. It’s a question of evil and morality.
The essence of evil is that is does exist and will continue to exist for as long as humans exist. The commission of evil is not balked by laws whether in the past, now, or in the future. Don’t allow the argument of “we need more laws because the ones we have failed” (that’s basically what is being suggested here) to prevail when it hasn’t been clearly demonstrated that the laws themselves have failed. How do laws fail, when criminals ignore them? That’s not a failure of the law. That is a failure of the criminal to abide by the law, which is a question of personal responsibility as opposed to rightful legislation. If Roof’s purchase was illegal because of a true mistake, no law will ever fix that. If it was not really a mistake, then new laws are not required because the law itself didn’t fail.
Finally, there is the ultimate question which is whether the legislation/laws are rightful and appropriate in the first place. Our country, grand though it be, has a history full of bad laws which hew against the moral code upon which the country is founded. Our system of government is designed for a moral people…it is wholly unsuitable for any other (I probably should have quoted that, but accept my apologies for not doing so). If criminals act amorally (an underlying presumption given a moral law), then they are outside of the basic assumptions of our founding and shall be judged as such.
Which part of “…shall not be infringed” is not well understood? OK, given the recent Supreme Court rulings, I would say many things that should be well understood are not. The Second Amendment is simply one more of those things.
Molon Labe:
Well, I’m certainly not suggesting that “we need more laws because the ones we have failed.”
In fact, the law we had didn’t fail in terms of the law itself. It failed because it wasn’t followed properly; there was a careless error.
So the argument is that the law was adequate; it was human error that occurred, and human error is always going to occur with regularity. That’s why more gun laws are not only NOT necessary, they are doomed to periodic failure because of human error. That, by the way, is a separate issue from whether the laws we have on the books infringe too much on our Second Amendment rights. One can think that the laws are very effective at preventing crime and still think they are a dangerous and unwarranted infringement on the rights of the ordinary citizen to bear arms. One can think the laws are ineffective at preventing crime and still think the Second Amendment just is talking about militias and there is no need for an ordinary person to have the right to have guns.
And I am in complete agreement that criminals will be getting guns with or without these laws. I don’t think for a moment that Roof couldn’t have gotten a gun some other way if he’d been blocked in his purchase.
Which part of “…shall not be infringed” is not well understood? OK, given the recent Supreme Court rulings, I would say many things that should be well understood are not.
They understand that it is in their way to creating a utopia, constructing Slavery 3.0
This time, the whites and blacks will not get off the Demoncrat plantation. They had Sherman and Lincoln to free them before but when the majority are Demoncrats, things will turn out otherwise.