Jump to content

FOID Failure Aurora.


mab22

Recommended Posts

The timeline for this murderer's actions, I am lead to believe, are correct in the article you reference.

 

1. Felony conviction in MS that was never reported to the NICS database

2. FOID received

3. S&W .40 cal handgun purchased

4. Appled for CCW and was denied

5. FOID revoked

 

Note - the purchase was made using his then technically valid FOID card with the 4473 not flagging him thanks to the huge hole in the NICS system. I say 'technically' because he obviously lied on the FOID application and the 4473.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big issue seems to be that NICS was not updated in a correct and timely issue. The problem is that he after his CCL was not allowed and the FOID was revoked there was little done to ensure that he did not have any illegal weapons. But this is the fine line problem. Should he have had those now illegal gun confiscated? I know a lot of people that are not comfortable with the idea of the government knowing what you have and being able to come to get it. But at least in this specific case that is what would have most likely prevented this tragedy. So be ready for it to be proposed.

 

The Daily Herald article even makes this a point in their reporting:

 

"He also later bought a Smith & Wesson .40-caliber handgun and applied for a concealed carry permit, which required fingerprinting. During that process, officials discovered his felony conviction. His application for a concealed carry permit was rejected and his FOID card was revoked. But there was no indication that authorities confiscated his gun.

The shooting rampage has renewed criticisms that Illinois' laws allow many people to have access to guns even after their FOIDs have been revoked.

In Illinois, those whose FOIDs have been revoked receive a notice from the Illinois State Police, telling them to surrender their card and list all the firearms in their possession. But the law does not explicitly require authorities to confiscate the firearms. Instead, the letter asks people to specify that they either no longer have possession of the firearms or have given them to another person."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago Tribune has a big editorial on this today. It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.

 

While I don't agree with the article, this is an interesting piece:

 

 

 

It appears that Illinois law — or follow-through — is weak. Mark Jones, a senior policy adviser for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and a former federal law enforcement agent, told the Tribune over the weekend that state police typically don’t act beyond sending a letter when someone is found to have a gun he or she shouldn’t have. “They’re not funded to do anything more than that,” Jones said.

 

They aren't funded... so why give them MORE work that they won't be funded for (Dealer Licensing). The ISP is clearly already stretched too thin, so if they aren't going to enforce existing law, there's no reason to pass more laws restricting people's rights.

 

Under current law, this shooting should have been completely preventable. Stop passing laws with no plan to implement them. That should be our clear message to Kwame Raoule and JB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

And if that happens, everyone here that has a voice in Springfield needs to tell them NO! End of story. No negotiations, no compromise, just NO.

 

There was good faith involved in the red flag law here, enough is enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

 

The state processed his NCIS check, so they absolutely knew that he had a firearm in his possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

 

 

 

The state processed his NCIS check, so they absolutely knew that he had a firearm in his possession.

Nothing stops someone from canceling a purchase after the check is done. So having a check does not guarantee someone owns a gun.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

 

 

 

The state processed his NCIS check, so they absolutely knew that he had a firearm in his possession.

Nothing stops someone from canceling a purchase after the check is done. So having a check does not guarantee someone owns a gun.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

It would have taken one phone call from the ISP to the store where he filled out the 4473 to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$5 say they're going to use this as fuel for a full firearms registration.

 

He bought a firearm legally, then had his FOID revoked...there was no way of the state knowing he had a firearm at that time....UNLESS they had a magical full registration...which they do not.

 

We'll see...but my gut tells me this is where they will push...

 

 

No he did not. The firearm was not and could not be bought legally.

 

He had to lie on the FOID app.

He had to lie on the 4473.

 

Convicted felons are barred by Federal Law from purchasing/possessing firearms.

 

The erroneous issue of a FOID based upon false information does not counter this. A successful “background check” based upon false information cannot counter this.

 

Please explain what part of the purchase was legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The state processed his NCIS check, so they absolutely knew that he had a firearm in his possession.

 

At one time he had a firearm. That is all that would prove. he could have private sold that to someone and no longer had it, there would be no record or at the most a hard to find record of the transaction depending on to whom the firearm was sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no guarantee he still had it.

 

But this has everyone chasing the rabbit arround in circles and down the rabbit hole. The key point is we cannot keep guns our of the hands of violent people. We can only be prepared to defend against them when they attack. We must fight for the right to protect ourselves or places that prevent us from doing so must provide that protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no guarantee he still had it.

 

But this has everyone chasing the rabbit arround in circles and down the rabbit hole. The key point is we cannot keep guns our of the hands of violent people. We can only be prepared to defend against them when they attack. We must fight for the right to protect ourselves or places that prevent us from doing so must provide that protection.

Absolutely that's the solution. And in the meantime, depending upon felons to tell the truth on their paperwork seems less than brilliant. Who knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Please explain what part of the purchase was legal? "

 

IMHO the part where the gun store followed all the rules and regs, performed all the necessary checks and then legally transferred a firearm to someone who the "system" said was good to go, just they do all day long.

 

There are serious flaws in the background check and follow-up system, none of them created by law-abiding citizen purchasers or legal FFLs.

 

I wouldn't wait for legislators or police departments to accept the blame for these flaws and failures..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Please explain what part of the purchase was legal? "

 

IMHO the part where the gun store followed all the rules and regs, performed all the necessary checks and then legally transferred a firearm to someone who the "system" said was good to go, just they do all day long.

 

There are serious flaws in the background check and follow-up system, none of them created by law-abiding citizen purchasers or legal FFLs.

 

I wouldn't wait for legislators or police departments to accept the blame for these flaws and failures..

 

The sale was legal.

The purchase was NOT legal.

Unfortunately, the authorities will likely go after the party that acted legally and ignore the illegal part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why keep making more new laws when the current laws are not enforced?

 

The laws will be enforced, but not against the thugs, gangbangers, and other criminals. They will only be enforced against us law abiding gun owners.

 

 

Exactly. And criminals will still get guns because they don't care about the laws. Except criminals will care about guns laws because means more law abiding citizens will be kept from protecting themselves. A benefit to criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a system failure again! Junk in will get you junk out! Again the question is why was the information NOT entered properly into the system? AND the powers that wanna be want us to trust them that they will do better IF they can get harsher laws and conditions??? Not likely. I would agree that the sellers followed the law and did nothing wrong when they sold him the gun. What is hypocritical to the max is the folks who screwed up by not keeping the information up to date in the system trying to blame the seller for following their own rules. The powers that wanna be will abuse this tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. AND when the next fiasco law they get passed does not stop evil from acting, they will push for more. You can NOT legislate away evil or mentally ill and if you think you can, you are either one or the other- probable both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh that they are admitting there is no money in the budget to remove guns from the hands of those who we know have them illegally but we will have the funds and the manpower to monitor every FFL in the state plus manpower to scrutinize the social media accounts of everyone wanting to purchase a firearm.

 

The gun grabbers really are comical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh that they are admitting there is no money in the budget to remove guns from the hands of those who we know have them illegally but we will have the funds and the manpower to monitor every FFL in the state plus manpower to scrutinize the social media accounts of everyone wanting to purchase a firearm.

 

The gun grabbers really are comical.

English translation: "We pass laws because we benefit from the publicity we get when we introduce and promote legislation and from the further publicity we get when it is enacted. After it's on the books, we don't care. We don't care because it costs money to enforce laws, and we'd rather spend it on goodies for our constituents. We don't care because people we want to vote for us can't do so if they're in prison, and won't do so if their friends and relatives are in prison due to laws we passed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will a copy of his 4473 ever surface? Curious to see if in fact he lied or not and if not, was then missed during the check. I can just see ISP pushing their mistake on someone else.

He replied NO the the prior felony question on the FOID aplication.

 

full story at link

https://www.ilnews.org/news/justice/illinois-state-police-gave-aurora-shooter-gun-permit-before-revoking/article_0394b38e-33da-11e9-bec8-137cd63d8309.html

 

...ISP said in a statement Monday evening that a background check was performed on Martin in January 2014 when he initially applied for a FOID card. Martin answered No to the question Have you ever been convicted of a felony?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Chicago Tribune has a big editorial on this today. It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.

 

While I don't agree with the article, this is an interesting piece:

 

It appears that Illinois law — or follow-through — is weak. Mark Jones, a senior policy adviser for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and a former federal law enforcement agent, told the Tribune over the weekend that state police typically don’t act beyond sending a letter when someone is found to have a gun he or she shouldn’t have. “They’re not funded to do anything more than that,” Jones said.

They aren't funded... so why give them MORE work that they won't be funded for (Dealer Licensing). The ISP is clearly already stretched too thin, so if they aren't going to enforce existing law, there's no reason to pass more laws restricting people's rights.

 

Under current law, this shooting should have been completely preventable. Stop passing laws with no plan to implement them. That should be our clear message to Kwame Raoule and JB.

 

“They’re not funded to do anything more than that,” Jones said.

 

In my mind there’s more to it than that. I think there is a lack of will.

 

If you want to see what happens when the Feds go out to try to serve warrants for illegal firearms Google Ruby Ridge or The Siege at Waco. The BATF even resorted to using a tank at Waco. I seriously doubt you would find one or even two state troopers who would go out trying to confiscate illegally owned firearms without a SWAT team backing them up.

 

Sure, there are enough SWAT cops to send out to arrest a Trump associate but there aren’t enough SWAT teams in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to see what happens when the Feds go out to try to serve warrants for illegal firearms Google Ruby Ridge or The Siege at Waco. The BATF even resorted to using a tank at Waco. I seriously doubt you would find one or even two state troopers who would go out trying to confiscate illegally owned firearms without a SWAT team backing them up.

 

Sure, there are enough SWAT cops to send out to arrest a Trump associate but there aren’t enough SWAT teams in Illinois.

Part of the problem with both of those incidents is that the ATF was aware of the problem for years but didn't act until they had amassed an arsenal of illegal weapons

 

It then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, agencies don't want to act for fear of another Waco or Ruby Ridge, so the problem escalates until it becomes another Waco or Ruby Ridge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to laugh that they are admitting there is no money in the budget to remove guns from the hands of those who we know have them illegally but we will have the funds and the manpower to monitor every FFL in the state plus manpower to scrutinize the social media accounts of everyone wanting to purchase a firearm.

 

The gun grabbers really are comical.

 

Not too many years ago Sheriff Dart was recovering revoked FOID cards. Probably still is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no guarantee he still had it.

 

But this has everyone chasing the rabbit arround in circles and down the rabbit hole. The key point is we cannot keep guns our of the hands of violent people. We can only be prepared to defend against them when they attack. We must fight for the right to protect ourselves or places that prevent us from doing so must provide that protection.

 

I appreciate this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand, there was also a domestic order of protection issued against him just over a year before the FOID was applied for - in Aurora. And another one a few years before that - also locally.

 

Shouldn’t that have been caught by the FOID background check - and the FOID never issued?

 

Everyone is focusing on the Felony conviction (which is Federal Law) - but the orders of protection should have been a disqualified as well.

 

The system clearly failed us here.

 

In my case, one of the victims is a neighbor. As a gun owner, I’m disgusted that this guy slipped thru and that the State failed us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...