Should the person who sold Dylan Roof the weapon be charged?

2015-07-10T18:42:54-04:00

Officials are stating "flawed paperwork" as the reason for the error to happen. "The FBI examiner who evaluated Roof's request to buy a gun never saw the arrest report because the wrong arresting agency was listed on the South Carolina criminal history record.d http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/10/fbi-church-gunman-shouldnt-have-been-able-to-get-gun/21207922/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D [login to see]

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 10 at 2015 6:45 PM

2015-07-10T18:45:22-04:00

Beautiful! Tell me agsin the story of how Gunn control laws are effective.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 6:45 PM

2015-07-10T18:45:51-04:00

No.

I say this because the hardware store clerk that sells a guy a hammer that he then uses to bludgeon someone to death is not at fault for the actions of the hammer's user. Nor is the houseware salesman that sold Lerana Bobbin the knife she used to cut off JOB's junk.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 6:46 PM

2015-07-10T18:46:29-04:00

gut instinct is to say no

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 10 at 2015 6:55 PM

2015-07-10T18:55:36-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I would say based on the facts the answer is "no". They followed proper procedure. I believe the agency that dropped the ball needs to have better procedures in place or there should be a way to extend the three-day limit, so further investigations can be completed.

Response by CPL(P) Bret Farritor made Jul 10 at 2015 7:31 PM

2015-07-10T19:31:31-04:00

From what I have read? Absolutely not! The FFL complied with the law, the NCIS failed. Full stop - no further debate.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Jul 10 at 2015 9:03 PM

2015-07-10T21:03:39-04:00

As a former FFL, or Federal Firearms License holder, authorized to sell firearms, I have to say No. As an FFL, you are at the mercy of whatever background screening program your particular state has. If the background check comes back clean, there is no reason to refuse the sale. In this case, this guy came back clean, and therefore, the dealer has no responsibility. In other cases, where a "straw man" purchase takes place, then there is liability on the dealer. That is a different scenario, and not applicable in this case. The fault lies with the background screening process, unless nothing was submitted to the authorities, in which case, the fault lies with the reporting agencies. Charging the dealer would be the same as finding a scapegoat, which is what has happened with the Confederate flag, as a whole, in this country.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 10 at 2015 9:55 PM

2015-07-10T21:55:50-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member No, as it was not something the seller had notice or foreknowledge. The FBI process failed but sovereign immunity prevents any liability. It just means we need to be careful what functions we make government responsiblity, not so easy to change, control or quality check.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 11 at 2015 1:59 AM

2015-07-11T01:59:18-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, not if they followed the correct procedures and it was the FBI that screwed up. Evidently, the gun dealer did everything that should have been done.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Jul 11 at 2015 2:11 AM

2015-07-11T02:11:24-04:00

No they had no idea what he was going to do. It would be on par to charge every salesperson who sales a car to a person that drives drunk and kills people. So again no.