Aurora workplace shooter was set to be fired by company, police chief says

Actually NICS may keep records up to 90 days. The IL state police have no such requirement. Never the less states such as IL, NJ, MD, NY and a few others that choose to act as their own POC for BG checks are more likely to not enter criminal background checks into the NICS (FBI) database. Mississippi does not act as their own POC. When the felon went to prison, his fingerprints were on record with the FBI but IL apparently screwed up and didn't work with NICS. IL claims their system was overwhelmed at the time and they were under staffed. This is BS.

 

Aside from the gun control issue, why isn't this being considered a hate crime?

 

This is the fallacy of the central control freaks. They think the State is the only answer.

 

It has not been investigated for any civil rights violations.

 

WHy did you leave out those key facts?

 

Wrong again. Here is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9

I bolded the pertinent section so you don't "miss" it.

 

Typical of a lot of information obtained only from the press.

Records of background checks for firearms through NICS by law must be destroyed within 90 days. The purchase of the firearm however remains in possession with the Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer (FFL) for a minimum of 20 years. The transaction records are kept in an A&D book along with ATF Form 4473 that is filled out by the purchaser and completed after receiving either a Proceed, Delay or Denied from NICS. In the event of a crime, the Police contact ATF who can request a trace through the National Tracing Center. Police cannot initiate a trace of an FFL's records directly.

 

I know exactly what the law is. I have been an 01-FFL for 23 years.

 

Don't understand firearms laws? Call your friendly FFL.

 

Dealer records have zero relevance to what we are talking about. They are not used to identify any purchase by an individual. Obviously useless when the state found out he shouldn't have received a gun permit 4 months prior.

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about or the process of LEO's when tracing a firearm. I doubt you have ever been near a gun much less a gun shop and you certainly don't know a damn thing about ATF.

 

Yet I can quote the law and truly know about these things while you just claim to have dealt firearms or maybe just worked for a gunshop. Pretty obvious motivation on your part.

 

I don't play games with trolls. Your scheme is obvious. You know nothing.

 

The fact that none of the statements you added to my quote are from the source I cited aside....
Because even if true, they do not change the fact the state knew he had a gun he could not legally possess and did not retrieve it.

When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

Why did you miss out the fact that it was only when he applied for a concealed-carry permit was it discovered that he was a felon?

You also missed out this detail:

So why are fingerprints not required as part of the background checks? So much for strict gun controls being in place

 

In 2014, he passed -2- background checks and illegally took possession of a firearm, because the state let him.
Later, in 2014, he failed a 3rd background check, and the state allowed him to retain possession of a firearm it knew he had.
This shooting happened because the state did not do its job.

-The Brady Act, passed overwhelmingly by Democrats in a congress controlled by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat, does not require it.
- The Illinois law that requires a FOID, passed overwhelmingly by Democrats in a legislature controlled by Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat, does not require it.
So, you'll have to ask the Democrats.

Gun control laws mean nothing when the state refuses to enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

So given that a finger print check as part of the background check would have stopped him getting his gun then you must be in favor of that change to background requirements?

 

Look at you, completely avoiding the points made.
Truth hurts, eh?

The ONLY people you have to blame here are Democrats.

This shooting happened because the state did not do its job.
Gun control laws mean nothing when the state refuses to enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

So you blame Democrats for holes in the laws vs Republicans who opposed any laws and fought tooth and nail for every hole and restriction they could?

 

-They- overwhelmingly passed the background check bills through state and federal legislatures -they- controlled, and -they- signed them into law.
What rational reason is there to -not- blame them?

This shooting happened because the state did not do its job.
Gun control laws mean nothing when the state refuses to enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

So is the answer yes or no to the question (slightly modified) "Given that a finger print check as part of the background check would have stopped him getting his gun are you in favor of that change to background check requirements?"

 

Sorry -- not only did not fail to address the points I made, you didn't address the question I asked:

This shooting happened because the state did not do its job.
Gun control laws mean nothing when the state refuses to enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?

 

Because the bills are compromises with Republicans who oppose any tough gun control.
It isn't a matter of enforcement most of the time. If the law limits the time and nature of a background check then mistakes will happen. Lengthen the background check on the permits and increase resources or pass them to the FBI when you don't.

Gun registration, which is the top law I support, would solve a lot of problems.

 

You can't fire me....I Quit.

But I can fire a bunch of you.

 

The -Democrats- did not need, and did not have -any- support from Republicans in the bills they passed -- indeed, the -Democrats- could have included anything in the bills; the only way said bill would not pass is a failure of the -Democrats- to vote for them.
In short: There's no way to soundly blame the Republicans here.

The shooter was sent a letter demanding he turn in his guns more than 4 years before the shooting
The state did not follow up and force him to do so.
Failure of enforcement.

Gun control laws mean nothing when the state refuses to enforce the law.
When the state will not enforce the current laws, why do you think more laws will solve the problem?