Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

reasons for a delay or deny:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year



source:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/n...-nics-background-checks-are-denied-or-delayed


"terrorist watch list" doesn't seem to be there....
 
I understand that. I always ere on the side of caution with most things in life, mostly because the pros are hardly ever worth the possible cons, IMO. Speeding is not worth the possible ticket, etc.

I'm not sure what exactly goes into the BGC, as you said, but someone is to blame here (beyond the shooter) for letting this guy have the guns. Depending on what the gun store clerk/owner saw when he ran the check, he could very well have some blame in my book. No, he's not responsible for the deaths, per se, as the shooter would have gone to yet ANOTHER store to try to purchase the firearms, but still. That CAN'T sit well on his conscious, and there could definitely be a slew of lawsuits there.

If the BGC simply said "proceed" on the clerk's computer screen, the clerk is cleared. Even if the FBI watch list had the guy listed and it did not show up for whatever reason on the BGC, that's not the clerk's fault. That's the fault of the BGC System, or the FBI, as you stated.

But I'm sorry, if I worked at a gun store and the BGC said anything possibly hinting towards the guy being under FBI watch, I'd deny him service. Regardless of how easy it is to get into the 'Watch List'. I would not want that on my conscious, and I would be well within my legal right to deny service. Especially due to possible lawsuit by potential victim's families, etc.
He's not REQUIRED to deny service, based on this list you posted, but he's completely legally allowed to. I would think 'Play it Safe' would be Rule #1 on the Employee Handbook at a gun shop.

It's the same as a clerk at a grocery store. He is allowed to deny service for whatever reason he wants. There are usually store regulations that state he can't say WHY he's denying service (due to frivolous lawsuits) but he's allowed to use his better judgement and simply say, "I'm sorry, but under store regulations, I cannot sell you X".
The store does not want a lawsuit on their hands if the clerk sells someone liquor and that guy later goes out and causes a drunk driving wreck, or something to this effect. The clerk is required to be vigilant and make basic yes/no decisions. If a 16 year old checker is required to have some balls, you'd think that'd be a job requirement to work at a gun store.
 
Last edited:
I understand that. I always ere on the side of caution with most things in life, mostly because the pros are hardly ever worth the possible cons, IMO. Speeding is not worth the possible ticket, etc.

I'm not sure what exactly goes into the BGC, as you said, but someone is to blame here (beyond the shooter) for letting this guy have the guns. Depending on what the gun store clerk/owner saw when he ran the check, he could very well have some blame in my book. No, he's not responsible for the deaths, per se, as the shooter would have gone to yet ANOTHER store to try to purchase the firearms, but still. That CAN'T sit well on his conscious, and there could definitely be a slew of lawsuits there.

If the BGC simply said "proceed" on the clerk's computer screen, the clerk is cleared. Even if the FBI watch list had the guy listed and it did not show up for whatever reason on the BGC, that's not the clerk's fault. That's the fault of the BGC System, or the FBI, as you stated.

But I'm sorry, if I worked at a gun store and the BGC said anything possibly hinting towards the guy being under FBI watch, I'd deny him service. Regardless of how easy it is to get into the 'Watch List'. I would not want that on my conscious, and I would be well within my legal right to deny service. Especially due to possible lawsuit by potential victim's families, etc.
He's not REQUIRED to deny service, based on this list you posted, but he's completely legally allowed to. I would think 'Play it Safe' would be Rule #1 on the Employee Handbook at a gun shop.

It's the same as a clerk at a grocery store. He is allowed to deny service for whatever reason he wants. There are usually store regulations that state he can't say WHY he's denying service (due to frivolous lawsuits) but he's allowed to use his better judgement and simply say, "I'm sorry, but under store regulations, I cannot sell you X".
The store does not want a lawsuit on their hands if the clerk sells someone liquor and that guy later goes out and causes a drunk driving wreck, or something to this effect. The clerk is required to be vigilant and make basic yes/no decisions. If a 16 year old checker is required to have some balls, you'd think that'd be a job requirement to work at a gun store.

they don't get any details.

proceed.
deny.
delay.
 
they don't get any details.

proceed.
deny.
delay.

Ok then. You learn something new every day.

Not fighting you; I'm just curious. Wasn't the shooter denied service at another gun store before he tried this one? What caused that denial?
 
Last edited:
The problem JD as many have pointed out:
What you have said is incorrect
You have already been explained several times
You then go off on unrelated tangents
You then ask for an explanation. . . .again.

What's the point of trying to explain to you when over half a dozen individuals already have and you seem to still ask for an explanation?
This has clearly dragged on throughout the thread and contributed nothing but noise. . :drum:


I would just recommend going back and reviewing this thread and all the mentions at you and you should have the answers for your questions you keep asking.


Well I've tried to understand your point, and I get what you are saying. It is I who feels misunderstood. The only thing I've concluded from reading this thread is that some of you are simply nuts. And this is coming from an otherwise empathetic and well educated person. I simply don't follow your logic on this, it hasn't been explained to me in any way that makes sense and I don't feel anyone has really effectively addressed any of the points I've raised.


The problem is that apparently being on the FBI's watch list does not mean anything.
We already have background checks, whose sole point is to weed out potential troublemakers, but if the FBI is willing to ignore blatant evidence, the checks don't mean much.

You mean like this legislation the democrats are pushing for to ban terror suspects from buying guns and expand background checks?

 
Last edited:
Well I've tried to understand your point, and I get what you are saying. It is I who feels misunderstood. The only thing I've concluded from reading this thread is that some of you are simply nuts. And this is coming from an otherwise empathetic and well educated person. I simply don't follow your logic on this, it hasn't been explained to me in any way that makes sense and I don't feel anyone has really effectively addressed any of the points I've raised.

Dear Sir, even though I am in total support of the USA's 2nd amendment and not limiting it in any way, I do understand and respect your comment. Please understand that any logical discussion on gun control or restrictions will be met with no quarter at all so zero discussion is necessary. :hand:
 
You mean like this legislation the democrats are pushing for to ban terror suspects from buying guns and expand background checks?

I'm sorry, I can't watch a near 13 minute long video at work, but I can look later. (i can browse forums though; it's quieter) :bigok:

While I am not a democrat, I'm not necessarily against that. I'm all for stereotyping when it comes to safety and I'm not scared to hurt feelings.
If it takes you 2 mouthloads of phlegm to pronounce your name and you have known (or at least suspected) terrorist ties then damn straight, I don't want you owning a gun. History speaks for itself. If that's mean, then so be it.
And no, not even expand background checks; simply properly utilize the information that the existing BGC systems bring up. There is absolutely no point in a 'monitoring system' if the information isn't being used. And the BGC needs to let the gun clerk know detailed results to let the clerk make a personalized, informed decision. More than simply 'proceed, deny, delay'.
It's like if weather channels and websites didn't exist, but the Doppler radar still did. Why would the weather be monitored if no action, preventative or not, was being taken on it? "There's a hurricane coming, but we'll be damned if we let the general public know about it." That makes sense. The general public can surmise that a bad storm is on its way, but it'd be nice for a bit more info, especially if the means to present that info is completely possible.

The FBI: "Well, this guy is on the FBI Watch List and has been investigated not once, but TWICE on suspicion of terrorism, but what the hey? Let him have a gun. What could go wrong?"
They had very good reason to suspect this guy had motive to murder, but didn't think it necessary to redlist him?
 
Last edited:
Yeah this is how this discussion always goes, and it's all just a bunch of crap. Bottom line if buying a gun was the same across the board, i.e.; gun shows, Craigslist etc. all had background checks and registration, similar to dealers, AND, the laws and regulations were upheld, I think most would be happy. Please don't get me wrong, I like my guns and will always have my guns and will always fight for our second amendment but I think even the NRA is behind this kind of middle ground. I don't like extremists on either side and it is those few that ruin it for the many. Compromise is a good thing and important in a just society. Just shoot me now [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm sorry, I can't watch a near 13 minute long video at work, but I can look later. (i can browse forums though; it's quieter) :bigok:

While I am not a democrat, I'm not necessarily against that. I'm all for stereotyping when it comes to safety and I'm not scared to hurt feelings.
If it takes you 2 mouthloads of phlegm to pronounce your name and you have known (or at least suspected) terrorist ties then damn straight, I don't want you owning a gun. History speaks for itself. If that's mean, then so be it.
And no, not even expand background checks; simply properly utilize the information that the existing BGC systems bring up. There is absolutely no point in a 'monitoring system' if the information isn't being used. And the BGC needs to let the gun clerk know detailed results to let the clerk make a personalized, informed decision. More than simply 'proceed, deny, delay'.
It's like if weather channels and websites didn't exist, but the Doppler radar still did. Why would the weather be monitored if no action, preventative or not, was being taken on it? "There's a hurricane coming, but we'll be damned if we let the general public know about it." That makes sense. The general public can surmise that a bad storm is on its way, but it'd be nice for a bit more info, especially if the means to present that info is completely possible.

The FBI: "Well, this guy is on the FBI Watch List and has been investigated not once, but TWICE on suspicion of terrorism, but what the hey? Let him have a gun. What could go wrong?"
They had very good reason to suspect this guy had motive to murder, but didn't think it necessary to redlist him?
as I mentioned before, the FBI may very well be the reason behind all of this.
it looks like he may have gotten weapons training from them...
 
as I mentioned before, the FBI may very well be the reason behind all of this.
it looks like he may have gotten weapons training from them...



This is the kind of crap I was referring to. What are your sources?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah this is how this discussion always goes, and it's all just a bunch of crap. Bottom line if buying a gun was the same across the board, i.e.; gun shows, Craigslist etc. all had background checks and registration, similar to dealers, AND, the laws and regulations were upheld, I think most would be happy. Please don't get me wrong, I like my guns and will always have my guns and will always fight for our second amendment but I think even the NRA is behind this kind of middle ground. I don't like extremists on either side and it is those few that ruin it for the many. Compromise is a good thing and important in a just society. Just shoot me now [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
that is completely unenforceable. just like our I594. which is utter bullshit by the way.

anyway, I do not believe BGC's should even exist. they do not work. private property should be just that, private, and not regulated in any way.

lets take this Orlando situation a little further and assume the BGC stopped him from purchasing THAT rifle, at that time.
he is intent on MURDER, do you really think he will just change his mind, because hes unable to purchase that rifle LEGALLY? people like that will get whatever weapon they want, by whatever means necessary. a silly background check will not stop them.
 
You mean like this legislation the democrats are pushing for to ban terror suspects from buying guns and expand background checks?

This legislation is not about public safety... It's about subverting due process and disarming the American people. We could explain it 50 different ways to you but we can't understand it for you.


In direct response to said legislation:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/08/beware-transparency-due-process-fly-list/F4el4qJDvegPg8CpvM47TO/story.html
 
This legislation is not about public safety... It's about subverting due process and disarming the American people. We could explain it 50 different ways to you but we can't understand it for you.


In direct response to said legislation:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/08/beware-transparency-due-process-fly-list/F4el4qJDvegPg8CpvM47TO/story.html

And I've said it just as many times. Your paranoid delusions of tyrannical government that you are going to overthrow with civilian weapons is illogical and not a valid argument in my opinion.

I guess as someone who lives in and has visited many countries with gun control, none of which have been taken over by tyrannical government out to strip its citizens of their rights, its hard for me to take seriously.
 
And I've said it just as many times. Your paranoid delusions of tyrannical government that you are going to overthrow with civilian weapons is illogical and not a valid argument in my opinion.

I guess as someone who lives in and has visited many countries with gun control, none of which have been taken over by tyrannical government out to strip its citizens of their rights, its hard for me to take seriously.

I just stumbled into your "Anything Goes" thread where you relentlessly profess your stupidity... talk about hard to take seriously.
 
I just stumbled into your "Anything Goes" thread where you relentlessly profess your stupidity... talk about hard to take seriously.


Any specific points or facts you find relentlessly stupid? Or just throwing out vague unfounded insults because you can't debate like a grown up? I went through the first 20 pages of that thread and couldn't see what you're referring to. When someone goes looking for ad hominem attacks its generally because they can no longer debate on the merits of their argument.

Lets stay on topic, shall we?
 
Last edited:

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,070
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top