Saturday, July 11, 2015

Gun Sale to Roof Should Not have been approved

" The gunman charged in the Charleston, S.C., church massacre should not have been allowed to purchase the weapon used in the attack, FBI Director James Comey said Friday as he outlined a series of "heartbreaking" missed opportunities and background check flaws that allowed the transaction to take place. . . .Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the errors.
"It's disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale," Grassley said. "The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws." . . .
Loopholes have been discovered before in the FBI’s background check system, called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. One allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents.
After a 2007 shooting in which 33 people died at Virginia Tech University, investigators discovered that the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, also should not have been able to buy a gun because a court had declared him to be a danger to himself. The shooting led to legislation aimed at improving the system."

We do not need new gun control laws.  They will not reduce crime and will only interfere with legitimate users Second Amendment and self-defense rights.  We need competent, conscientious enforcement of existing laws to see if they work before we even start thinking about new ones.
Politicians like to appear to have answers and solutions.  They pass laws and then do not make sure they are administered competently.  Rather than adequately funding enforcement of old laws or taking steps to see that they work, new laws are touted. Of course  authoritarian gun control advocates don't care about anything other than new gun laws.   "Experimentation" cannot be justified when fundamental constitutional and natural law rights are threatened.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with your sentiment here. Contrary to what some gun rights advocates claim, instant background checks are in keeping with our founders' 2A intent. Not the banning of gun ownership and/or carry by rationale, law-abiding citizens. And it's the latter that adds that extra layer of security when the prior screen fails.