Unresolved Login Issue Prevented Florida 'Concealed Weapon' Background Checks For Over a Year (tampabay.com) 193
An anonymous reader quotes the Tampa Bay Times
For more than a year, the state of Florida failed to conduct national background checks on tens of thousands of applications for concealed weapons permits, potentially allowing drug addicts or people with a mental illness to carry firearms in public... The employee in charge of the background checks could not log into the system, the investigator learned. The problem went unresolved until discovered by another worker in March 2017 -- meaning that for more than a year applications got approved without the required background check.
During that time, which coincided with the June 12, 2016 shooting at Pulse nightclub that left 50 dead, the state saw an unprecedented spike in applications for concealed weapons permits. There were 134,000 requests for permits in the fiscal year ending in June 2015. The next 12 months broke a record, 245,000 applications, which was topped again in 2017 when the department received 275,000 applications... There are now 1.8 million concealed weapon permit holders in Florida.
The employee with the login issue, who has since been fired, "told the Times she had been working in the mailroom when she was given oversight of the database in 2013. 'I didn't understand why I was put in charge of it.'"
During that time, which coincided with the June 12, 2016 shooting at Pulse nightclub that left 50 dead, the state saw an unprecedented spike in applications for concealed weapons permits. There were 134,000 requests for permits in the fiscal year ending in June 2015. The next 12 months broke a record, 245,000 applications, which was topped again in 2017 when the department received 275,000 applications... There are now 1.8 million concealed weapon permit holders in Florida.
The employee with the login issue, who has since been fired, "told the Times she had been working in the mailroom when she was given oversight of the database in 2013. 'I didn't understand why I was put in charge of it.'"
Not an IT problem! (Score:3)
Government staffing has issues. Who was this employee related to? Patronage lives at all levels of government.
Employee's story doesn't make sense, dates don't line up. Who was her supervisor? What's his/her version? Next supervisor up?
None of that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Employee is given a task, then doesn't do it, because cannot.
Boss doesn't find out for over a year that employee didn't do the assigned work.
My first thought is that it isn't really fair to fire the employee for that, but that really depends on whether she made clear to her boss she couldn't do the job. And why not give her the old job back, was she no good at that? If not, why give her oversight of this database? Do explain that one, please.
But the boss not finding out about it for over a year? Or the boss' boss? And so on? That's inexcusable. They're supposed to know that sort of thing, that's their job. So if any heads are to roll, I expect at least several levels of middle management to start sprouting vacancies. If not, the firing of managers shall continue until the idiocy stops.
Right up to the governor if necessary. Go on, have a full-blown election with only new candidates over the firing of an ex-mailroom clerk. Or what is this democracy thing for, anyway?
Re:None of that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably "HAD" to fire her when it became clear it was going to become public knowledge... Yeah, something doesn't sound right.
Re: (Score:3)
Her version of the story, for TFS:
She was 'given oversight of the database' of the DB in 2013. Failed to run the checks, starting in 2015. Not a very good liar.
But yeah, fire her supervisor too. Up the line, nobody did their jobs. Government work, SOP. What can you say?
Also: About 1000 applications/working day. This was not some manual process she was blowing off. She either _was_ a supervisor and her whole crew was doing nothing for over a year, or she was knowledgeable enough to script in an automa
Re:None of that matters (Score:5, Informative)
You missed a rather relevant bit from the middle of TFS:
So it looks like the checks were progressing just fine until late February 2016, which implies that Wilde's login was presumably working from 2013 through until some point around then, depending on how long the system could run without Wilde logging in. Sure, Wilde dropped the ball by failing to follow up when it wasn't resolved but, regardless of that failure, her supervisors (and their supervisors, etc., etc.) also failed to query a massive spike in concealled carry permits on the books - up over 40% in just two years. Setting aside the issue of gun control, it takes a whole other level of managerial incompetence to fail to react to a stat like that.
Re: (Score:2)
40 days later...raised the issue once, then sat ass for a year. Apparently was found to have been 'deceitful'. You wouldn't fire her? No question the firings shouldn't be over, no disagreement there.
It's not their job to question why they're getting numbers. As I pointed out, this was batch processing, batch size doesn't make that big a difference.
If I found that a Jr. Network admin or coder had lost access 40 days before mentioning it to anyone, had 'acted busy' for those 40 days. He'd be gone. His di
Re: None of that matters (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole "good enough for government work" thing pisses me off. There's a story that that used to mean a job well done. High enough quality for government work.
If that's no longer the case, it starts at the top: the voter. There are millions of people who work hard and want to do a good job. But we elect people who hate the idea of government and want it canceled. Not a big surprise when they don't care about the work being done.
We insist that government employees be low paid and have no perks, because "it
Re: (Score:2)
Government jobs _are_ highly sought after. Because once you get one, you almost can't be fired. This lady just pushed the envelope a little too far and got caught by the media.
Whoever told you that 'story' was creative, I'll give him that. Pure fiction though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't want em. I like to get things done, not sit in meetings all day.
I don't even want government consulting jobs...'Giving aid and comfort to the enemy' and all.
But if your ethics allow it, they're well paid, slackfull and easy to get.
Re: (Score:3)
The people that _love_ government refuse to manage it well. Every government employee is more power in their hands.
Also government work is _full_ of air thieves. As pointed out throughout the thread, you cannot manage competence into the incompetent. You just have to fire them, which is virtually impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just no. Perhaps less bad than many, but 'good guys'? You're nuts.
The pay is _great_ for what they do. Truly 'outstand individuals' don't touch those jobs, not because of the pay, because of the nightmare bureaucracy.
Re:None of that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly the sheer number of applications wouldn't allow manual processing of the forms by a single person, even if it was just to review each application was correctly completed and send it on, so her role seems most likely to have been either managing the batch processing of submitted forms or supervising a team's work. For instance, iIf that was only a small part of her job then that doesn't necessarily mean she was just "acting busy", and if her involvement with the system was periodic - say every several weeks - then the apparent 40 day delay in calling support could actually be a non-issue. Regardless of any possible mitigating circumstances that clearly were not sufficient to get her off the hook, it seems pretty clear that the entire department is suffering from the symptoms of "good enough for government work", and the buck for that kind of issue stops in the Governor's office.
Re: (Score:2)
"Employee is given a task, then doesn't do it, because cannot."
Looking something up is simple enough that ANYBODY can learn to do it. She should have received a little TRAINING on how to do it, and she should have ASKED QUESTIONS if she didn't understand the process. At some point, if the employee isn't doing the job and REFUSES TO ASK FOR DIRECTIONS when she realizes that she isn't accomplishing the task ..... That sort of aggressive, determined ignorance is discouraging.
Re:Not an IT problem! (Score:4, Insightful)
Government staffing has issues. Who was this employee related to? Patronage lives at all levels of government.
Employee's story doesn't make sense, dates don't line up. Who was her supervisor? What's his/her version? Next supervisor up?
More to the point, why wasn't the system constructed in such a way that it is impossible for a bureaucrat to approve an application and issue a CCW permit without first completing a background check? That and the queue of angry NRA members waiting on their CCW licenses should provide a sufficient motivation to resolve any login issues post haste.
Re: (Score:3)
Two reasons I would imagine:
1) Background checks for CCW/CPLs are rarely a one time thing, ditto with BC related to employment, as you could have a bad thing show up on your record a month, a year, or three after the initial one.
2) Because of the expectation that there will be later checks, and default proceed a
Re: (Score:2)
ug, didn't complete #2, should read:
2) Because of the expectation that there will be later checks, and default proceed attitude also coming from the NICS system, where if the FBI can't make a determination after 3 days, the seller may proceed with the transfer at their own discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
"angry NRA members"? Remind me... how many people have NRA members killed over the last year? ... or decade? Sure they might use harsh tones at times, but they tend to be a pretty non-violent group. Despite all of the rhetoric, CPL holders tend to be far less violent than the average member of the surrounding population: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/... [ammoland.com]
Simmer down dude ... no need to go full snowflake on me. I only meant angry at standing in a line and waiting for their license in the Florida heat. I'm pretty sure that would get pretty much anybody rather cranky after the first 30-45 minutes or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends... some states allow for by mail, others require in person. Florida allows by mail.
Re: (Score:2)
No states that I've had to apply for in person (California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington) was there a line outside.
California it is up to the local sheriff/chief of police, but originally it was a process where one selects the next available date that works for their schedule for an appointment (in my case, originally was 18 months out, but then was moved up to 12 months once they flushed out all the anti-gun folks who had DDoS the appointment system with fake appointments). Now in my county all the initial
Re: (Score:2)
You've never gotten a CCW permit, have you? The process usually involves getting your fingerprints taken at the local sheriff's office, fill out a couple forms, then they mail it to you a few months later. At no point is anyone waiting in a line outside for it to get stamped or printed or whatever your mental fantasy is.
That's still not a reason to go into full-on wingnut snowflake mode and launch into a rant about mass shootings. You seem like a very angry person. Have you considered therapy?
Re: (Score:2)
When someone is accused of a murder, the police tend to search quite deep. You don't think they or a reporter would notice an NRA membership card, cap or sticker somewhere?
Now can we audit the states use of the database? (Score:4, Informative)
Since each state should be having their sales verified through this database, the FBI should be able to audit how many queries are made per state, to validate that they match the number of sales being made. If there is a significant discrepancy, then the state should be investigated for failure to follow procedure. This should be EASY to catch, and will help find the points where failures are occurring, like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Match the sales of what? This was for concealed carry licenses, not buying guns. The background checks for those are done by dealers, who are auditable and who face very strong penalties for not doing it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if you have your concealed carry permit then you get to walk out with a gun that day. At least that's how it worked when I bought one in Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Florida - have a CCW permit, no 3-day waiting period.
Fla. Const. art. I, 8(b); Fla. Stat. 790.0655(2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Florida Constitution can't override the federal requirement that FFLs use NICS before delivering a firearm. In a lot of cases, the NICS determination is effectively instant.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just reading about this actually, and the law states if you have a ccw, you have already passed stringent enough background checks often enough(recurring checks) that you are considered safe to sell a weapon to, considering you're probably carrying at the time anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in a few states, Florida not included: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-... [atf.gov]
Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I'm referring to gun dealers who go to shows and claim to be "private sellers".
If you've ever been to a gun show, you've seen them. As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database (Score:5, Informative)
If you've ever been to a gun show, you've seen them. As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
So you're the one you've been warning us about for years? Huh
And you didn't turn in either the ones you thought were illegally dealing guns, or yourself? Huh.
So your years of complaints and invective on the matter boil down to, "Our system is soooo f-----d! Why the hell isn't anyone arresting me for what I did?"
It seems we've found something that you and the NRA agree on.
Re: Now can we audit the states use of the databas (Score:2, Insightful)
And I think you need to be deported for thinking it's ok to require a permission slip to exercise rights. We don't have to get a permit to speak, or worship, or not be thrown in jail without a trial. Fuck you and your permit bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
Not legally in the State of California, where you reside. Private party transfers are essentially banned in the State of California, you must use an FFL dealer as an intermediary. Or did you avoid the FFL? Or buy out-of-State? Both of those would be illegal, too... Only exception would be those antique firearms, which are exempted.
Re: (Score:2)
I've only recently moved to California from Houston, you creepy stalky fuck. I've lived all over the US. My gun buying days are behind me. I'm standing pat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Completely compliant, thank you very much, including with California Penal Code 26150 and 26155.
I believe in citizenship and the rule of law and punching Nazis and all that good American stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because he moved to California doesn't mean [all] his firearms moved with him. Many folks relocating to California store them just across the state line because many types/models are illegal in California.
He may have stored them all out of state, and then purchased any "new" models in California.
Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database (Score:4, Insightful)
Since each state should be having their sales verified through this database, the FBI should be able to audit how many queries are made per state
IMO: When a successful background check is made; the national database should issue a Background verification control number which MUST be recorded by the states in their own databases and must also
appear stamped on a concealed carry permit; A permit without the correct control number is not valid. The control number can be looked up later and will match to the personal information that was used to query the background database.
If the background database info of that person changes later, for example an arrest or conviction is added, then the state will be sent a notification and be required to revoke the concealed carry permit.
Re: (Score:2)
Every CCW/CHL/CPL/LTC permit I have (9 states) has a permit number of some sort on them. They are locally-issued and tracked numbers, and nothing to do with NICS. But if someone were to forget one of these, and should a LEO run a check during a traffic stop or other contact with a permittee, they'd be caught because the LEO would use the permit number to obtain the name and address on file, no matter what the permit says, and in the states that require a photograph, they'd probably have that up on their m
Re: (Score:2)
that is already done.
Re: (Score:2)
True, although the logic applies--how many concealed carry permits are issued, vs. how many queries are made. This can be audited and if they don't match, an investigation launched.
What was the death toll? (Score:5, Insightful)
All those concealed carry permits without background checks? It's an authoritarian's worst nightmare!
How many murders and shootings were committed by those unvetted CCW holders? I will guess zero.
Good question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet the CDC did exactly that research. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319... [nap.edu]
Guess what? Guns help prevent crime more than they cause it. And we're not talking about indirect deterrence here where knowing a populace is armed keeps potential criminals scared. We're only talking about direct defensive uses of firearms.
If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, Guns and Ammo summarized it here http://www.gunsandammo.com/pol... [gunsandammo.com]
Connecticut gun laws. (Score:2, Insightful)
Connecticut's gun laws after Sandy Hook reduced gun killings by over 40% across the board. [washingtonpost.com]
And your cite? Does not say "Guns help prevent crime more than they cause it. " at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for unrestricted gun access, but let's not muddy the waters with BS. If we as a society want these rights to guns, we have to pay the price and know - with open eyes - the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, indeed, lets not muddy the waters. If any law only shifts murder from one instrumentality to another it is largely pointless. Dead is dead. Or do you think that being killed by a gun uniquely effects ones afterlife?
The Sandy Hook shootings were in 2012.
Murders in Connecticut*:
2005 107
2014 100
2015 124
2016 88
Homicide Mortality by State [cdc.gov]
Re:Good question (Score:4, Insightful)
The pattern for everything I've looked at so far:
Guns and Ammo summary: X!!!!
nap.edu report (title: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence): There are studies that say X, there are some that say not X, sometimes studies of X do not take into account Y. Further research is needed.
To pit it mildly, it looks like Guns and Ammo is omitting a lot of the context from the NAP report. It's almost like they have an agenda or something.
Re:Good question (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, because for over 20 years, the CDC was prohibited from studying gun violence [arstechnica.com]. Yes, the NRA has bought legislation that prevents any money the CDC gets from going into gun violence research.
So obviously the CDC did not conduct the research, because they're not allowed to. They're allowed to contract it out for no money, which basically means really self-interested researchers (i.e., industry) gets to write an opinion piece about it.
Your article is dated to 2013, and the CDC has not conducted any gun violence research since 1996 (Dickey Amendment).
And all my article states is the AMA is lobbying for its appeal since 2016, because one really cannot make any sort of judgements without proper research. Of course, the NRA opposes this, almost as if they're worried about the real truth, that it might be the next cigarettes, or leaded gasoline, or climate change, or something. Or it might be because their whole set of mottoes end up being lies...
Re:Good question (Score:4, Informative)
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. But, if you choose to do that, be prepared to explain how they've actually been able to legally conduct such research (this from 2013) [nap.edu] and even as recently as 2015 [delaware.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
You would not see it immediately (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but most convicts aren't ever going to waste money applying for a CCW permit because they know they'll be denied. I say most, because I know that there are still denials.
Re:What was the death toll? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because the media said they didn't know of any doesn't mean there weren't hundreds.
Really? So you think there are hundreds of people willing to commit murder, but unwilling to carry a concealed gun without a permit?
Many states allow unrestricted conceal carry, with no license required. When they passed laws to allow this, some people predicted that shootings would soar since every road rage incident would turn into a homicide. Others predicted that crime would fall since more armed and law abiding people would be a deterrent. Here's what actually happened: It didn't make any difference.
Re: What was the death toll? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it did make a difference... it gave police something else to charge minorities with.
Gun controllers can completely take minority voters for granted. So they see no need to consider gun laws' impact on minorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the other way around. It removed the ability for police to charge minorities because they could now legally carry without a permit. Permitless carry is pro-minority, just like gun control was and still is racist.
Re:What was the death toll? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not when they happen in Chicago or Baltimore.
So, you think a guy from Chicago or Baltimore drove down to Florida, applied for a concealed weapon permit, then drove back to their home city and shot somebody? You... are a freakin' loon.
Re: (Score:3)
Your response is actual the loony one.
Florida, like quite a few states will issue a concealed weapon permit to non-residents. Why would someone want one? Because a Florida permit is honored in 31 states, plus, it can be applied for via the mail... so no driving required, of course, I don't believe Illinois or Maryland honor permits from any other states, making such an application moot there.
The truly loony part of your statement, is the claim that someone would just get a permit in Florida so they could go
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe one person who was issued a permit duri
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is easy to fix. All current permits issued during this period are just run through NICS (as they should have been) and all the ones issued to Prohibited persons are revoked.
Prohibited persons aren't legally allowed to even possess firearms or ammo, so even if they have a Florida permit, they're breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
in the meantime the non-gunowning population continues to freak out and spew histrionics over every gun article printed by the media - for no logical reason.
Moral panic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's horrific and explains why the murder rate there is almost 10% higher than California.
CCW was legalized state-wide in 1987, and the murder rate has declined by nearly half since then.
The difference between homicide in Florida and California is mostly due to demography and culture.
Florida is too dangerous to go to now.
Florida has always been relatively dangerous. Just don't deal drugs or hang out with criminals, and you will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Or drive on I-4 near Orlando (major construction zone). Seriously, it really is that dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
Name one Florida CWP holder who has murdered someone. The only person I've ever heard of who shot someone was George Zimmerman, and it wasn't murder, but self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
And pilot licensing!
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying "because unlicensed pilots seems like a bad idea, every activity every person engages in throughout his life should require a license: walking a dog, operating a coffee maker, swimming, setting an alarm clock, everything".
I'm saying "let’s actually use science and facts to help us decide". And let’s maybe use some sense and a little respect for our fellow man while we're at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every activity, just the ones that create a danger to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every activity, just the ones that create a danger to others.
Like dog attacks from unlicensed dog handlers? Fires and poisonings from unlicensed coffee brewing? How do we decide which ones "create a danger to others" and whether licensing lowers that danger significantly?
My suggestion: let’s use science to gather facts to inform those decisions.
Driver licensing will become less of a thing in a few years with autonomous cars anyway. There’s no reason it has to be beyond thoughtful consideration until then.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK used to require a licence to own a dog. I thought all /.ers had seen the entire repertoire of Monty Python and would know this from the Fish Licence sketch, but maybe I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It keeps those that can't read and answer basic driving laws from legally driving on the road, as well as those who can't satisfactorily operate a motor vehicle off the road, or even see with good enough vision.
Re: (Score:2)
My dad had a story about how he got his license. There was no requirement to get one, and then one year a new law was enacted requiring one. So he went to the government office to sign up for a license. The clerk asked him if he knew how to drive. He said "well, I drove here today". And they gave him a drivers license.
Also, foreigners show up and drive with foreign licenses all the time. You have no idea what the requirements are for foreign drivers licenses. Do you think it's a scandal? What about
We know who you are ... (Score:2)
... and now that we have the password, the computer will use AI, blockchain and the cloud to find all you bitches (or bastards, as may apply).
Laws and Regulations are the tools (Score:4, Interesting)
I also want to say again, about gun violence, what is it about our culture and society that creates individuals who think gun violence is a good way to get their fame on social media/solve their problems.
Maybe the real issue is not directly the gun (a tool) but the person and their state of mind along with our culture and society! Lets be open minded and at least ask the question.
Just my 2 cents
Re:Laws and Regulations are the tools (Score:4, Interesting)
I also want to say again, about gun violence, what is it about our culture and society that creates individuals who think gun violence is a good way to get their fame on social media/solve their problems.
I don't think there's anything particularly special about the United States in this regard. You find similar types of violence throughout the world. The Middle East is rife with it, but it takes on a much more religious bent. In European countries where access to guns is much more restricted, the weapon of choice now seems to be using vehicles on crowded streets. We even saw this in Canada from someone who carried out such an attack that had nothing to do with religion, lest anyone think this is just somehow a Muslim thing. There was even that Norwegian bloke from several years ago that massacred school children, so again I don't believe this is solely an American issue.
There's probably some illusion that this is a much larger problem then it actually is due to increased media coverage, and simply having more people than ever before on the planet. It's entirely possible for the total number of incidents to increase and for the per capita rate to decrease at the same time as a consequence of a growing population. Twenty-four hour news and the internet also mean that we're able to hear about any event that occurs, often as it's occurring. Previously, you might have found out about a major event a day or two later, typically with more information as reporters were able to piece together what had happened. Now you'll see a news story about something that's ongoing with little in the way of concrete information.
I believe that psychologists have stated that some of what the media was doing (showing pictures of the perpetrator, discussing why they did it, etc.) when we first started trending in this direction was likely to cause more incidents. If you give people attention for doing something, the kinds of people who crave attention are more likely to do those things. I don't know if it's completely fair to place the blame squarely there either. To some degree I suspect that up until some catalyst event, it had simply not occurred to most people to do something like that. Look again at the example of the use of vehicles to plow through crowds of people. Up until the last few years, this was almost entirely unheard of or if it did occur, more likely to be an accident or the result of an elderly person who perhaps shouldn't have been allowed to drive any longer. And soon, some new and unimaginable means of destruction will be unleashed on the world, and I'm not sure we'll understand it any better.
Its never the employees fault... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is likely that the dems that voted for the background checks did not provide any funding to pay for the work. So the department did the least they could get away with, as a "protest". It has happened in other states.
ONE JOB (Score:2)
You had ONE JOB lady... Incompetence of the worst sort--!
Don't attribute to malice... (Score:2)
... what can be perfectly explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never attributed the election of Donald Trump to malice.
You should, at least partially. The Democrats and mainstream media* (minus Fox) thought that Trump was the perfect candidate for Hillary to beat. They did what they could to support Trump initially because they thought they would screw the Republicans with a weak candidate. How ironic.
. . . oft evil will shall evil mar . . .
*but I repeat myself
and the gov't didn't do its job.....AGAIN. (Score:2)
I live down here, love the place, but the number of mouth breathers are as thick as the mosquitoes at times.
Shouldn't the employee be in jail? (Score:2)
The employee in charge of the background checks could not log into the system, the investigator learned. The problem went unresolved until discovered by another worker in March 2017 — meaning that for more than a year applications got approved without the required background check.
So, even though there was no background check done, this employee signed official government documents stating that it had been done? Isn't that fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing in the article and nothing in the IG investigator's report that suggests that Wilde "signed official government documents stating that it had been done." It's more as if performing the check will cause an application to be flagged if the NICS check shows disqualifying information, but applications will still be approved even if no check is performed, as no disqualifying information has been collected. TFA also states that the NICS is use to find "non-criminal" disqualifying information, and
She tried ... (Score:2)
Please tell me they at least run the checks now? (Score:2)
borderline criminal oversight failure (Score:2)
It strikes me that the manager's head should roll, too, and possibly the manager's manager, as well.
Well managed organizations catch failure on the front lines, and generally sooner rather than later.
Over-sensationalized (Score:2)
"...potentially allowing drug addicts or people with a mental illness to carry firearms in public..."
Here is a newsflash: having a creditcard-sized piece of plastic didn't "allow" drug addicts or people with mental illnesses to carry firearms. They can and will do so with or without that piece of plastic.
Just a thought: how many of these CCW holders committed crimes in Florida? It's still lower than the general population or even law enforcement.
Seriously, re-run the NICS checks, revoke the permits of tho
Re: (Score:2)
if the background check takes more than X days you have to issue the permit.
Why should it take more than X seconds? It is a database lookup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I already refuted you above, but I'll link to the study again anyway. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319... [nap.edu]
The majority of guns used at the time of arrest "came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market."
Note that gun shows are not listed there, nor are failures to properly check backgrounds.
And letting anyone who applies and is not objected to by the government have a permit is not a loophole, it is the intended function.
Re:Another loop hole (Score:5, Insightful)
The real loophole is what I like to call the "dark alley loophole", wherein stolen and/or smuggled guns are sold out of some guy's trunk in a dark alley. Not legal in the slightest, but it's where the guns used in the vast majority of crimes come from.
Nobody is using a weapon with their name on it to commit a crime, and nobody is willingly transferring a weapon with their name on it to someone else who may use it to commit a crime without ensuring that the transfer has been recorded. Too much liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is using a weapon with their name on it to commit a crime, and nobody is willingly transferring a weapon with their name on it to someone else who may use it to commit a crime without ensuring that the transfer has been recorded. Too much liability.
If there is no law preventing background checks for private sales, how do you know there is a liability? How can there be a liability if nothing illegal was done? Can you cite an example of someone privately and legally selling a perfectly working gun to an adult and then losing a lawsuit because of what that person did with it?
Re: (Score:3)
If there is no law preventing background checks for private sales
First mistake. There is no law requiring them. Not only that, as a private citizen and not an FFL licensed dealer, you actually can't perform the background check. Because there's a law preventing it...
how do you know there is a liability?
Second mistake: misunderstanding. Let me clarify. The liability doesn't come from selling the gun, it comes from the fact that you are the last owner with a background check assigned to the serial number of that gun, which means the cops will be at your door after a trace if that gun is found to have been use
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing about this supposed loophole, but all I see every time I go to a gun show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The so called, "Gun Show loop hole" is a myth. The legal requirements on sellers and buyers are the same as they would be at other times and places.
The 2nd, like the 1st and other Amendments to the US Constitution protects RIGHTs, not suggestions. And I think it is HILARIOUS that you reference " Bureaucracy®" as if it doesn't exist, or that it can't act in ways contrary to the law, regulation, or rights of citizens. (Do the recent years of abuses by the IRS ring a bell? How about #Resist?)
Do you have
Re: (Score:2)
"It takes one to know one..."
The old regulations had a flaw where officials in charge of background checks, who were political beauracrats, blocked all carry permits by refusing to do the checks.
So nowdays all background check laws have a time limit, so that it does not allow extreme gun-banners to block all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers in the story don't make any sense.
Typically about 1% were rejected, then suddenly 291 of 365?
It also appears she was supposed to submit a list for background check. I suspect that the reporter is an idiot and each 'application' was a batch (state totals/days would say of about 1000, the 1% reject estimate would say of about 100).
Re: (Score:2)
Read it carefully: what it says is that they found 365 applications where Wilde was supposed to have done a "further review," presumably to the NICS database, based upon some other criteria (the precise criteria is unstated, but characterized as "non-criminal disqualifying information"), and when that "further review" was performed, 291 were found to be ineligible.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one was supposed to go through the database query process.
Re: (Score:2)
People who have CCW permits are far more law-abiding than the general population.
FTFY - plenty of folks are denied permits, and in "Shall Issue" states (and even "May Issue" states) are criminals (which is why they are denied).