General Discussion

KoKo

(84,711 posts) Sat Jul 11, 2015, 08:57 AM Jul 2015

Senate Judiciary to Investigate "System Failure" that Allowed Dylann Roof to Buy Gun--NYT

Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says-- NYT

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT--JULY 10, 2015

WASHINGTON — The man accused of killing nine people in a historically black church in South Carolina last month was able to buy the gun used in the attack because of a breakdown in the federal gun background check system, the F.B.I. said Friday.

Despite having previously admitted to drug possession, the man, Dylann Roof, 21, was allowed to buy the .45-caliber handgun because of mistakes by F.B.I. agents, a failure by local prosecutors to respond to a bureau request for more information about his case, and a weakness in federal gun laws.

“We are all sick this happened,” said James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director. “We wish we could turn back time. From this vantage point, everything seems obvious.”

--------------

The authorities’ inability to prevent Mr. Roof from obtaining the weapon highlighted the continuing problems in the background check system, which was intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug users and mentally ill people. Despite new procedures and billions of dollars that have been spent on computer upgrades in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal authorities still do not have a seamless way of examining Americans’ criminal histories that eliminates human error.

The disclosure also introduced another element of politics into the aftermath of the massacre, which has already led lawmakers in South Carolina to remove the Confederate battle flag that flew outside its State House. Republicans and Democrats quickly seized on the background check failure as the latest evidence to back up their views on gun laws.

Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents.

-----------------

Shortly after the details of the gun purchase were revealed, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, gun control advocates and Second Amendment defenders began wading into the matter.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the background check mistakes should not be used as an excuse to pass tougher gun laws.

“It’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale,” Mr. Grassley said. “The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws. The American people, and especially the victims’ families, deserve better.”

The ranking Democratic member on the committee, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said: “We simply cannot have such failures in our background check system, and peoples’ lives are at stake. Clearly, more oversight is needed.”

Mr. Leahy said he expected the committee “will be looking further into this matter.”

Many of the deadliest shootings in the past decade have highlighted problems in the F.B.I.’s background check system.

After a 2007 shooting in which 33 people died at Virginia Tech University, investigators discovered that the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, also should not have been able to buy a gun because a court had previously declared him to be a danger to himself. The shooting led to legislation aimed at improving the background check system.

More at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?_r=0

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate Judiciary to Investigate "System Failure" that Allowed Dylann Roof to Buy Gun--NYT (Original Post) KoKo Jul 2015 OP

As the Dixie Swastika comes down and the public eye wanders closer and closer to gun control the mass media will....deflect. Fred Sanders Jul 2015 #1

Everything needed to keep Roof from buying his gun was already in place; LE screwed up Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #2

Why is the waiting period only 3 days? MH1 Jul 2015 #3

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

1. As the Dixie Swastika comes down and the public eye wanders closer and closer to gun control the mass media will....deflect.

Reply to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jul 11, 2015, 09:33 AM

Jul 2015

The GOP choking off funding for and opposing any expanded background checks and reasonable waiting periods while, not to mention, also choking off all research on gun use statistics will be ignored in another transparent attempt to blame everything on anything other than one of the 320 million guns in America.

No nation needs more guns than people.

Duh.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

2. Everything needed to keep Roof from buying his gun was already in place; LE screwed up

Reply to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 11, 2015, 10:00 AM

Jul 2015

MH1

(17,600 posts)

3. Why is the waiting period only 3 days?

Reply to KoKo (Original post)

Sat Jul 11, 2015, 10:14 AM

Jul 2015

Anyone who's ever worked in a bureaucracy (government or corporate) knows that's a relatively short time.

(And is that 3 business days or just 3 days?)

I'll admit that what I know about this came from MSNBC coverage; I'm pretty sure it was All In with Chris Hayes. Chris is very good and his coverage seemed straightforward and accurate, but left a few open questions. The person who processed the background check fired off a request for more info and placed the check in pending status. But because the info did not come back in time (would it ever have come back at all, is an open question), Roof had to be allowed to make the purchase.

That makes no sense to me except as a compromise between people who wanted a working background check system and people who want NOTHING to stand in the way of anyone being able to buy a firearm. Kind of like the ACA is a compromise between a real health care solution and what we had before. It's better than nothing but has gaping holes that allow it to fail in many specific cases.

I agree that a person with a flag on their record shouldn't be held up forever from making the purchase. But why not extend the period if there is a flag on the record? So, something like three days for initial assessment - for someone with no flags, same as today - but if there is a flag there could be an extension, say up to 14 days. 14 days would be plenty of time for even a relatively bad bureaucracy to resolve an issue. 3 days is just too short for even a relatively good organization to process a case with complications, in my opinion. Especially if it is just 3 days, not 3 business days.

Reply to this discussion