Saturday, July 02, 2016

Survivors of Charleston church shooting sue FBI over background checks.

Courtesy of Yahoo News:

The FBI is being sued by survivors of the Charleston church shooting, who say federal negligence enabled Dylann Roof to buy the .45-caliber handgun he used. 

Lawyers for three people who survived the attack and the estates of five who were slain inside the Emanuel AME Church say the FBI negligently failed to thoroughly check Roof's background before he bought the gun last year. 

If the agency had done its job, Roof's prior drug arrest would have shown up, and the bureau would have denied his purchase, the lawsuits filed Thursday allege. 

Attorney Andy Savage said Friday that his clients hope the litigation will lead to improvements in gun safety. 

"In this case, you had an unqualified purchaser that slipped through the cracks," Savage told The Associated Press. "And the result is what happened on June 17."

Well the pro-gun crowd is always arguing that we don't need any more gun restrictions we simply need to enforce the ones that we already have, so they should have no problem with this.

Of course if the case leads to a strengthening of enforcement procedures for those background checks I am sure they will find plenty of reason to bitch about it.


  1. Randall6:50 AM

    They SHOULD be suing the NRA in a precedent-setting case that holds lobbiests accountable for the deaths caused by their actions.

  2. Anonymous6:52 AM

    Pardon my cynicism, but I doubt things will ever change. The writing was on the wall after Sandy Hook, and confirmed after the sit-in last month.

    How incredibly sad that what should absolutely mortify us is now seen as commonplace, and a complacent congress placing more importance on their NRA monetary kickbacks than they are the citizenry they were elected to "serve."

    1. Anonymous8:58 AM

      It's reprehensible that such a tiny group of well-funded manufacturers (and their stooge, the NRA) can hold an entire country of 300+ million people hostage to their greed.

  3. Anonymous7:12 AM


    1. Anonymous7:52 AM

      "reporters will zero in on Trump’s imperial style, and frame him as a modern-day Caligula who has attempted to stamp out all opposition" I pointed that out months ago..

      Read more:
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

    2. Anonymous12:18 PM

      Good, bring guns! Maybe they can all be the good guy, and shoot all the other good guys.

      Good (guy) riddance to all of them.

  4. Anonymous7:14 AM

    Luckily, the massacre by this doofus doesn't count as a terrorist act so there's no reason to worry.

  5. Anonymous7:35 AM

    Any new backlash from the Palins for the things you posted? Posting the news so slowly allows them to get their ducks in a row. I don't get why you aren't posting it more quickly.

    1. Anonymous8:58 AM

      Did he say there was to be more? I thought that the "Gino" post was the last of the info.

  6. Anonymous7:43 AM

    "American children ages five to fourteen are eighteen times more likely to die of a gun homicide and eleven times more likely to die of a gun suicide than children in twenty-two other high-income countries."

  7. Anonymous7:45 AM

  8. Anonymous8:20 AM

    California Gun Laws Bring Sweeping Restrictions In Wake Of Orlando Shooting

    Gun rights advocates called bills a “Gunpocalypse.”

    California Governor Jerry Brown on Friday signed a sweeping package of gun control bills, banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and expanding the definition of prohibited assault weapons in the wake of mass shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando.

    Democrats in the legislature rushed the measures through in hopes of passing them before their summer break, in part to try to forestall a competing gun control proposal headed for the November ballot.

    California already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, but after the shooting spree in the Southern California city of San Bernardino last December, lawmakers began work on measures they said would close unintended loopholes.

    “My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Brown said in a signing measure.

    It was a rare success for advocates of greater gun control.

  9. Bureaucracy is full of cracks, so no matter what laws we pass, there will always some that will slip by.

    1. Anonymous12:20 PM

      The real reason they don't want stricter background checks is that a large number of them would never pass.

  10. Anonymous8:49 AM

    Correction Gryphen,
    THe NRA and their members are against stricter gun laws, most gun owners do not and never would belong to the NRA.
    Most of us have no issue with stricter background checks, limiting of certain types of weapons being sold etc.
    I have weapons for hunting, weapons for target shooting ( which I did compete in until just a few yrs ago, and hopefully will again now that I am semi-retired), I also have my old biathlon rifles. NOne are semi or full auto. All are locked in safes in a "safe room" and the "safe room" is now up graded to needing the correct finger print.
    We hunt well within the rules like most hunters, we don't trophy hunt.
    I, personally think there also needs to be some sort of mental health check in a background check, I think there should be required training, and I think just like drivers licenses if you abuse the privilege that you should lose your ownership rights for life. I also think the owner should be responsible for anything that happens with their registered weapons.
    I am glad that California is also stepping up to do background checks for ammo.

  11. Anonymous9:38 AM

    Great that they are suing. Seems that is the only way to get many of the federal law enforcement employees to do the jobs they were hired to do. {*cough* secret service *cough*)

  12. Anita Winecooler3:58 PM

    OK, Donnie, got a proposition for you. Fire your secret service detail and your private body guards, then allow people to carry guns in the arena. These people were in Church (that place you go after boinking your wife for a wafer and sip of wine). Will you feel more or less safe with an arena full of unvetted gun carriers?
    Practice what you preach, we need more guns to feel safe, right?


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.