WaGuns.org

ANZAC wrote:Can any FFLs comment if the handgun background check process is different for a tribal member?

I assumed anyone buying a handgun at a dealer, the check goes via the state POC who checks state and local records, and NICS.
The failure here is state or local/tribal, not at NICS. (although NICS should have flagged it too, so clearly the info wasn't sent to them either, but if you read documents on the BJS site, the state/local records are always considered a superset of NICS for records from that state)

It doesn't prove background checks are a bad idea. It proves what we already knew, that they are not 100% perfect.

ANZAC wrote:Can any FFLs comment if the handgun background check process is different for a tribal member?

I assumed anyone buying a handgun at a dealer, the check goes via the state POC who checks state and local records, and NICS.
The failure here is state or local/tribal, not at NICS. (although NICS should have flagged it too, so clearly the info wasn't sent to them either, but if you read documents on the BJS site, the state/local records are always considered a superset of NICS for records from that state)

It doesn't prove background checks are a bad idea. It proves what we already knew, that they are not 100% perfect.

Pablo wrote:
It proves they are so imperfect the innocent should not be penalized.

Pablo wrote:

ANZAC wrote:Can any FFLs comment if the handgun background check process is different for a tribal member?

I assumed anyone buying a handgun at a dealer, the check goes via the state POC who checks state and local records, and NICS.
The failure here is state or local/tribal, not at NICS. (although NICS should have flagged it too, so clearly the info wasn't sent to them either, but if you read documents on the BJS site, the state/local records are always considered a superset of NICS for records from that state)

It doesn't prove background checks are a bad idea. It proves what we already knew, that they are not 100% perfect.

It proves they are so imperfect the innocent should not be penalized.

dogfish wrote:Some Tribes have cliques, with essentially an elite family or a number of elite families within each Tribe that do have a fair amount influence within the Tribe. I believe this family was one such example.

ANZAC wrote:Can any FFLs comment if the handgun background check process is different for a tribal member?

I assumed anyone buying a handgun at a dealer, the check goes via the state POC who checks state and local records, and NICS.
The failure here is state or local/tribal, not at NICS. (although NICS should have flagged it too, so clearly the info wasn't sent to them either, but if you read documents on the BJS site, the state/local records are always considered a superset of NICS for records from that state)

It doesn't prove background checks are a bad idea. It proves what we already knew, that they are not 100% perfect.

deadshot2 wrote:The good news is that the Feds are handling this case and he may well end up in prison for 10 years. Let the Tribe figure out how to cover that up.

mislabeled wrote:But was the ball really dropped? If tribes aren't required to submit records to either the state or the federal databases, then did anyone really screw up or is the system just more porous than people want to believe it is?

mislabeled wrote:But was the ball really dropped? If tribes aren't required to submit records to either the state or the federal databases, then did anyone really screw up or is the system just more porous than people want to believe it is?

ANZAC wrote:

mislabeled wrote:But was the ball really dropped? If tribes aren't required to submit records to either the state or the federal databases, then did anyone really screw up or is the system just more porous than people want to believe it is?

The state->federal connection is really not perfect. Go take a look at the list I posted of what each state is working on under the NICS Improvement Act.
However, inside the state there's really no excuse for a local jurisdicition (the tribe) reporting it, if that's what happened.

As for lying on the form, that is why the check is run. If what was on the form was believed, an FFL could just say you're good.

Interestingly there was a study where the state POCs do a far deeper and broader search generally than the FBI. The FBI only checks NICS index, Triple-I, and NCIC. Another example is some states will do a broader name search than just using what is on the form (which is apparently what the FBI does). The state POC also checks the NICS index of course.

As I mentioned earlier, by definition the state check (for a person's records within that state) is a superset of what FBI has access to.

So, there's no federal failure in this case, but the information sent to them can always be improved, and someone definitely messed up here, either the state or the tribal LE/courts.

On the other hand - his 14yo son was given access to a handgun. That's legal in your home for example under WA law. I know plenty of 14yo boys, be happy to take them shooting, but I would not let them have unsupervised access to a handgun.

mislabeled wrote:It's worth pointing out that the guy who lied on the 4473 is not the one who used the gun in a crime. We're all ready to pounce on him but, had his son not been a monster, no one would ever be the wiser and no harm may have ever come from that firearm sitting in his house. Saying, "See! This is why terrible things happen!" is a little far reaching.

If the dad was the one pulling the trigger that day in the cafeteria, it would be another story. But he wasn't. Yes, his possession of the gun was a crime, but the link being drawn between the two events isn't quite the straight line it's being made out to be. I don't want the culpability of the son to be mitigated as a result of the father's actions. The son is the actual killer here.