Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is an interesting twist. The lawsuit is against the U.S. Government and is being brought by some of the families of the Charleston shooting.

They say, and Comey seems to implicitly agree, that the U.S. is liable for allowing the shooter to buy the gun. Per the rules, the shooter should have been denied due to a drug use report but the person doing the background check for the purchase missed seeing the report.

It's not clear in the story, and the author likely had no real knowledge of the topic, but I'm assuming the shooter was a delay and not a proceed? They screwed up either way but, if it were a delay, and they still missed it, the screw up seems even worse. Should still have been seen even if the check resulted in a proceed.

If the government is going to impose such a system, it's reasonable to expect it to work. It didn't this time.

U.S. sued over background check error in Charleston church shooting: newspaper - One America News Network

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Reuters) – Family members of the people killed in an attack on a South Carolina church last year have sued the U.S. government over an FBI clerk’s mistake that allowed the purchase of the gun used in the shooting, the Post and Courier newspaper reported on Friday.

Lawsuits filed by relatives and survivors of the shooting are seeking millions of dollars from the federal government, the newspaper reported.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
And how exactly do you sue the goverment? Wouldnt that be like suing your self? Cause if you win is it not just tax money you are going to get back?

I think suing the goverment should be something we can do, but i wouldn't want money I would want people's jobs in office and them not being able to hold a goverment political spot ever again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
And how exactly do you sue the goverment? Wouldnt that be like suing your self? Cause if you win is it not just tax money you are going to get back?

I think suing the goverment should be something we can do, but i wouldn't want money I would want people's jobs in office and them not being able to hold a goverment political spot ever again.
Good...you do that....I'll take care of the cash award....:embarassed: All kidding aside....it would be a negligence suit.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
And how exactly do you sue the goverment? Wouldnt that be like suing your self? Cause if you win is it not just tax money you are going to get back?

I think suing the goverment should be something we can do, but i wouldn't want money I would want people's jobs in office and them not being able to hold a goverment political spot ever again.
I think they should keep their jobs, and the money from the lawsuit should come out of their pockets.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,028 Posts
The Fed will fine Bushmaster, cause they're the ones who make the really bad AR's, and the whole thing will be funded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree with them suing the Federal Government. They had the laws in place that would have stopped him from getting that gun, and they dropped the ball. It just comes back to the whole argument that we don't need new gun laws, we need to make sure that the ones already in place are being properly enforced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
And how exactly do you sue the goverment? Wouldnt that be like suing your self? Cause if you win is it not just tax money you are going to get back?

I think suing the goverment should be something we can do, but i wouldn't want money I would want people's jobs in office and them not being able to hold a goverment political spot ever again.
I wouldn't mind a little tax money back
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
His purchase was delayed because of an arrest. But with no conviction they did not go straight to a denial. The ATF called the the Lexington Cty Sheriff who had no record and recommend they contact Columbia. Instead they contacted West Columbia and again had no record. 3 days passed and he was sold the gun since no denial came in. One call to Columbia police (the correct office to call) and he would have been denied.

In short, he was not legally allowed to purchase a handgun but did so because ATF screwed up and could not track down the proof to deny. They probably have a case on this one.

More info here.

FBI Says Background Check Error Let Charleston Shooting Suspect Buy Gun : The Two-Way : NPR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,991 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree with them suing the Federal Government. They had the laws in place that would have stopped him from getting that gun FROM A LICENSED DEALER, and they dropped the ball. It just comes back to the whole argument that we don't need new gun laws, we need to make sure that the ones already in place are being properly enforced.
FIFY

And if he had been denied, what's to say he wouldn't find a FTF private seller, or a back alley seller?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
FIFY

And if he had been denied, what's to say he wouldn't find a FTF private seller, or a back alley seller?
Whether he would have found a FTF seller is irrelevant. The thing to take away from the event is that the NICS process didn't work. If it's going to exist at all, we have a reasonable right to expect that it works. The process, as it exists now, is very prone to error (either way.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
The masses think that government is some kind of entity that never makes mistakes and enforces law and justice from an uncompromisable position, but hopefully this will wake a few of them up and make them think harder about giving up their freedoms to the government in the name of public safety. I think individuals working in government should be personally held responsible when they screw up. Nothing breeds incompetence and waste like someone always cleaning up after you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
And how exactly do you sue the goverment? Wouldnt that be like suing your self? Cause if you win is it not just tax money you are going to get back?

I think suing the goverment should be something we can do, but i wouldn't want money I would want people's jobs in office and them not being able to hold a goverment political spot ever again.
People sue the government all the time, but it doesnt mean anything. As you said, the money comes from tax money, so it just punishes the citizens. Meanwhile, the people who suck at their job who cause the lawsuit face no reprocussions. They should be able to go after the individual(s) who dropped the ball on the NICS check.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackhawkfann24

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
I'm glad they are trying to at least blame the system that failed but this may backfire and usher in a whole new perverted evolution of background check criteria.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
How many generations do you have? Have you noticed how long it takes to get the government to admit wrong. :frown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,074 Posts
The only thing that will likely be in question is how many zero's will be in the settlement check! :image035:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Czombie

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
How many generations do you have? Have you noticed how long it takes to get the government to admit wrong. :frown:
4-8 years typically. Obama says Bush was wrong all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grantspastor

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Getting some money from the abstract agencies that failed to be perfect in a lawsuit will cost only the taxpayers.

It will also certainly prevent such tragedies in the future. /sarcasm
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top