Posted on Jul 10, 2015
Should the person who sold Dylan Roof the weapon be charged?
2.3K
34
14
5
5
0
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]
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
CPT (Join to see) 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.
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
"The county sheriff’s office referred the FBI official to contact the Columbia police, which had arrested Mr. Roof six weeks earlier for suspected drug possession. But because the FBI official didn’t understand that a small part of Columbia was located in Lexington County, she instead contacted the police in West Columbia, who had no record of Mr. Roof’s arrest."
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CPT (Join to see) Exactly! Sounds like a training issue or their lists needed to be updated on a regular basis.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google