4th Ciruit looking at FBI culpability in Dylan Roof incident

Inigoes · May 7, 2019

4th Circuit looking at FBI culpability in Dylan Roof incident

If any of you have PACER there was a case today in Richmond looking at the Liability of the FBI, for not correcting a bad sale.

Feds Defend Gun Background Checks in Fourth Circuit

The federal investigator tasked with completing his background check made contacts with the Lexington Police Department, which told her an arrest record existed but was in the possession of the Columbia Police Department.

The investigator testified that she scanned her local police contact sheet and only found the West Columbia Police Department, and when she contacted them no document surfaced, so Roof was allowed to make the purchase.

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled for the FBI last year, finding that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act grants the government immunity in most situations when it fails to prevent weapons from winding up in the wrong hands.

But during Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory, a Bill Clinton appointee, called that lack of accountability “absurd.”

Grilling Deputy Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ward, the judge said the investigator “had the info, was told where it was,” but didn’t contact the correct agency.

https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-defend-gun-background-checks-in-fourth-circuit/

The case is Felicia Sanders v. US 18-1931

CrueChief · May 7, 2019

This may be interesting holding .GOV accountable for doing their jobs.

teratos · May 7, 2019

CrueChief said:
This may be interesting holding .GOV accountable for doing their jobs.

It may also make it a nightmare to buy a gun.

XCheckR · May 7, 2019

teratos said:
It may also make it a nightmare to buy a gun.

Yeah. I was thinking deny everything to be safe

CrueChief · May 7, 2019

teratos said:
It may also make it a nightmare to buy a gun.

Well that may be true on the surface but with technology today it "shouldn't" be too much of an issue. But just think if there is Gov't accountability in all other areas/levels of gov't.

tallen702 · May 7, 2019

The real question here is, why wasn't This information sent to the FBI in the first place? Admission of use of illegal drugs is an instant disqualification and a copy of the arrest record and disqualifying document should have been in the FBI database. Making agents track down that information isn't a viable system.

gtodave · May 8, 2019

Wait....Brady bill immunifies the Feds from lawsuits for helping provide guns involved in crimes, but the same people that passed it think it's ok to go after gun manufacturers for making a gun used in crime?

I've said it before I'll say it again: if it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any standards at all.

lazarus · May 8, 2019

tallen702 said:
The real question here is, why wasn't This information sent to the FBI in the first place? Admission of use of illegal drugs is an instant disqualification and a copy of the arrest record and disqualifying document should have been in the FBI database. Making agents track down that information isn't a viable system.

That’s more of a state/local issue. Some states suck at providing information to NICS. And some states that are good about it, don’t hold their local jurisdictions to account for not being good at submitting information to NICS. Especially things like mental health records.

I was reading an article looking at some of those issues. For example, I think VA is really good on the mental health records thing, but AL (I think it was AL) had submitted like 1000-2000 total records to NICS on mental health. VA had submitted like 75,0000.

I am a bit making up numbers because I read the article about 2 years ago, but there is a vast difference from state to state.

teratos · May 8, 2019

CrueChief said:
Well that may be true on the surface but with technology today it "shouldn't" be too much of an issue. But just think if there is Gov't accountability in all other areas/levels of gov't.

If you look at technology sharing between agencies and departments, you will see it is a BIG problem. It should be very simple with a centralized database of prohibited persons. Instead of working together, there seems to be more of a rivalry among everyone.

danb · May 8, 2019

teratos said:
If you look at technology sharing between agencies and departments, you will see it is a BIG problem. It should be very simple with a centralized database of prohibited persons. Instead of working together, there seems to be more of a rivalry among everyone.

Well, depends how you look at it. Big government is usually run by liars, crooks, and nanny do-gooders. Information sharing only empowers those liars, crooks, and nannies. Imagine if some liars and crooks accessed a CCW database and decided to dox gun rights supporters. For example.

"Prohibited persons" is a questionable status in my book. Can we really deny gun rights to a person who made a youthful indiscretion 30 years ago?

I highly doubt laws and databases are going to prevent a white supremacist from shooting up a church, school, bombing a government building, etc. I feel fairly certain a lot of white supremacists have unregistered machine guns getting ready for the race war.

If someone is dangerous enough to be prohibited, they should be in jail, hanging from a gallows somewhere, or under 6ft of dirt.

So when it comes to interagency intergovernment information sharing, less is more, because those liars, nannies, and crooks are more likely to abuse it than actually prevent any crime.

ETA: and btw, since 2014 we have a new "streamlined' process for the 77r MD handgun background check. Has this new "streamlined" electronic process reduced the 7 day wait or prevented any homicides? Well, they are up 35% since 2013... so not so much.

Gun laws and databases are nothing more than plopping down rocks in a river of evil. bad guys just find a way around them, and ultimately the water always flows.

onedash · May 8, 2019

danb said:
If someone is dangerous enough to be prohibited, they should be in jail, hanging from a gallows somewhere, or under 6ft of dirt.

.

In this bipartisan criminal reform bill I wish this would have been addressed. I generally agree that if someone has paid their debt, never mind the catch and release programs practiced in many blue states/cities, if they are good enough to be released back into society then they should be considered a member of society with the rights and responsibilities they had before their conviction.

Elliotte · May 8, 2019

lazarus said:
That’s more of a state/local issue. Some states suck at providing information to NICS. And some states that are good about it, don’t hold their local jurisdictions to account for not being good at submitting information to NICS. Especially things like mental health records.

I was reading an article looking at some of those issues. For example, I think VA is really good on the mental health records thing, but AL (I think it was AL) had submitted like 1000-2000 total records to NICS on mental health. VA had submitted like 75,0000.

I am a bit making up numbers because I read the article about 2 years ago, but there is a vast difference from state to state.

VA was also shamed into fixing things by the mental health issues related to the Virginia Tech shooter. The General Assembly got it's act together and made changes to the laws that closed loopholes & fixed problems that allowed the Tech shooter to purchase his handguns

Inigoes · May 8, 2019

Found the case

18-1931
Felicia Sanders v. US

CIVIL: Appeal from dismissal of FTCA claims alleging government negligence in performing background checks as barred by FTCA's "discretionary function" exception and Brady Act immunity.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=18-1931

OP updated. I can't get past the PACER login

teratos · May 8, 2019

danb said:
Well, depends how you look at it. Big government is usually run by liars, crooks, and nanny do-gooders. Information sharing only empowers those liars, crooks, and nannies. Imagine if some liars and crooks accessed a CCW database and decided to dox gun rights supporters. For example.

"Prohibited persons" is a questionable status in my book. Can we really deny gun rights to a person who made a youthful indiscretion 30 years ago?

I highly doubt laws and databases are going to prevent a white supremacist from shooting up a church, school, bombing a government building, etc. I feel fairly certain a lot of white supremacists have unregistered machine guns getting ready for the race war.

If someone is dangerous enough to be prohibited, they should be in jail, hanging from a gallows somewhere, or under 6ft of dirt.

So when it comes to interagency intergovernment information sharing, less is more, because those liars, nannies, and crooks are more likely to abuse it than actually prevent any crime.

ETA: and btw, since 2014 we have a new "streamlined' process for the 77r MD handgun background check. Has this new "streamlined" electronic process reduced the 7 day wait or prevented any homicides? Well, they are up 35% since 2013... so not so much.

Gun laws and databases are nothing more than plopping down rocks in a river of evil. bad guys just find a way around them, and ultimately the water always flows.

There are points we can argue that we will never solve, and you bring up some philosophical points as well. From a purely academic/objective standpoint there is no reason why all the databases do not talk to each other. Roof fell through the cracks. So did Cho (VA Tech). Don't muddy the waters.

We all know background checks and registration schemes will do nothing.

Bob A · May 8, 2019

Personally, I am pleased that the Gov lacks comprehensive linked databases. You are free to guess why . . . for the time being.

I also feel that any felon whose right to vote has been restored, should have all rights restored. On the other hand, too dangerous to re-arm is too dangerous to be released into the civilian population. Time o give up on prison rehabilitation, and get back to prison as punishment.

While Maryland is supposed to upload mental health data to NICS, it would probably involve uploading most of the Dem voter list. We cannot permit that to happen.

lazarus · May 8, 2019

Elliotte said:
VA was also shamed into fixing things by the mental health issues related to the Virginia Tech shooter. The General Assembly got it's act together and made changes to the laws that closed loopholes & fixed problems that allowed the Tech shooter to purchase his handguns

Oh, absolutely. Just saying VA appears to have their act together today, some states don’t.

I am hesitant to agree wholly on the debt to society and if they are a threat, they should continue to be incarcerated. What about the guy who’s proven he is a hot head and been in for a year or two for assault multiple times over the years? Should we just lock him up and throw away the key? I don’t know I really want someone proven they have some serious anger and self control issues having access to guns. I also don’t necessarily think that can be the case, but also that they’ve proven their are so dangerous that they can’t be trusted in society at all.

Same thing with some people with serious mental health issues. Plenty are totally harmless. But I also don’t want them having access to guns until they’ve shown their mental health issues are under control and been well managed for (whatever is medically appropriate) a reasonable period of time. Is the schizophrenic likely to shoot a place up? A lot less likely than you or me. But that doesn’t mean they can appropriately judge right from wrong or reality from fantasy.

For non-serious violent crimes as a first time offender, you should get your full rights back as soon as your sentence and any probation is up. For non-violent crimes I think you should get your rights back as soon as your sentence and probation is up, whether it is your first, second, etc.

Allen65 · May 8, 2019

lazarus said:
I am hesitant to agree wholly on the debt to society and if they are a threat, they should continue to be incarcerated. What about the guy who’s proven he is a hot head and been in for a year or two for assault multiple times over the years? Should we just lock him up and throw away the key?

Being a violent "hothead" should be treated as mental illness. I have had coworkers over the years with hair triggers who would get violent over minor disagreements, perceived insults, and traffic issues. Gun, fists, chair, doesn't matter what weapon they have access to, they're an unpredictable danger to others. Imprison them permanently as criminals? No, that wouldn't be fair; they just can't control themselves. But once they've proven they can't control themselves to the extent they commit acts of violence against others, they should be required to get treatment, and take their prescribed meds if they're to be allowed to walk free in society.

jrumann59 · May 9, 2019

lazarus said:
That’s more of a state/local issue. Some states suck at providing information to NICS. And some states that are good about it, don’t hold their local jurisdictions to account for not being good at submitting information to NICS. Especially things like mental health records.

I was reading an article looking at some of those issues. For example, I think VA is really good on the mental health records thing, but AL (I think it was AL) had submitted like 1000-2000 total records to NICS on mental health. VA had submitted like 75,0000.

I am a bit making up numbers because I read the article about 2 years ago, but there is a vast difference from state to state.

To the highlighted all states are horrible at it the best only do like 25-30% of what they NEED to. States like MD, NY, NJ and CA are some of the worst with what they submit being close to single digit percentages. IIRC MD keeps most of their records for themselves and in doing so stopped a guy from buying a gun in MD but the info they had was not in the national database so the guy bought a gun a in PA and killed his wife

krucam · May 9, 2019

Inigoes said:
Found the case

18-1931
Felicia Sanders v. US

CIVIL: Appeal from dismissal of FTCA claims alleging government negligence in performing background checks as barred by FTCA's "discretionary function" exception and Brady Act immunity.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=18-1931

OP updated. I can't get past the PACER login

Opening Brief and Response Briefs are attached.

The Audio from the Orals on May 7th: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/18-1931-20190507.mp3

Inigoes · May 9, 2019

Thank you Mark :thumbsup:

4th Ciruit looking at FBI culpability in Dylan Roof incident

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

My hair is amazing

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

DILLIGAF

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics