Dylann Roof Illegally Obtained the Gun He Used

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by tallbump, Jul 10, 2015.

  1. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/365507-dylann-roof-illegally-obtained-gun-used-fbi-just-announced-allowed-happen/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime

    Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who massacred nine black Christians at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, used an illegally purchased firearm to conduct his terrorist act. Now, it appears that the federal government failed to flag him.

    FBI Director James Comey met with a group of reporters at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., where he revealed the reason Roof was able to purchase a firearm. According to The Washington Post:

    “Comey said failures in the gun purchase screening system enabled Roof to acquire the weapon used in an attack that authorities have said was motivated by Roof’s racist views.”

    Roof, who has since been charged with nine counts of murder, purchased a .45 caliber handgun despite being arrested on a felony narcotics charge — a charge that should have prevented him from obtaining the weapon.

    Comey admitted to the federal government’s inability to prevent Roof from purchasing the weapon, expressing deep regret for the agency’s failure:

    “This case rips all of our hearts out, but the thought that an error on our part is connected to a gun this person used to slaughter these people is very painful to us.”

    Since the shooting, congressional Democrats like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) have called for “expanded background checks” in response to Roof’s attack. However, the background checks that currently exist would have prevented Roof from obtaining the firearm had the federal government conducted them properly.

    Congress has not alluded to movement on advancing any anti-gun measures, due to a Republican-controlled House and Senate, as well as public opinion being mostly against further restrictions on gun rights.
     
  2. Rerun

    Rerun Member

    8,114
    2,516
    'Cause the all Powerful System (government) allowed them through!

    Bunch of F-ups.

    eldar
     

  3. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    If they can't properly run the gun laws they already have on the books, only a buffoon would think more are needed....
    Or a jackwagon who wants all guns gone, except the ones that protect him....
     
  4. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    All we need is a new law that makes it illegal to illegally purchase a firearm.... duh! :rofl:
     
  5. Rerun

    Rerun Member

    8,114
    2,516
    A large part of this problem goes back to when the Congress under Clinton put a person's health under a protective blanket to prevent anyone from accessing their 'private information' - especially governmental agencies.

    Things like mental health, and STD's and other medical issues one might like to keep 'close to the vest' were covered by this new protection law.

    And, denied to governmental agencies that could use the information to deny firearm purchases to.

    eldar
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2015
  6. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,754
    2,234
    Florida
    Every time I write to my congress people about proposed gun legislation, I always tell them that if they would just enforce what is already on the books, then there wouldn't be the problems that exist right now. Look at the vast majority of the scum who commit crimes with guns. The vast majority of them acquired those guns outside the scope of the law. New laws do not affect them. They only affect the good citizens.
     
  7. MXGreg

    MXGreg Supporting Member

    How can they say he bought it illegally? Unless he lied on the forms, he did what he had to. The FBI dropped the ball.
     
  8. dragon

    dragon Member

    1
    0
    He lied on the form. because answering yes to the ''are you under indictment" question would have been a instant fail.
     
  9. MXGreg

    MXGreg Supporting Member

    Are you sure about that?

    Form 4473 asks if you are under indictment for a felony.

    So where's the felony?
     
  10. MaryB

    MaryB Supporting Member

    He was also under arrest for drug charges but not sure if they had been dropped, so much info out there now is all lies and speculation...

    But the fault is not Roofs, he filled out the form and the government screwed up... if they put a hold on it the time should be extended to a week instead of just three days.
     
  11. MXGreg

    MXGreg Supporting Member

    Just saw a piece on tv about how the background check system failed allowing Dylann Roof to buy his gun. IMO, this is going to be the reason they use to try to push "universal background checks".
     
  12. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,754
    2,234
    Florida
    Yeah, but if they can't even run the paperwork for the current system properly, then how can they expect to run an even more complicated system?
     
  13. MXGreg

    MXGreg Supporting Member

    I know that, you know that, but to the anti-gun people it doesn't matter.
     
  14. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    Because F--K YOU, that's how! You racist homophobe! :D

    It's also my understanding of the law that an arrest does not mean anything, it's only when you are convicted, that the felony charge takes hold.
     

  15. He was not under indictment.

    He had been arrested and before the cops let him go, they dropped the charges.
     
  16. Where they might have standing is that SUPPOSEDLY, while in custody, he admitted to possessing drugs.

    The media/government are claiming that is why he should have been denied purchase.

    Think about that. All it now takes to deny someone their 2nd is for anyone to claim you admitted to possessing any illegal drug. Illegal per the Federal government, not your state's laws.
     
  17. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,503
    10,719
    NE Utah
    Since the Federal law is the one that deals with gun purchases, it makes sense that Federal law on drugs would also apply.

    Personally, I think if you are a criminal, and admit being a criminal, then you shouldn't be able to buy guns legally.

    Sure there are fine points about weed and state laws. But technically, it's all good, as the question reads:

    “Are you an unlawfull user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

    If you are legal by state law, I'd say you are not unlawful.

    Addiction, though...I think denial ain't just a river in Egypt.:cool:
     
  18. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,121
    1,380
    INDY
    DON'T FEED THE TROLLLZ!
    Check post count FIRST! Dood comes here and his first (and ONLY)
    post is supportive of Gun Control? :(
     
  19. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,121
    1,380
    INDY
    It says INDICTMENT. I believe that means there is "pending adjudication"...
     
  20. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,503
    10,719
    NE Utah
    Which in America still means innocent, until the adjudication is complete, and a guilty verdict has been returned.

    Until you are convicted, the system won't know anything, nor should it.