Tag: Dylann Roof

Posted on

FBI says Dylann Roof should not have been cleared to purchase a weapon

DylannStormRoof_theridgewoodblog

By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez and Don Lemon, CNN

(CNN)Dylann Roof, the man who allegedly killed nine people in a Charleston church last month, should not have been able to buy a gun used in the slaughter, the FBI has now determined, contradicting earlier assertions that the background check was done properly, a law enforcement official tells CNN and FBI’s director told reporters in Washington.

FBI Director James Comey told reporters Friday “this rips all of our hearts out” and “we are all sick this happened.” He said he concluded the mistake had been made Thursday night after reviewing the latest information.

What we know about Roof, as told in photographs

Within days after the shooting, agents on the ground knew something was amiss and suspected that Roof’s arrest record should have prohibited the gun purchase, according to law enforcement officials.

Officials began a review, as is common after major shootings. About a week after the shooting, examiners officially denied the Roof application.

Comey said the FBI made the error due to a breakdown in the background check system and confusion with paperwork between the FBI, local police departments and county jurisdictions.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/politics/dylann-roof-fbi-gun-south-carolina/

Posted on

No, Dylann Roof Didn’t Arm Himself Through a ‘Legal Loophole’

piece-of-shit-booking-photo

The absence of yet another law that somebody could have ignored just means that you have one legal violation instead of two.

J.D. Tuccille|Jun. 19, 2015 12:55 pm

For the record, when an act is illegal, but somebody does it anyway, the absence of yet anotherlaw that the somebody could have ignored is not a “legal loophole”—it just means that you have one legal violation instead of two. Yet Jeff Guo argues over at the Washington Post that (allegedly) murderous apartheid nostalgic Dylann Roof was able to arm himself to wreak havoc because of a “legal loophole” that allowed him access to a firearm. Writes Guo:

Federal law prohibits people with pending felony charges from obtaining firearms. In February, Roof was arrested and later charged with felony possession of Suboxone, a narcotic prescription drug. He was released, and  the case is pending.

Because of his criminal record, Roof would not have been able to buy a gun from a store. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks on gun purchasers, and Roof’s pending charges should have turned up as a red flag.

But Roof didn’t need to go to a dealership. According to his uncle, Roof received a .45-caliber pistol from his father in April for his birthday, Reuters reports.

South Carolina is one of 40 states that do not require background checks for private gun transactions, like the one that allegedly took place between Roof and his father. Gun control activists call this the “private sale” loophole.

It’s illegal to give guns to felons or people with felony indictments — but that’s only if you know about their criminal records. In South Carolina, you don’t have to ask, so private citizens can more or less freely exchange guns.

Leave aside the fact that it’s not yet known if the gifted gun was the one used in the killing. Is Guo arguing here that Roof’s father, who it seems was willing to commit a crime by illegally giving a gun to his son against whom felony charges were pending, would have been brought up short by a requirement that he run the transfer through a dealer who would have then told Roof’s old man (assuming the system’s data was up to date) what he already knew? And that this would have prevented the transfer of the gun?

Apparently so.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/no-dylann-roof-didnt-arm-himself-through