Solutions? Background check flaw let Charleston church massacre suspect buy gun

[Darrell KSR]

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/background_check_flaw_let_charleston_church_massac re_suspect_buy_a_gun_fbi/

Boils down to this.

He admitted to drug possession during a felony drug investigation. Had the FBI completed their investigation within the 3-day waiting period, he would not have been allowed to buy a gun. Gun dealers are not required to wait more than the 3 days.

Is this:

a) Statistically such an insignificant occurrence as to be irrelevant? (I know, you'd NEVER say that to the victim's families, friends, or anyone "in public")
b) An issue that should be addressed with the FBI performing their checks more quickly?
c) Something the FBI would catch within the 3 days way more often than not, and just really bad luck here?
d) Something that laws need to be changed to require the background check to be completed first, no matter what?
e) Something that laws need to be changed to require longer than a 3-day waiting period?
f) Something else -- none of the above, but you supply the answer?

[KSRBEvans]

I'd want to know more about the FBI checking process:

--How long does it usually take on average;
--What % of checks aren't completed within 3 days;
--What would it take to get that % down to an acceptably low %;
--What % of checks have mistakes on them;
--What would it take (either in improved systems or more manpower) to get that % down to an accepably low %;
Etc.

[CitizenBBN]

I would bet $1,000.00 the FBI would have never found out he admitted to the charge, whether it was 3 days or 3 months.

That's not good, but it's the truth. I went to a seminar put on by the NSSF that had the FBI liaison officer there, and she went through the whole process of how the checks are done. They use 3 main databases for the search, but the problems lie in how those databases are built.

First, most states have no requirements to cooperate on these checks. the NSSF (National shooting sports foundation, which is basically the gun/ammo makers and dealers) has been at their own expense lobbying states to pass laws requiring better NICS reporting and response, and several have done so, but not all.

So for this check what would happen is the FBI would see the case pending, mark it delay, but then they have to contact the state/local officials for the details. They may or may not get a response at all from them, they can't compel them to do anything. She said one Louisville prosecutor's office had a standing policy to put the NICS inquiries at the bottom of the pile, and it's not unusual.

Without the ability to have direct access to the cases or to get the state and local people to do the legwork, there will always be these gaps in the system.

As for the delay, there are very few, but 90% of them are nothing. People with the same name as someone with an issue, etc. In fact most delays happen the the same people over and over. We have a couple of guys who are delayed every time they buy a gun, they have no issues, they just get flagged every time for something in the database, probably a similarity in name or such to someone with an issue.

NSSF has pushed hard to close the biggest gap, which is mental health reporting. Few states were reporting the mental competence and commitment information at all, and that's the biggest gap in the system. NSSF has gotten several states to start doing it, but many still don't.

The solution probably isn't more time so much as better reporting, and more uniform reporting of information. The NICS database had the charge in it, but had no information that he'd admitted to the possession. Why not? If all the relevant information had been put in the system this is a non-issue, but it doesn't all get in. Every state keeps their records differently, and NICS isn't a high priority for them.

Focus on the mundane in this case, which is simply improving the database from the outset. The fact that he admitted to the charge should have already been in the database and automatically flagged him when the check was run.

There should have never been a delay at all if the system was really working right. I'd focus on that end, not tweaking the delays, b/c I doubt the FBI would have caught this if you gave them a month. Just get it in the system right the first time and it doesn't even come up.

[CitizenBBN]

I'd want to know more about the FBI checking process:

--How long does it usually take on average;
--What % of checks aren't completed within 3 days;
--What would it take to get that % down to an acceptably low %;
--What % of checks have mistakes on them;
--What would it take (either in improved systems or more manpower) to get that % down to an accepably low %;
Etc.

Most checks take seconds. We always try to submit the search with the social b/c it improves accuracy, they search the database by the name, social and other key info and it comes back almost immediately for most people.

If it does go to delay, and I don't know the exact number but it's a smallish percentage, I think very few are completed within 3 days, not sure of that, but I also think very few would be completed within 3 weeks. If it's a delay like this one, where they need verification of details in a file sitting in a county/state file cabinet or database, by the time they make the request and the local follks get around to it and they get back some kind of answer, it's going to be a long time IF it ever comes at all.

Some delays seem to go unresolved at all b/c the FBI puts in the request and never hears back from state/local authorities, ever. I dont' know how many, but it's bound to be happening.

Of the delays I've seen, all of them have been "mistakes" in that the person didn't have issues, they just had something questionable come up, and interestingly it will come up again and again on the same person. In fact NICS has a way to address it, you call and get a pin number you can submit that tries to flag you so the delays stop b/c you're being confused with someone else.

The big catch is that you could double the number of FBI staff working at NICS and not do a lick of good, b/c the failure is the connection between them and the state and local level records and officials.

The improved system is the way to go, where we try to standardize records across the states to make sure the relevant true/false check boxes for NICS are listed and are getting checked. AND That it's getting reported at all, b/c a lot of it simply isn't submitted to the FBI at all (like the mental health stuff).

Another messy area is the domestic violence issue. The states vary on what charges of domestic abuse involved physical violence and would meet the federal requirements to forbid gun ownership, so on those cases the FBI has to theoretically check on every such case b/c it could or could not disqualify someone. Simply make sure the state data system has a check box that says "yes this involved X or Y" or "no this didn't involve X/Y" and then when that data is uploaded NICS knows for sure without having to request the details.

It really is that simple, have the correct data entry right at the start and we will see about as good a system as you're going to get, no reason for any delays at all or very dang few.

[CitizenBBN]

One other note. The only reason this lunatic would have been caught is the drug charge, I have to wonder what other reporting of his mental situation may have gone unreported.

[Darrell KSR]

Most checks take seconds. We always try to submit the search with the social b/c it improves accuracy, they search the database by the name, social and other key info and it comes back almost immediately for most people.

If it does go to delay, and I don't know the exact number but it's a smallish percentage, I think very few are completed within 3 days, not sure of that, but I also think very few would be completed within 3 weeks. If it's a delay like this one, where they need verification of details in a file sitting in a county/state file cabinet or database, by the time they make the request and the local follks get around to it and they get back some kind of answer, it's going to be a long time IF it ever comes at all.

Some delays seem to go unresolved at all b/c the FBI puts in the request and never hears back from state/local authorities, ever. I dont' know how many, but it's bound to be happening.

Of the delays I've seen, all of them have been "mistakes" in that the person didn't have issues, they just had something questionable come up, and interestingly it will come up again and again on the same person. In fact NICS has a way to address it, you call and get a pin number you can submit that tries to flag you so the delays stop b/c you're being confused with someone else.

The big catch is that you could double the number of FBI staff working at NICS and not do a lick of good, b/c the failure is the connection between them and the state and local level records and officials.

The improved system is the way to go, where we try to standardize records across the states to make sure the relevant true/false check boxes for NICS are listed and are getting checked. AND That it's getting reported at all, b/c a lot of it simply isn't submitted to the FBI at all (like the mental health stuff).

Another messy area is the domestic violence issue. The states vary on what charges of domestic abuse involved physical violence and would meet the federal requirements to forbid gun ownership, so on those cases the FBI has to theoretically check on every such case b/c it could or could not disqualify someone. Simply make sure the state data system has a check box that says "yes this involved X or Y" or "no this didn't involve X/Y" and then when that data is uploaded NICS knows for sure without having to request the details.

It really is that simple, have the correct data entry right at the start and we will see about as good a system as you're going to get, no reason for any delays at all or very dang few.

It has been a few years since I purchased my last handgun, but it literally took almost no time for the approval.

[CitizenBBN]

It has been a few years since I purchased my last handgun, but it literally took almost no time for the approval.

It really shouldn't take any time. with a nation this big any kind of background check had better be done through a database of yeses and nos and should be just about automatic. If we have to resort to phone calls and pulling paper files there will always be too many gaps.

[dan_bgblue]

I feel that this is a low priority endeavor for the FBI and they have not put the money into the electronic age software that could do the job quicker and more accurately. What would you think of the feds farming out the responsibility to a private company? It is my opinion that private enterprise is more motivated to gather the info and render a verdict quickly and accurately. They would also invest in the software and computer hardware to assist in making those decisions without having to lobby congress for the funds.

just a thought

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, the system does have it's issues technically. It's down probably at least once a month for some hours due to failures, but I think the bigger problem is still garbage in, garbage out, and it's the states that do the data entry.

They have also pushed for e-check, which is doing it via computer. that's how we do all of ours, so no agent is really involved for many checks that can be automated. They've improved that part quite a bit (used to require a client side SSL certificate to log in, which required some technical expertise and limited computers you could use), now you log in without that so you can get in like most any other site.

But even with that only a small percentage use e-check and I don't get why. that would maybe help free up actual people to work more on the exceptions and questions if they could get more dealers using the e-check.

[KeithKSR]

It has been a few years since I purchased my last handgun, but it literally took almost no time for the approval.

It does take nearly no time at all. All those I have had done were by phone, and took less than a minute.

[KeithKSR]

I feel that this is a low priority endeavor for the FBI and they have not put the money into the electronic age software that could do the job quicker and more accurately. What would you think of the feds farming out the responsibility to a private company? It is my opinion that private enterprise is more motivated to gather the info and render a verdict quickly and accurately. They would also invest in the software and computer hardware to assist in making those decisions without having to lobby congress for the funds.

just a thought

I don't think the current administration wants quick, efficient, and reliable checks. Shootings like the one in Charleston provide a lot of political fodder for their talking points.

[UKHistory]

I may be cynical but I find it completey unsurprising that this information about the glitch in the screening is front page news just as South Carolina takes down the Confederate flag.

The flag took center stage (I believe blessed by the gun industry) as the sacrificial lamb in this storyline. Of course the anti-gun folks (many in government want to abolish the second amendment desperately) know this and want to return to the gun part and ignore the mental health questions that this story raises.

I agree with Keith's comment above.

The agenda driven folks in this story sicken me.