Did Bloomberg illegally conduct background checks?

[johncantiusgarand]

http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArjAvJSTGsouoX.1750Gw4szQVxH/RV=1/RE=1380804980/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RO=2/RU=aHR0cDovL2ZpbmFuY2UueWFob28uY29tL25ld3MvYmxvb21iZXJnLXdhcm5zLWlsbGVnYWwtb25saW5lLWd1bi0xMDU2NTMwNTkuaHRtbA--/RS=^ADA19shFLfQ48LofupIh9J4IrjgYFE-


So Bloomberg investigates Armslist, manages to discover the identities of potential buyers, and conducts secret background checks on them. I'm curious as to how he conducted those checks. When police departments check criminal backgrounds, they are required to have a legitimate reason--usually as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, or for potential hires, or some other LEGITIMATE law enforcement purpose that they have jurisdiction over. And this reason must be submitted along with the request. Unless Bloomberg limited his checks to New York City residents, it appears to me that he greatly exceeded his authority. He would have absolutely no standing to request criminal records on non-residents, and it would appear that his office has abused its access to NCIC records. Police departments who get caught doing this can lose their NCIC access. For example, if you ask your police buddy to check someone's criminal record for you as a favor, and he's foolish enough to oblige you, he and his department could get Iinto a peck of trouble. I know that there are ways for private individuals to check criminal background checks, but this requires paying a fee. I doubt Bloomberg, given the large number of people he checked, went this route and paid a fee for every check.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As I understand the private background check law we have had in Tennessee (cumbersome and expensive to the point hardly anyone uses it), BOTH parties must present themselves at a licensed dealer who processes the NICS check. A private BG check without consent of the checked person sounds 1984-ish; but, hey, its Mike Bloomberg. Maybe he believes he's Big Brother (or Uncle Joe).

 

[deadin]

What about all of the many "Public Record Search" and "Criminal Record Search" sites offered on the internet? (Just Google "Criminal Records" and you will see what I am talking about.) I know they are probably not as thorough as a NICS check and they end up costing $, but that's never stopped Bloomberg....

 

[Speedo66]

........ and they end up costing $, but that's never stopped Bloomberg....

Why should it, he's currently the 10th richest person in the US, worth about 31 Billion.

 

[Gottahaveone]

Did Bloomberg illegally conduct background checks?

Sadly, it makes absolutely no difference if he did or didn't. He's above the law and will face no consequences.

 

[9w1911]

invasion of privacy

 

[deadin]

invasion of privacy

Unfortunately it's not if it is a public record. (Court cases and most anything to do with government are public unless sealed by a judge.)

 

[Texan Scott]

Re-read the article... they took a sample of 600 people. 1 in 30 had criminal records - NOT NECESSARILY DISQUALIFYING FELONIES - and ATTEMPTED (not necessarily with any success) to buy a gun.

1 in 30 of 600 is twenty people.... and on this basis they "extrapolate" 25,000 armed criminals?

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure ... and a fool can say anything, and any fool will believe him.

 

[danez71]

Actually, the article says this:

Bloomberg's advocacy group secretly ran background checks of about 600 people and found that 1 in 30 of them had a felony record, which excludes them from buying firearms.

But back to the question of.... is it legal to conduct background checks with out permission?

Maybe he's just checking public records but Ive always had to sign a waiver to allow a perspective employer to do a back ground check.

 

[stressed]

Armslist is a ripoff IMO, and most folks on there clearly state FTF with PTP, PTC or FFL transfer only. Also, if one was arrested and charged with a felony, but not convicted of one - it will still show up.

Bloomberg is an idiot. Kind of scary one of America's richest men is so anti-gun anti -constitution. But hey, that's America in 2013.

 

[Outlaw Man]

25,000 is still less than the number that actually tried to buy through an FFL, were denied, and NOT prosecuted for it. Seems to me that they're doing better than the BATFE. If Bloomberg really wanted to fix something and really cared about "illegal" guns, he'd give the ATF the resources they apparently need to prosecute.

I know here in Arkansas an employer or other person doing a background check usually gets the checkee (is that a word?) to fill out a release form. I don't know if it's legally required. Those internet sites just search available electronic records, I think. I doubt it's as thorough. That never stopped Mikey, though.

 

[PabloJ]

http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArjAvJSTGsouoX.1750Gw4szQVxH/RV=1/RE=1380804980/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RO=2/RU=aHR0cDovL2ZpbmFuY2UueWFob28uY29tL25ld3MvYmxvb21iZXJnLXdhcm5zLWlsbGVnYWwtb25saW5lLWd1bi0xMDU2NTMwNTkuaHRtbA--/RS=^ADA19shFLfQ48LofupIh9J4IrjgYFE-


So Bloomberg investigates Armslist, manages to discover the identities of potential buyers, and conducts secret background checks on them. I'm curious as to how he conducted those checks. When police departments check criminal backgrounds, they are required to have a legitimate reason--usually as part of a legitimate criminal investigation, or for potential hires, or some other LEGITIMATE law enforcement purpose that they have jurisdiction over. And this reason must be submitted along with the request. Unless Bloomberg limited his checks to New York City residents, it appears to me that he greatly exceeded his authority. He would have absolutely no standing to request criminal records on non-residents, and it would appear that his office has abused its access to NCIC records. Police departments who get caught doing this can lose their NCIC access. For example, if you ask your police buddy to check someone's criminal record for you as a favor, and he's foolish enough to oblige you, he and his department could get Iinto a peck of trouble. I know that there are ways for private individuals to check criminal background checks, but this requires paying a fee. I doubt Bloomberg, given the large number of people he checked, went this route and paid a fee for every check.

Billionaires do not need legitimate reason to investigate common people.
I can't wait when Mikey becomes president of USA. We will be very safe and healthy nation of people.
There will be check on food consumption just like we have on Sudafed pills now. If person exceeds maximum allowed consumption of fast food or snacks per month they will be denied sale. Oh Yeh.

 

[tarosean]

But back to the question of.... is it legal to conduct background checks with out permission?

Its Public Record...

I doubt seriously the accuracy of their stats given the limited information available via armslist. Without a SSN or DOB your just going by Name and location. Which will match same name individuals not exactly definitive.

 

[Outlaw Man]

That's a good point. My father and I share the same name and live in the same town. Even AARP can't keep us separate, and he's a member.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

20 potential buyers out of 600 is not scary.
20 actual buyers out of 600 would be scary.

The local gun shop has a guy whose TICS or NICS check shows federal felon fugitive arrest; he and the dealer then file an appeal with copies of the court records showing mistaken identity arrest and the deal goes through, with a delay. John Lott claims the NICS is riddled with "false positives". The antis want to add the TSA "no fly list" to the NICS; the list that labeled Sen. Ted Kennedy, 10 mo-old toddlers, etc. as terrorist suspects. That is scary.