Background checks 'flawed'

Background checks 'flawed' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 3:19:16 PM)
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 3:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof. This is a symptom across the board. Government agencies display inability to do what they have been given power to do and they see the answer not as doing their jobs but getting more things to control.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 5:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof. It wasn't a screwed up Federal system. It was a failure to utilize the Federal system properly. It was human error, not system error.

KenDckey -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 7:11:17 PM)
it's called GIGO garbage in garbage out

JVoV -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 7:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof. It wasn't a screwed up Federal system. It was a failure to utilize the Federal system properly. It was human error, not system error. I'd say government employees are certainly part of "the system". And while I'm sure the woman responsible for the failure is as heartbroken as the story says, she should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty, if not prosecuted.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 7:38:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof. It wasn't a screwed up Federal system. It was a failure to utilize the Federal system properly. It was human error, not system error. I'd say government employees are certainly part of "the system". And while I'm sure the woman responsible for the failure is as heartbroken as the story says, she should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty, if not prosecuted. If we fired every federal employee who screwed up our budget problems would be solved.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 9:04:58 PM)
~Fast Reply~ Except for the part where he did not commit a felony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before-he-went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 9:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~Fast Reply~ Except for the part where he did not commit a felony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before-he-went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/ So now they screwed up by not entering the felony arrest in the system except that when they admitted to this they screwed up because he wasn't arrested? Your tax dollars at work.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 9:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~Fast Reply~ Except for the part where he did not commit a felony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before-he-went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/ So now they screwed up by not entering the felony arrest in the system except that when they admitted to this they screwed up because he wasn't arrested? Your tax dollars at work. Actually, it seems his offense was a misdemeanor.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/12/2015 9:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~Fast Reply~ Except for the part where he did not commit a felony. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before-he-went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/ So now they screwed up by not entering the felony arrest in the system except that when they admitted to this they screwed up because he wasn't arrested? Your tax dollars at work. Actually, it seems his offense was a misdemeanor. OK wish they would make up their minds

DesideriScuri -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 12:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?referrer= Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says Now, this isn't to start another gun thread, but to point out a screwed up Federal system that citizens must be able to trust to keep guns out of the hands of people like Dylann Roof. It wasn't a screwed up Federal system. It was a failure to utilize the Federal system properly. It was human error, not system error. I'd say government employees are certainly part of "the system". And while I'm sure the woman responsible for the failure is as heartbroken as the story says, she should be fired immediately for dereliction of duty, if not prosecuted. We will always have a human component to almost everything. The SEC not doing their duties (watching porn instead of doing their jobs on their taxpayers' dimes) was part of the reason for the meltdown in 2007/8. It wasn't the lack of regulation, it was the lack of regulators doing their jobs. In this case, too, if humans had run the system properly, Roof wouldn't have gotten a gun. That isn't to say that he wouldn't have still gone on a killing spree; he could have done so with an illegally gained gun, or other weapon.

MercTech -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 2:31:42 PM)
http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-store-responds-to-dylan-roof-firearm-purchase/34106936 The goof in the background check on Dylan Roof seems to be that disqualifying data in the criminal databases does not show until a person is convicted. Dylan Roof's disqualifying crimes were still pending and he had not yet been convicted. This begs the question of whether putting a disqualifying entry into the criminal database used by the FBI for background checks would be a violation of "innocent until proven guilty. If a person is disqualified from second amendment rights by "pending" charges; how fast will disqualifying entries be purged upon acquittal? Would requiring a quick and speedy trial instead of dragging out litigation for months and years not alleviate this issue? It would have in the case of Dylan Roof. Had he been convicted of the charges he had pending; he would not have passed the background check and would not have been sold a firearm. Fruitloop - 1 FBI/Justice system - 0

Aylee -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 2:43:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-store-responds-to-dylan-roof-firearm-purchase/34106936 The goof in the background check on Dylan Roof seems to be that disqualifying data in the criminal databases does not show until a person is convicted. Dylan Roof's disqualifying crimes were still pending and he had not yet been convicted. This begs the question of whether putting a disqualifying entry into the criminal database used by the FBI for background checks would be a violation of "innocent until proven guilty. If a person is disqualified from second amendment rights by "pending" charges; how fast will disqualifying entries be purged upon acquittal? Would requiring a quick and speedy trial instead of dragging out litigation for months and years not alleviate this issue? It would have in the case of Dylan Roof. Had he been convicted of the charges he had pending; he would not have passed the background check and would not have been sold a firearm. Fruitloop - 1 FBI/Justice system - 0 Even if convicted, a misdemeanor does not cancel 2nd amendment rights.

JVoV -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 2:47:56 PM)
Being an unlawful drug user or addict is reason enough to deny the application for a gun sale.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 4:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-store-responds-to-dylan-roof-firearm-purchase/34106936 The goof in the background check on Dylan Roof seems to be that disqualifying data in the criminal databases does not show until a person is convicted. Dylan Roof's disqualifying crimes were still pending and he had not yet been convicted. This begs the question of whether putting a disqualifying entry into the criminal database used by the FBI for background checks would be a violation of "innocent until proven guilty. If a person is disqualified from second amendment rights by "pending" charges; how fast will disqualifying entries be purged upon acquittal? Would requiring a quick and speedy trial instead of dragging out litigation for months and years not alleviate this issue? It would have in the case of Dylan Roof. Had he been convicted of the charges he had pending; he would not have passed the background check and would not have been sold a firearm. Fruitloop - 1 FBI/Justice system - 0 Even if convicted, a misdemeanor does not cancel 2nd amendment rights. He had been arrested for dealing drugs, isn't that a felony? His shrink had him on mood altering drugs shouldn't that have raised flags that should have been in the system?

MercTech -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 6:02:10 PM)
A "disqualifying report" in the database would be Felony Conviction Being remanded for psychiatric treatment by court order Losing citizenship by serving in the military of a foreign power Renouncing citizenship. Being arrested, being charged, and being convicted are three separate things under the law. The question, in relation to the NICS database, should arrests and convictions be included as disqualifying for purchase of a firearm? Isn't removing a constitutional right based on arrest or charge punishing the person before they are convicted of a crime? In case someone is following this that has never purchased a firearm; here is a link the the 4473 form required for purchase of a weapon. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download General info on the NICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System The fruitloop that shot up the church should have not had "pending charges" that were not taken to trial for months and months. If he had been tried in a timely manner; the conviction would have been in the NICS database and he would not have been able to purchase a handgun.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 6:39:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech A "disqualifying report" in the database would be Felony Conviction Being remanded for psychiatric treatment by court order Losing citizenship by serving in the military of a foreign power Renouncing citizenship. Being arrested, being charged, and being convicted are three separate things under the law. The question, in relation to the NICS database, should arrests and convictions be included as disqualifying for purchase of a firearm? Isn't removing a constitutional right based on arrest or charge punishing the person before they are convicted of a crime? In case someone is following this that has never purchased a firearm; here is a link the the 4473 form required for purchase of a weapon. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download General info on the NICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System The fruitloop that shot up the church should have not had "pending charges" that were not taken to trial for months and months. If he had been tried in a timely manner; the conviction would have been in the NICS database and he would not have been able to purchase a handgun. I agree that no conviction = no prohibition. I wonder more about if his shrink knew he was a danger. I am not in disagreement with you. The FBI messed up one way or another. Either by letting have the gun if he was ineligible. Or by proclaiming that he was ineligible when he wasn't.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 8:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Being an unlawful drug user or addict is reason enough to deny the application for a gun sale. You need multiple arrests and convictions to qualify. That was part of the analysis by Volokh that I linked.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 8:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-store-responds-to-dylan-roof-firearm-purchase/34106936 The goof in the background check on Dylan Roof seems to be that disqualifying data in the criminal databases does not show until a person is convicted. Dylan Roof's disqualifying crimes were still pending and he had not yet been convicted. This begs the question of whether putting a disqualifying entry into the criminal database used by the FBI for background checks would be a violation of "innocent until proven guilty. If a person is disqualified from second amendment rights by "pending" charges; how fast will disqualifying entries be purged upon acquittal? Would requiring a quick and speedy trial instead of dragging out litigation for months and years not alleviate this issue? It would have in the case of Dylan Roof. Had he been convicted of the charges he had pending; he would not have passed the background check and would not have been sold a firearm. Fruitloop - 1 FBI/Justice system - 0 Even if convicted, a misdemeanor does not cancel 2nd amendment rights. He had been arrested for dealing drugs, isn't that a felony? His shrink had him on mood altering drugs shouldn't that have raised flags that should have been in the system? Dylann Roof was arrested and charged only with misdemeanor drug possession. The Lexington County (S.C.) criminal records site reports, under “Charges,” that Roof was charged with “0179-Drugs / Poss. of other controlled sub. in Sched. I to V – 1st offense.” Charge code 0179 refers to misdemeanors. S.C. Code § 44-53-370(d)(2) provides that possessing a Schedule III substance (here, suboxone) is a misdemeanor leading to at most six months in jail. The arrest report confirms that this is what Roof was arrested for.

BamaD -> RE: Background checks 'flawed' (7/13/2015 8:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-store-responds-to-dylan-roof-firearm-purchase/34106936 The goof in the background check on Dylan Roof seems to be that disqualifying data in the criminal databases does not show until a person is convicted. Dylan Roof's disqualifying crimes were still pending and he had not yet been convicted. This begs the question of whether putting a disqualifying entry into the criminal database used by the FBI for background checks would be a violation of "innocent until proven guilty. If a person is disqualified from second amendment rights by "pending" charges; how fast will disqualifying entries be purged upon acquittal? Would requiring a quick and speedy trial instead of dragging out litigation for months and years not alleviate this issue? It would have in the case of Dylan Roof. Had he been convicted of the charges he had pending; he would not have passed the background check and would not have been sold a firearm. Fruitloop - 1 FBI/Justice system - 0 Even if convicted, a misdemeanor does not cancel 2nd amendment rights. He had been arrested for dealing drugs, isn't that a felony? His shrink had him on mood altering drugs shouldn't that have raised flags that should have been in the system? Dylann Roof was arrested and charged only with misdemeanor drug possession. The Lexington County (S.C.) criminal records site reports, under “Charges,” that Roof was charged with “0179-Drugs / Poss. of other controlled sub. in Sched. I to V – 1st offense.” Charge code 0179 refers to misdemeanors. S.C. Code § 44-53-370(d)(2) provides that possessing a Schedule III substance (here, suboxone) is a misdemeanor leading to at most six months in jail. The arrest report confirms that this is what Roof was arrested for. OK The one entity not bearing responsibility is the gun store. In this thread I am more concerned with government incompetence.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875