Families Of Charleston Shooting Victims Sue FBI Over Background-Check Error

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

By William Wan July 1 at 5:56 PM

The families of victims killed in last year’s shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., are suing the FBI over an error during a background check that allowed the alleged shooter to buy his gun.

The lawsuit comes a year after the mass shooting that sent shock waves through the country. Dylann Roof, then 21, a white high school dropout, is charged with opening fire and killing nine black parishioners during a prayer meeting at the historic African American church.

In the days after the shooting, FBI Director James B. Comey said in a remarkable disclosure that Roof shouldn’t have been able to buy the gun he allegedly used.

Roof had been arrested for possession of narcotics in February 2015, a charge that alone did not disqualify him from buying a gun. But Comey said Roof’s subsequent admission of the drug crime would have triggered an automatic rejection of his gun purchase if the information had been properly recorded in ­criminal-record and background-check databases.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/families-of-charleston-shooting-victims-sue-the-fbi-over-background-check-error/2016/07/01/8e8968f4-3fbd-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

[Yo_Mama]

1. But those databases are dependent on proper notification by local authorities.

Unless that notification can be proved to have been submitted, I think this won't go anywhere.

[TexasBushwhacker]

3. Part of the problem is the default answer is "Yes"

A gun dealer only has to wait 3 days. If they don't hear back from the feds in that time, tgey aee free to sell the weapon. I think this is a problem. They should have to wait for an affirmative Yes or No.

[Travis_0004]

5. I disagree

I would be fine extending in to 10 business days, but the FBI should not be allowed infinate delays. To allow so would allow then to take a way a constitutional right simply through inaction.

3 days might not be long enough, but they should be required to give a yes or no in a reasonable time frame.

[TexasBushwhacker]

7. I'm fine with 10 days n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. Is there someone that sees this lawsuit possibly succeeding?

(In a way other than just bringing publicity on the issue)

[cstanleytech]

4. I'm not a lawyer but personally I just dont see this lawsuit succeeding. nt

[passiveporcupine]

6. From the link

Roof’s subsequent admission of the drug crime would have triggered an automatic rejection of his gun purchase if the information had been properly recorded in ­criminal-record and background-check databases.

Authorities have said that a clerk’s mistake in how Roof’s arrest was listed prevented the FBI examiner for his background check from seeing it.

If this was a clerical error by the FBI, I can see them winning this case.

I agree, no limit to waiting time...a yes or no is required. If you don't get an answer within a week, you can resubmit the approval request, and maybe flag it as 2nd attempt?

[Yo_Mama]

8. But more likely by a local clerk? n/t

[passiveporcupine]

9. That part I don't know. Where it is actually entered into the actual data base.

Since it's a data base that I assume is controlled by and for the FBI, I guess I assumed the information is forwarded to them via computer programs, but is it then entered into a final data base by a clerk...or is it entered by the clerks in the police station, or the court house? I have no idea.

It just seems that they would be suing someone else if it was someone else who entered the wrong data.

Are there any cops or judges here who might know how this is done?

[Igel]

11. You'd think that it was entered locally.

Why enter it into some form that gets sent to a person who transcribes the information?

The only reason is to restrict access. Seems unlikely.

[Yo_Mama]

12. Saw an article this morning that says it was an FBI employee.

But generally, it is hard to sue the government. Police don't have the responsibility to protect you, etc.

We may passionately believe that's the way it "ought" to be - but legally, that is not true.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

I was very sorry to read that it was the FBI, but I still don't think they'll succeed. And I'm sorry for that. It's almost impossible to sue the government for dereliction of duty and win. Suing the government for something that the government did is easier.

[Sand Rat Expat]

14. Speaking as a former police dispatcher...

To the best of my knowledge and memory, no one but the FBI was able to enter or change data in NCIC (National Crime Information Center), and that's one of the databases that NICS is connected to, among a couple others. From that I'd infer that NICS is editable only by the FBI as well, but I could very well be wrong.

Given the scale of and intention behind both systems, I can't imagine the FBI would let Deputy Dawgs just waltz in and start changing things. That being said, I have no idea what the process looks like. I would imagine that once an arrest or charge is processed by the local authorities, that information is communicated to the feds and the database updated, possibly through each state's bureau of investigation.

Again, though, that's just my best guess based on the systems I dealt with and my understanding of how they all connected. As a dispatcher, all I really did was communicate information to the cops in the field.

[Loki]

10. Why don't they sue the Republican congress

who won't support any increase in funding that would help update these systems, or implement any changes that would make them work more efficiently, from the local, state up to the federal level. Want to direct anger, that's where it should be directed.

[libodem]

13. Word!