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

[old lady new shooter]

The NYT reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/u...aw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?_r=0) that Roof was able to buy the gun because the FBI did not complete the background check within the required 3 days.

There is a lot of weasel-wording in the article: "[T]he F.B.I. failed to gain access", what does that mean? They didn't look diligently? The jurisdiction didn't respond promptly? "[C]onfusion about where the arrest had occurred had prevented it from acquiring the arrest record in a timely fashion." What does that mean? Are they really saying the FBI has to contact every possible jurisdiction for each inquiry? What if the person committed a crime in Nebraska and now is trying to buy a gun in Maine? With all the money the government throws around on useless garbage, is there really no national database of crimes that render their perpetrators ineligible to purchase a gun? I would expect such a database to exist and to require all arrests to be entered within 24 hours of occurrence; and if the person is then pardoned the record should have to be expunged within 24 hours of the pardon.

Hope someone here with knowledge of the background check process can enlighten us.

 

[JSH1]

"Mr. Roof’s application was not resolved within the three-day limit because the F.B.I. was still trying to get the arrest record"

Sounds clear to me. The FBI contact the local PD for the arrest record and didn't get a response within the 3 day window. Roof was arrested on the drug charge 4 months before the shooting. He has not been convicted of drug possession, just charged and released.

I think you are expecting too much. I don't know of any requirement for local PD to report arrests to the FBI within 24 hours.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It was my understanding that being arrested on a felony charge is a disqualifier, conviction is not necessary.

And I don't see how only contacting the jurisdiction in which the person is trying to buy a gun could accomplish anything -- as stated in my original post, what if someone commits a crime in Nebraska and then tries to buy a gun in Maine? Do we say he's OK because in the town in Maine where his now LGS is located he has no arrest record?

 

[jerkface11]

Remember this the next time they try to push "universal" background checks.

 

[wojownik]

According to a USA Today article, part of the issue was that the FBI may have been contacting the wrong local PD agency - wrong town. Either way, the three day limit kicked in. Which NYT spins as a "loophole."

 

[X-Rap]

Just think how messed up their records are when it comes to those here illegally. Many states are handing out drivers licenses to all comers and that ID is all one needs to buy a gun in most places. I doubt 3 days will be long enough to find the record of someone who's not supposed to be here.
UBC is another dream of the Utopian liberals but it will only be another hurdle for the law abiding. Just as soon not have any check at all.

 

[Bobson]

It was my understanding that being arrested on a felony charge is a disqualifier, conviction is not necessary.

What?? That can't be right.

What does it take to be arrested for something, felony or otherwise? Nothing more than an accusation. And that disqualifies one from owning firearms for life?

There's no way that's correct.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you are under indictment (arrested/charged but not yet convicted) for any crime where the penalty could exceed 1 year in jail, you are a prohibited person until the matter is resolved in your favor (either by acquittal or pleading to a misdemeanor charge).

 

[Spats McGee]

It was my understanding that being arrested on a felony charge is a disqualifier, conviction is not necessary.

I won't try to address state law, as I'm only licensed in AR. That said, my response is "not quite." The issue really isn't whether one is "arrested" for a felony, but rather "under indictment."

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; . . . .

18 USC 922 (Edited for brevity)

Let's say that, through a very serious case of mistaken identity, a DEA agent sees me at Wal-Mart (buying ammo, of course), thinks I'm a convicted meth trafficker that he recognizes, and arrests me. I'm going to have lots of 'splaining to do, but the arrest alone isn't enough to bar me from owning firearms. Now, if the US Attorney subsequently indicts me, I can't have guns while under indictment.

ETA: Bartholomew beat me to it.

 

[jerkface11]

Haven't you guys guys ever read the 4473 when you're filling it out?

 

[old lady new shooter]

According to a USA Today article, part of the issue was that the FBI may have been contacting the wrong local PD agency - wrong town. Either way, the three day limit kicked in. Which NYT spins as a "loophole."

I still want to know why the FBI has to pick a jurisdiction to contact and then contact them, why isn't this information digitally accessible?

 

[ID-shooting]

"Haven't you guys guys ever read the 4473 when you're filling it out? "

yes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, do not answer. What more do you need?

Seriously though, this shows that he also lied on his 4473, big surprise there.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"Let's say that, through a very serious case of mistaken identity, a DEA agent sees me at Wal-Mart (buying ammo, of course), thinks I'm a convicted meth trafficker that he recognizes, and arrests me. I'm going to have lots of 'splaining to do, but the arrest alone isn't enough to bar me from owning firearms. Now, if the US Attorney subsequently indicts me, I can't have guns while under indictment."

Thanks for the clarification.

So as this and Bartholomew's post indicate, it is still correct to say that conviction is not necessary to be a prohibited person.

 

[Spats McGee]

Look at it this way: If someone is under indictment for a crime punishable by more than 1 year incarceration, then that person is prohibited. From that point forward, either: (1) the person will be cleared (indictment dismissed, acquittal on the charge, pleading to a lesser offense punishable by less than 1 year, etc.), in which case the prohibited status goes away; OR (2) the person is convicted of the crime for which indictment was issued, and the prohibited status becomes (more or less) permanent.

 

[alsaqr]

Dylann Roof admitted to dope possession:

The Columbia police report included information that Roof admitted to drug possession, which would have triggered an immediate denial by the FBI NICS review process, according to bureau guidelines.

Yep, it gets a little more complicated. FBI reviewer contact sheets did not include Columbia, SC. Bold = mine:

The reviewer attempted to reach the Lexington County prosecutor's office on the matter, but received no response, Comey said.

The Lexington County Sheriff's Department informed her that it was not the investigating agency, though officials recommended checking with the Columbia police.

But Comey said reviewer contact sheets listing police agencies by county did not include Columbia, only the city of West Columbia.

When she called West Columbia, the reviewer also was informed that the department had no record of the case, according to the FBI.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/10/fbi-chief-roof-gun-shooting/29966337/

 

[Thermactor]

Confederate flag yesterday,
NICS tomorrow.
Delay turns into deny.
Simple!

 

[BSA1]

As some of the responses show a lot of folks do not understand what NCIC (National Crime Information Center) is and how it works. Let me state the I have ran thousands of NCIC checks for several years when it was one of my responsibilities in the department I supervised.

NCIC is basically garbage in, garbage out system.

The information in NCIC is entered into the system by a law enforcement agency, usually your local police or sheriff department. It is then the responsibility of that same agency to update the desposition of the arrest. Another agency can not do this.

The problem is many agencies are very prompt about entering arrests but are equally very lax about entering the disposition (charges dropped, reduced from felony to misdemeanor, not guilty or found guilty).

So when I ran into these types of checks (which are quite common) we send a official letter to the law enforcement agency asking for the disposition of the charge. It was not uncommon for them not to know and we have have to contact the Court Clerk, have them research the arrest and give us a copy of the disposition. This sometimes took several weeks!

 

[old lady new shooter]

As some of the responses show a lot of folks do not understand what NCIC (National Crime Information Center) is and how it works. Let me state the I have ran thousands of NCIC for several years when it was one of my responsibilities in the department I supervised.

NCIC is basically garbage in, garbage out system.

The information in NCIC is entered into the system by a law enforcement agency, usually your local police or sheriff department. It is then the responsibility of that same agency to update the desposition of the arrest. Another agency can not do this.

The problem is many agencies are very prompt about entering arrests but are equally very lax about entering the disposition (charges dropped, reduced from felony to misdemeanor, not guilty or found guilty).

So when I ran into these types of checks (which are quite common) we send a official letter to the law enforcement agency asking for the disposition of the charge. It was not uncommon for them not to know and we have have to contact the Court Clerk, have them research the arrest and give us a copy of the disposition. This sometimes took several weeks!

Thank you very much, this is the detail I was looking for. So it sounds like local failure to update arrests with the dispositions is the bottleneck. I assume there are currently no penalties for this?

 

[alsaqr]

So it sounds like local failure to update arrests with the dispositions is the bottleneck.

Not in this case. Because the NICS reviewer did not have a contact sheet for Columbia, SC she did not check with authorities in that jurisdiction, although she was pointed in that direction.

The Lexington County Sheriff's Department informed her that it was not the investigating agency, though officials recommended checking with the Columbia police.

But Comey said reviewer contact sheets listing police agencies by county did not include Columbia, only the city of West Columbia.

How many other prohibited persons in Columbia, SC were allowed to buy guns due the lack of a contact sheet for that city?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Not in this case. Because the NICS reviewer did not have a contact sheet for Columbia, SC she did not check with authorities in that jurisdiction, although she was pointed in that direction.



How many other prohibited persons in Columbia, SC were allowed to buy guns due the lack of a contact sheet for that city?

Yes, she failed to contact the correct jurisdiction.

But if there was a requirement to report all dispositions within 24 hours, and the requirement was backed up by an associated penalty, the FBI would not be having to expend time and energy (and open the door to tragic mistakes like this one) trying to track them down.

 

[Red Wind]

It does not really matter. The lunatic would have found another way.
All criminals do.

Back ground checks are a waste and Un- Constitutional. We need to be rid of them. We did just fine without them for close to 200 years.

Every single gun control law has never solved a thing. All 22,000 thousand and counting

 

[old lady new shooter]

OK, but realistically we are not going to get rid of background checks.

And every time there is a horrible shooting like in Charleston, the antis come out saying how horrible guns are and nobody should be allowed to have one.

So I think it is a good argument to say let's fix the existing background check process rather than talk about new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

 

[alsaqr]

So I think it is a good argument to say let's fix the existing background check process rather than talk about new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

i totally agree.

 

[Art Eatman]

Is it known for certain that the NICS check is with a local agency, and not just with NCIC? My FFL guy studies this stuff and queries ATF folks about how the system works. He is of the belief that NICS talks to NCIC.

It would not surprise me that indictments weren't forwarded to NCIC. It is known that some states have been--although things might have improved--laggardly in sending court decisions to NCIC. Months behind, in some cases.

 

[BK]

So I think it is a good argument to say let's fix the existing background check process-

No, there is no fix. And unconstitutional structure will always be broken in regards to the events it was sold to prevent, full stop.

These tragedies will always recurr, there is no way to prevent them, you do not fix obesity by controlling who has forks.

You're searching for better gun control, when this is a mental health issue.