I read one story that said he went into an Academy in San Antonio last year and filled out paperwork in the store when buying an AR-556 rifle and didn't check the box on the paperwork that asks if he had disqualifying criminal history.

I know a court martial from the military precludes you from sure from buying a legal weapon. Are you sure a dishonorable discharge does the same? Apparently there are different types of discharges and some don't limit you from legally buying a gun.

Do people feel that putting people on the honor system when buying a weapon is enough?

It shouldn't have mattered what box he checked. If he was disqualified from buying a firearm the background check should have caught it and denied the purchase. He could have at that time been charged for trying to purchase a weapon, but it likely wouldn't have happened since as we have covered extensively on here in the past the Obama era DOJ simply did not prosecute that particular crime at the levels prior administrations had for whatever reason.

Starting to sound like a failure of the system here. The type of discharge matters as a dishonorable discharge is an automatic disqualifier while a bad conduct discharge isn't, but because of his arrest for domestic violence he should have been prohibited anyway.

It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

Thanks for the responses. It's possible the story is fake about the Academy, but if true, it sounds like someone really messed up. My bet would be on Academy with the background check, and not the military.

(11-06-2017 08:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Thanks for the responses. It's possible the story is fake about the Academy, but if true, it sounds like someone really messed up. My bet would be on Academy with the background check, and not the military.

My bet would be with there being an error somewhere in the entry of his record into the system. The Academy employee would actually face discipline, including termination, if they mishandled a background check and jeopardized the store's ability to sell firearms. The federal employee would likely get a promotion to supervisor.

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

Background check is impossible to mess up from the retailers perspective. You fill out the 4473. Retailer calls a number and reads off the SSN and name and the FBI background check folks do their thing.

(11-06-2017 08:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

He had a prior drug charge that precluded him from the transfer. Local sheriff either did not enter it into system or FBI missed it. Can't recall which.

(11-06-2017 08:24 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

He had a prior drug charge that precluded him from the transfer. Local sheriff either did not enter it into system or FBI missed it. Can't recall which.

Friend of mine is a SLED agent who worked the state side of the Roof case. The FBI messed up the record entry according to what they found. The Lexington County Sheriff's Dept entered their information correctly, it was messed up on the federal side.

(11-06-2017 08:28 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Friend of mine is a SLED agent who worked the state side of the Roof case. The FBI messed up the record entry according to what they found. The Lexington County Sheriff's Dept entered their information correctly, it was messed up on the federal side.

If you're looking for a mistake, that's usually the best place to start looking.

(11-06-2017 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:28 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Friend of mine is a SLED agent who worked the state side of the Roof case. The FBI messed up the record entry according to what they found. The Lexington County Sheriff's Dept entered their information correctly, it was messed up on the federal side.

If you're looking for a mistake, that's usually the best place to start looking.

Sure seems that way...

Geeeeezzz. For what we spend on them and others annually...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sovereign immunity is a real injustice sometimes. A private entity would have been rightfully sued back into the Pleistocene.

(11-06-2017 08:24 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

He had a prior drug charge that precluded him from the transfer. Local sheriff either did not enter it into system or FBI missed it. Can't recall which.

For my own understanding, I’m going to change that to “should have precluded the transfer”,

Cause the transfer, at some level, obviously took place. So, was it a sale between private party’s? (Are there even BG checks for that? Didn’t think so), or are you saying the friend never should have been able to purchase the gun for him in the first place?

It’s a bit of somewhat irrelevant detail at this point, I’m only re-interested in this chain of command with the gun cause I’m now hearing it claimed that he DID indeed fill out the correct forms to purchase, which I find hard to believe.

I thought he just asked his buddy to lend/sell him the gun and off he went. No gun shop, no paperwork, nothing formal like that at all.

course, again, could be wrong.

(11-06-2017 09:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:24 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

He had a prior drug charge that precluded him from the transfer. Local sheriff either did not enter it into system or FBI missed it. Can't recall which.

For my own understanding, I’m going to change that to “should have precluded the transfer”,

Cause the transfer, at some level, obviously took place. So, was it a sale between private party’s? (Are there even BG checks for that? Didn’t think so), or are you saying the friend never should have been able to purchase the gun for him in the first place?

It’s a bit of somewhat irrelevant detail at this point, I’m only re-interested in this chain of command with the gun cause I’m now hearing it claimed that he DID indeed fill out the correct forms to purchase, which I find hard to believe.

I thought he just asked his buddy to lend/sell him the gun and off he went. No gun shop, no paperwork, nothing formal like that at all.

course, again, could be wrong.

Roof bought the gun he used in the shooting himself at a West Columbia gun store. There was nothing nefarious about the sale except the failure of the NICS system.

I think where the confusion regarding the friend and the gun comes in is he reportedly had a friend keep the gun for him for a while.

Not only should the system be held accountable for any failure to pick up the disqualifying information that is in the system, but every denied application represents a potential felony committed by the applicant.

If you filled out the 4473 and knowingly failed to answer honestly, it's a felony. If you answer honestly and are disqualified based on the series of yes/no questions the retailer wont even call. You are denied. However, fraudulent 4473 information is almost never investigated let alone prosecuted. Should be mandatory no matter the sheer volume of potential offenses.

Of 556,496 denied FBI background check transactions between FY 2008 and FY 2015, federal prosecutors only prosecuted an average of under 32 cases per year, including 24 in FY 2013, 15 in FY 2014 and only 20 in FY 2015.

The percentage of times that a denial takes place for good cause and that person actively seeks other means of obtaining a weapon for illegal purposes, whether for them or another party, is high.

Every denial for a reason not properly disclosed by the applicant should generate a report and immediate notice to local LEO agencies to kick the tires. For some reason this is like a Rubik's cube for inter-agency communication.

So it comes out now that the friggin Air Force failed to enter his domestic abuse conviction into the system...only reasonnhe passed his background check when buying the rifle in 2016.

Incompetent fools....the entire chain of command that mishandled that should be court marshaled.

Quote:According to NPR, Kelley was arrested in 2012 and “was court-martialed for assaulting his then-wife and stepson.” His conviction in that case “disqualified him from legally possessing a firearm.” He entered a plea deal for a lesser sentence, but one which was still enough to prohibit him from firearm possession under federal law. Nevertheless, his arrest and conviction were not reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), thus he was able to buy firearms.


NPR’s Tom Bowman said, “This was mishandled by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where Kelley was serving when he was arrested. An investigation is now underway, and the Air Force is taking it very seriously, said the source.”

(11-06-2017 11:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So it comes out now that the friggin Air Force failed to enter his domestic abuse conviction into the system...only reasonnhe passed his background check when buying the rifle in 2016.

Incompetent fools....the entire chain of command that mishandled that should be court marshaled.

Quote:According to NPR, Kelley was arrested in 2012 and “was court-martialed for assaulting his then-wife and stepson.” His conviction in that case “disqualified him from legally possessing a firearm.” He entered a plea deal for a lesser sentence, but one which was still enough to prohibit him from firearm possession under federal law. Nevertheless, his arrest and conviction were not reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), thus he was able to buy firearms.


NPR’s Tom Bowman said, “This was mishandled by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, where Kelley was serving when he was arrested. An investigation is now underway, and the Air Force is taking it very seriously, said the source.”

This is why more gun control is a moot point. We already had a law on the books that would have prevented this. Big government failed. Again. Enacting more laws is not the answer. We have the laws in place. Big government continues to fail.

(11-06-2017 09:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 09:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:24 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 08:21 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 07:58 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It is supposed to be entered into the FBI database. If a 4473 is completed and not caught like that Dylan Root lunatic because he lied and the LEO did not enter into system or the FBI did not catch on the 4473 check, the problem lies elsewhere.

Dishonorable discharge is treated like a felony for violation of the UCMJ.

Other than honorable is an administrative discharge and would not show up.

I may well be misremembering, or maybe it was faulty reporting at the time, but I’ve now heard this about the Roof lunatic a number of times just recently.

Wasn’t it a friend of his (or at least an acquaintance) that either sold him the gun or just gave it to him?

Has there been a slow walked change in the story to muddy things up a bit, or was he (Roof) the actual purchaser?

Seems odd how that has changed over time. (If, indeed it has...)

He had a prior drug charge that precluded him from the transfer. Local sheriff either did not enter it into system or FBI missed it. Can't recall which.

For my own understanding, I’m going to change that to “should have precluded the transfer”,

Cause the transfer, at some level, obviously took place. So, was it a sale between private party’s? (Are there even BG checks for that? Didn’t think so), or are you saying the friend never should have been able to purchase the gun for him in the first place?

It’s a bit of somewhat irrelevant detail at this point, I’m only re-interested in this chain of command with the gun cause I’m now hearing it claimed that he DID indeed fill out the correct forms to purchase, which I find hard to believe.

I thought he just asked his buddy to lend/sell him the gun and off he went. No gun shop, no paperwork, nothing formal like that at all.

course, again, could be wrong.

Roof bought the gun he used in the shooting himself at a West Columbia gun store. There was nothing nefarious about the sale except the failure of the NICS system.

I think where the confusion regarding the friend and the gun comes in is he reportedly had a friend keep the gun for him for a while.

Ok, yup. That could well be it. I’d thought his friend brought it to him at some point, getting him in some serious trouble.

So, yet again, the system was in place, the laws were in place, he never should have been able to purchase or take possession of the gun in the first place.

But, supposedly if we pass even more laws, those will be miraculously enforced mo betta.

/shakeshead

(11-06-2017 09:37 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not only should the system be held accountable for any failure to pick up the disqualifying information that is in the system, but every denied application represents a potential felony committed by the applicant.

If you filled out the 4473 and knowingly failed to answer honestly, it's a felony. If you answer honestly and are disqualified based on the series of yes/no questions the retailer wont even call. You are denied. However, fraudulent 4473 information is almost never investigated let alone prosecuted. Should be mandatory no matter the sheer volume of potential offenses.

Of 556,496 denied FBI background check transactions between FY 2008 and FY 2015, federal prosecutors only prosecuted an average of under 32 cases per year, including 24 in FY 2013, 15 in FY 2014 and only 20 in FY 2015.

The percentage of times that a denial takes place for good cause and that person actively seeks other means of obtaining a weapon for illegal purposes, whether for them or another party, is high.

Every denial for a reason not properly disclosed by the applicant should generate a report and immediate notice to local LEO agencies to kick the tires. For some reason this is like a Rubik's cube for inter-agency communication.

So they don't have resources or choose not to do anything. It is like border security and illegal aliens. You can have all the laws you want but if they are not enforced it is meaningless. Seems like the FBI knows about every Muslim terrorist but they don't stop the attacks.