mauserme Posted March 2, 2019 at 04:42 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 04:42 PM Focusing on the system instead of gun owners: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-aurora-shooting-gun-fbi-congress-20190301-story.html Members of Congress to FBI: Fix gaps in background check system that allowed Aurora shooter to buy gun By Annie Sweeney and Stacy St. ClairContact Reporters Chicago Tribune Several lawmakers are asking the FBI to address the flawed national databases that allowed the Aurora shooter to purchase the gun he used to kill five co-workers and wound several officers last month. In a letter sent to the nations top law enforcement agency Friday, some members of Illinois congressional delegation requested the FBI review its records to verify that all felony and domestic violence-related convictions are shared across the myriad federal criminal databases. The letter also asks the FBI to check its fingerprint records to ensure that all convicted felons listed also appear in databases used to perform background checks on would-be gun owners a nod to the weaknesses exposed after the Feb. 15 warehouse shooting. ... In the letter to the FBI, Foster along with U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Aurora, and Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth requested the FBI review its databases to ensure they all share the same information. By doing so, it could go a long way toward preventing tragedies like the Aurora shooting, the lawmakers said. Such cross-posting of conviction information between (databases) potentially could have enabled the January 2014 firearms background check of the Aurora gunman to disclose his status as a prohibited felon, the letter states. The delegation members specifically asked the FBI to verify that the name of every felon with fingerprints on file is also included in the databases used in gun-related background checks. The letter acknowledges that states play a critical role in creating thorough databases, but officials said federal law enforcement also shares in the responsibility. ... The letter has the support of the Illinois State Police ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cope Posted March 2, 2019 at 05:04 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 05:04 PM Admittedly I havent studied this BG check talk all that much because we in Illinois already suffer such strict scrutiny but isnt this exactly what weve been asking for? Finally Illinois does something smart? enforce the laws that are already in place instead of creating new ones BG checks arent in the true spirit of 2A, but they do fall in what we always go along with, give a little 'common sense' and even we agree certain persons should be banned if there is a BG check system we must submit to, they should push to make it a perfect system that doesnt let criminals slip through the cracks...... that just makes it harder on the law abiding gun owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 2, 2019 at 05:24 PM Author Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 05:24 PM I prefer this to some of the ideas the media's been pushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45Badger Posted March 2, 2019 at 07:17 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 07:17 PM We have background checks on new gun sales. Don’t need any more. And we don’t need the ridiculous and pathetic Foid system. Period. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 2, 2019 at 08:22 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 08:22 PM Dont need any more. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThis is not another check it is about making the one they are using reliable with up to date information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:03 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:03 PM This is good - BUT... the FBI needs the states and military branches to also notify them system if it's gonna be "fixed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:04 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:04 PM This is not another check it is about making the one they are using reliable with up to date information. That's what I'm talkin' about. Legislation isn't needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:54 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 09:54 PM If such a system is going to be used to deny people their rights it should be a requirement that everyone in the system should be notified and why they are in it. People in it should be provided a way to get removed from it if they should not be on it. Otherwise it's another "no fly list". Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuzzo29 Posted March 2, 2019 at 10:15 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 10:15 PM The NSSF has been trying to do something similar for several years now with their FixNICS campaign. They have been pointing out that states aren't submitting data to be entered into NICS. Here is an article they posted after the Aurora. https://www.nssf.org/illinois-tragedy-raises-serious-questions-record-checks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted March 2, 2019 at 11:33 PM Share Posted March 2, 2019 at 11:33 PM Ummmmm ….isn't Congress the group the passed the background check law in the first place but left States supplying info to the database VOLUNTARY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted March 3, 2019 at 12:03 AM Share Posted March 3, 2019 at 12:03 AM What worries me about these back ground checks (whether it is the current system or a new one) is they can take their sweet time doing it and thus force folks to wait for as long as they want before allowing them to buy a gun. My dad had to wait over a week for Wal Mart to get his background down so he could buy a single shot 410 shotgun. They also refused to start the 72 hour waiting period until he passed the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cope Posted March 3, 2019 at 04:38 AM Share Posted March 3, 2019 at 04:38 AM If such a system is going to be used to deny people their rights it should be a requirement that everyone in the system should be notified and why they are in it. People in it should be provided a way to get removed from it if they should not be on it. Otherwise it's another "no fly list". Sent from my SM-G955U using TapatalkSuch a system is 'supposedly' already in place... they are just trying to fix it because it doesnt work as it should This is completely different from the no fly list.... the no fly list is arbitrary at best based on opinion of who is a risk.................. This list is only those people who have been deemed unworthy of their rights as we have subsribed by law If youre on this list it is for reason of conviction, mental health, domestic violence, etc Those things that we 'agree' are 'common sense' to not allow someone to have a gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted March 3, 2019 at 05:08 AM Share Posted March 3, 2019 at 05:08 AM If such a system is going to be used to deny people their rights it should be a requirement that everyone in the system should be notified and why they are in it. People in it should be provided a way to get removed from it if they should not be on it. Otherwise it's another "no fly list". Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Such a system is 'supposedly' already in place... they are just trying to fix it because it doesnt work as it should This is completely different from the no fly list.... the no fly list is arbitrary at best based on opinion of who is a risk.................. This list is only those people who have been deemed unworthy of their rights as we have subsribed by law If youre on this list it is for reason of conviction, mental health, domestic violence, etc Those things that we 'agree' are 'common sense' to not allow someone to have a gunRight, vets that can't balance their check book should loose their gun rights. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.