July 12, 2015

It wasn't a 'loophole,' idiot

Our pal Ron Marz is at it again, blindly taking the NY Times (among other MSM advocates, not reporters) at face value:


Except that it wasn't a loophole. The MSM, though, like the "progressive" administration, has a need to portray Roof's acquisition of a gun as such.

What actually happened is that someone at the FBI didn't do her job:

Two days after Mr. Roof tried to buy the weapon (which would be the FIRST business day after Roof's Saturday, April 11 attempt to purchase ó Ed.), an examiner at the F.B.I.ís national background check center in Clarksburg, W.Va., began investigating his criminal history. The examiner found that Mr. Roof had been arrested this year on a felony drug charge, but not convicted. The charge alone would not have prevented him from buying the gun under federal law. But evidence that Mr. Roof had been convicted of a felony or was a drug addict would have resulted in a denial, so she continued to investigate his background.

Because Mr. Roof had been arrested in a small part of Columbia that is in Lexington County and not in Richland County, where most of the city is, the examiner was confused about which police department to call. She ultimately did not find the right department and failed to obtain the police report. Had the examiner gained access to the police report, she would have seen that Mr. Roof had admitted to having been in possession of a controlled substance and she would have issued a denial.

The examiner, however, did send a request to the Lexington County prosecutorís office, which had charged him, inquiring about the case. The prosecutorís office, however, did not respond.

Around that time the three-day waiting period expired, and Mr. Roof returned to the store and purchased the gun.

Be sure to continue reading, because that's not the end of it. The FBI can still keep investigating after the 3-day waiting period. But it didn't, despite the confusion in Roof's case.

Bottom line is the laws and procedures should have worked here, but the employee(s) charged with carrying them out did not do so.

Posted by Hube at July 12, 2015 10:45 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Post a comment









Remember personal info?