but maybe had done so in the past.

nobody caught it. I would bet the FBI was not aware of his military record.

There are laws and Supreme Court decisions specifically to protect the gun seller from civil suits.

Even where we have gun laws, there are no teeth to hold anyone accountable when they're violated.

The only protections are there if the shop followed the law. If they called in a background check and the FBI said they could proceed with the sale then the FBI failed, not the shop.

If the shop failed to do the required background checks or follow the law then they have no protections from civil suits.

the fact that he spent 12 months in detention for abuse of his wife and daughter, are there policies in place for the Air Force to put that information out so that it would be found in a background check (i.e., the Air Force as opposed to the FBI)? Does the Air Force report???

If they did not that’s a huge failure.

It will be interesting to see how it was that he wasn't flagged.

They will get the Presidential medal of freedom.

And a conditional follow on-

Did the shop properly follow procedures conducting the NCIS background check?

If no then clearly they need to face consequences.

If the shop did everything correctly and the sale was approved by NCIS, why should the shop be held responsible?

I don't know the answer. No one on the news is even addressing it.

Then that buyer should be looking at a 10 yr Federal prison sentence. I'd think 26 counts of accessory to murder should be tacked on.

So far, however, reports indicate he bought the rifle himself.

that there is no such liability for people who sell or transfer firearms. I don't know if that's accurate or not.

I've never heard of anyone suffering that sort of liability.

Under plcca if they follow the laws. If they did everything right then they cannot be sued; if not then they are facing criminal and civil consequences

The straw buyer is the one who faces the penalties.

liability.

And it was a private sale, you're off the hook, as far as I understand.

What you mean by privatization of sales and background checks.

Adding a fingerprint requirement to gun sales may have merit if it can be used to stop sales to prohibited person's.

Those profiting from gun sales are going to play the game -- "well he lied on his application," or "I met the letter of the law, even though there was something about the guy."

Gun dealers are often as sleazy as gun purchasers.

Responsible for illegally sold guns? Interesting concept. However what would keep an illegal our buyer from playing the same "game"?

protecting society from the Kelleys, Paddocks, Roofs, Zimmermans, etc. Plus, I think finger printing might have caught Kelley.

The NRA and gunners have backed the current system which allows people to lie on the form in cases just such as this. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the system even allows gun sales if the system is down so as not to impede a dealer's profits or the gunner from getting another so-called assault weapon to get him through the weekend.

Is down every sale must be delayed until approved or 72 hours. I would be happy changing that until approved but it doesn't apply in this case.

Lying on the form should be irrelevant, except for that charge of making false statements on a federal form, as the BGC should catch convictions. Why his conviction on DV was not in the system should be investigated. If it was, and the shop somehow went around the system, then losing their license should be the first and least of the consequences they face.

For example, "In April 2015, Dylann Roof was sold a .45-caliber Glock pistol at a Charleston, S.C.-area gun store despite confessing to drug possession a month earlier. The seller ran an NICS background check, which was delayed and assigned to an FBI official in West Virginia. The official failed to discover the confession for drug possession before three days had passed, and the sale to Mr. Roof was completed. The confession would have disqualified him from buying the gun he used to murder nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17, 2015."

http://graphics.wsj.com/gun-check-explainer/


And, of course, private sales in most cases don't require a background check or even recording of the event.

Lengthening the period to review a person's records. It just should have some time limit to prevent "indefinite" reviews.

Open ncis to private sellers. Not all will use it but right now all private sellers are prohibited from obtaining background checks

who is not going to keep proper records. The transfers need to go through a FFL who is accountable and has something to lose if the background check is lax.

But, at least you are receptive to ways to improve things.

For anyone who uses the ncis and the subject they check on. Use ssns or other means. Also a letter can be easily auto-generated to the subject of a BGC informing them of the query. That would alert people to fraudulent checks.

documented accordingly. But, anything is an improvement.

Is an undue burden. Either way is acceptable to me.

In the meantime, get all dv convictions into NCIS. It doesn't matter who does the check if the database is incomplete.

And I suspect most people who object do so not because of rear fears but because they want any new laws to also serve as burdens to lawful gun owners as well, so solutions that get the checks without burdening lawful owners get dismissed.

That’s why most gun control legislation fails- proponents try to hide things in that make things more burdensome instead of settling for common sense answers that can be agreed on.


It would be simple enough to stop abuse of it- criminal penalties for anyone misusing it, alerts sent to people when they are run so they can report abuse and it’s a non issue.

And it’s also a foolish fear because for $5 I can get a full background check that tells me every detail and date of a criminal history. A NICS check gives you no data or reason for the denial of one comes, it just gives one of three answers- Proceed, Delayed for further review, or Denied. When anyone can get far more and better data online for a few bucks using NICS would be foolish, and if you add criminal penalties if they do that would make it a total non-issue.

Who you kidding.

The local police won’t have any role or say in it.

something that the feds are on.

Did you comprehend anything I wrote?

Set up a system that alerts you if you get run. If an alert shows up, you report.

for aiding in the shooting of innocent people.

If he failed the background check and the gun was sold anyway - yes
If he filled out the formed and indicated that he committed domestic violence -yes
If he filled out the formed and lied about commiting domestic violence - no

This was a beautiful hunting weapon designed by the smartest and most ethical of gun manufacturers. It was then sold by the best gun salesperson ever. You need to go no further than to see their support of the ever so righteous NRA to understand their greatness and impeccable ethics and morals.

Assuming he bought it from an FFL, if the FFL followed the laws and procedures and the NICS check allowed the sale then the dealer followed the law and the system failed. If they called the FBI and the FBI NICS team said he was ok to buy then the FBI failed.

If the dealer failed to follow the law and allowed a prohibited person to buy the gun then he should be prosecuted and can be sued by the families, there is no protection from civil suits for those who don’t follow the law.

If someone else bought the gun for him in a straw purchase than that person committed multiple felonies and should be prosecuted, but on the Federal level prosecutors more often than not fail to prosecute even clear cut cases of straw purchases.

Last edited Mon Nov 6, 2017, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Unless it has been corrected, there is a loophole in the law - the same loophole that allowed Dylan Roof to buy his weapons. The processing delay from NICS is 3 business days. If the seller has not received the approval after the 3 day delay, they may sell the weapon anyway.

That means the default answer to "Can this person buy a firearm?" is YES. I think the default answer should be NO. The second amendment says "well regulated", so this would be that regulation. You cannot purchase a firearm unless the seller has gotten a definitive YES from NICS.

3 business days may not be long enough, but allowing a delay to be a de-facto denial if not acted on would pass constitutional muster.

Would you find it ok if the local board of elections wasn’t denying voter registration but was just “investigating further” forever when you wanted to vote.

Move it to one week and add more manpower to the people doing the follow ups.

but the GOP will fight both. If it were up to them there would be NO background checks at all and no waiting periods, even though most Americans are in favor of both.

many years ago the owner of the gun shop that sold the DC Sniper his gun was shut down

Is there a law they broke, i.e. that they should have checked to see if it was legal for him to have a gun? To make the liquor analogy good, there would have to be.

with their best attorneys.