but I believe it came out later that he bought the gun himself with birthday money.

He used money he received as a birthday gift to buy it.

from Brady group

3 days may be too short when dealing with various agencies that are require to report.

a person can be disqualified from legal firearms purchase (felony/violent domestic AND mental incompetence). The finding should be IMMEDIATELY transmitted to the NICS system.

It ain't a credit check. It's not fact-checking. It's not aging cheap beer.

It is a speed-of-light transmission.

Only after the Virginia Tech shooting study was it revealed that the killer was adjudicated incompetent to own a firearm, but the bureaus failed to shuffle the paperwork. Further, VA was second only to CA regarding the quantity and speed for reporting judicial findings which would disqualify a buyer. Not reassuring. And it persists.

Many pro-2A folks advocate opening up NICS to the general public. I wonder if NICS could even handle that.

among them is the obviously really poor and untimely reporting by institutions that should be reporting.

But there are interesting things to learn from how it does work, too.

The people getting caught illegally buying weapons are most often convicted offenders and persons evading police. This would suggest that timeliness in reporting convictions, warrants, etc. should be something done with real urgency.

Another is that the biggest holes in the database surrounds inclusion of drug users. Illegal drug use is known to contribute to increase the likelihood of violence by 300 percent. So, a person recognized by the court as an illicit drug user, should also have very high priority for entry of their identification into the database.

A third is that the mentally ill who appear in almost every call for increased surveillance at gun purchase, actually have a low rate of attempting to illegally buy firearms when they are placed on the banned from purchase list. Which suggests that identifying those deemed dangerous to self and/or others for reasons of mental competence and --informing them that they are on the list of banned gun purchasers-- may be a useful deterrent for that group.

on edit, I don't think NICS should be opened up for searching by the general public, I do think every gun sale should be handled through a broker who uses the NICS to confirm the buyer isn't banned from purchase

Mental incompetence should be determined in the courts; drug use by convictions in court. The VT killer was adjudicated for the former, the Charleston killer for the latter. There is no reason why in this era of souped-up information transfer why this data - - numbering in the hundreds of thousands -- can't be sent up as fast as millions of "hits" on Kim Kardashian's butt.

I think tests for drug use (or for a standard of "mental health&quot before allowing a gun purchase will run into due process problems, as they should. As it stands, the fed form one fills out at a gun shop before submitting to the NICS test, requires that the purchaser swear that he/she has never USED illegal substances -- exclusively citing "marijuana" by name -- as a condition for legal purchase. No mention, of course, of alcohol. This is an abuse of the NICS process, making liars out of millions of purchasers.

I think NICS can be opened up with good security because the buyer would have to agree to be BG checked if they want the gun. Further, the info given back to the seller would be "qualified" or "not qualified," not a run down of the purchaser's record. I see the democratizing of NICS as a rather temporary improvement depending on voluntary use by the public. I'll keep an open mind on using a broker for every transfer, though my goal would be some kind of universality for a NICS-type BG check. The big fear for gun-owners is enabling a registration process. Some states (Ohio?) use a FOID to qualify a would-be firearms purchaser when an official state i.d. is obtained. It doesn't mean you have a gun, only you are qualified for such. The b.g. check for the FOID code is voluntary, but doesn't relieve the gun purchaser of the fed NICS. As I understand it the license/i.d. is run for the NICS test, and if a disqualifying court order has been enrolled, the purchase will be rejected no matter the hard copy code. Again, this depends on a decent NICS system. The license serves as an i.d. for legal posession when checked by LEOs.

Frankly, IMO, a univeral BG test system without registration can be worked out. Had the gun culture war not happened, we could have had one by now. For now, the tide is quite high for pro-2A forces.

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The problem that I have with NICS being available to the general public is that the general public frequently operates with tremendous prejudice/discrimination.

I agree with you that a gun purchaser would submit themselves to that review more or less voluntarily...

But, something would have to be done to prevent the general public from engaging in fishing operations into the NICS. Being mentally ill isn't a crime. Being deemed incompetent to buy a gun for psychiatric reasons also isn't a crime. Moreover, the circumstances of being a risk to self/or other are frequently transient features associated with acute psychiatric episodes.

Removal of a name from state and federal lists of banned gun purchasers can be achieved with court action, or with the expiration of a restraining order, but, because of various other social consequences that contribute to a national rate of 80% unemployement among the mentally ill, and high rates of poverty, persons with mental illness frequently lack the financial means to engage in such a thing, and as the data shows, the mentally ill generally have no interest in owning a firearm.

It is my understanding that the database as it is, only returns an approval or a disapproval for a gun purchase. There isn't an explanation to the gun seller of why the name is on NICS. And for various reasons, I understand why there probably shouldn't be an explanation given.

But, the very name of the database implies persons on the list are associated with criminality, even though people can be on the list for other than criminal reasons. It could very easily become a point of considering a noncriminal (but a person with a mental health record) has lied on an application by answering no to a question about criminal background or is otherwise undesirable and a target for discrimination (such as dishonorable discharge, history of mental illness requiring hospitalization, etc). Thereby a name on a public database would mean employers, landlords, financial institutions, community organizations etc fishing such records could use what they find to deny a person employment, housing, mortgages, and access to association.

And for that reason while I support requiring all transfers of gun ownership (sales, gifting, inheritance) to require a background check, I'd want that check to be run by a licensed broker of guns.

... that they are made answerable too. At least they would be subject to heavy civil liability consequences if all of the victims wanted to sue them for in effect facilitating Roof in his crime. If those responsible for criminal background checks, etc. were made also potentially liable criminally as well as financially if the weapons that are purchased were used in criminal acts, then perhaps there wouldn't be "breakdowns" that often if their feet are being held to the fire.

Also, the way people store their weapons in their house or make them accessable to those that shouldn't have access to them should also have these sorts of liabilities, and this could of course lead to perhaps requiring insurance for owning weapons the same way that we have them for automobiles, and people then could lower their premiums when they store them or use them in less risky circumstances (keep them at gun ranges, etc.).

When a parent has their kid grab a gun out of his unlocked gun cabinet and kill his brother or sister, or we have the kid that went here in to Clackamas Mall right before Sandy Hook and shoot a bunch of people there with a gun he grabbed from someone's cabinet he was staying with the night before, having liability insurance, and potential criminal penalties could perhaps have a big effect in reducing some of these crimes.

Perhaps some would rather just get rid of some of their weapons rather than pay for this sort of insurance, which would also help, if they are disposed of properly.

The crime report was mistakenly attributed to one county, and the supporting documents were held by another police jurisdiction.

The purchase was delayed for 3 days, but the reviewer was not able to resolve the discrepancy within the allotted time, and the purchase moved forward.

Nothing like incompetent govt. bureaucracy to brighten everyone's day.

earlier in the year

Everyone, even the NRA, wants NICS to work properly and as intended.

The NRA even helped Democrats improve NICS after the Virginia Tech shooting.

Like they say: "My rights trump your dead."

We firmly support updating/upgrading NICS to include opening it to private sales. We don't object to BCGs because they do not interfere with our rights.

Even if a background check is put on hold, as with Roof, after three days the gun dealer can go ahead and sell it even if the background check is not completed.