Current Events > If a background check blocks a gun sale,that should lead to investigation/arrest

(+) Yeah! (+)

Apparently the St Louis kid, after being placed in mental health care and having his gun taken, was denied a gun sale after the background check.

This should've been an immediate red flag for police leading to his arrest. It would've saved lives. Why is this not the standard?

Seems kinda posey

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

He was just deemed dangerous, had his gun seized, and immediately went to try and buy another one. If you can't find grounds there, then something is very wrong with the system.

It does seem kinda weird that you can be arrested for attempting to vote when you're not allowed to but when you try to buy a gun when you're not allowed to have one that's just not a big deal at all.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

No definitely not! I don't think it should be an automatic arrest, but an investigation and potential arrest.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Apparently the St Louis kid, after being placed in mental health care and having his gun taken, was denied a gun sale after the background check.

This should've been an immediate red flag for police leading to his arrest. It would've saved lives. Why is this not the standard?

What would the police do?

you are under arrest for trying to legally purchase a fire arm.

Seems like a great idea.

whitelytning posted...

What would the police do?

you are under arrest for trying to legally purchase a fire arm.

Seems like a great idea.

There are laws in place that would allow them to arrest someone for attempting an illegal purchase, which is what was happening here.

So long as there's both simple "lol, no" and a "no-fly list" in NICS, I don't see any real problem here.

"Maybe if a criminal tries to buy a gun, we should look into it?"

CE: "What, you want to arrest people for following the law?!"

Questionmarktarius posted...

So long as there's both simple "lol, no" and a "no-fly list" in NICS, I don't see any real problem here.

The problem is that theres a ridiculous number of options to get around the background check so we need to check on any potential violation

Cops should ask the person wanted the gun for.

Arrests are never done for preventing

Bad idea, innocent people will be caught in the shuffle.

Hop103 posted...

Bad idea, innocent people will be caught in the shuffle.

What innocent people are failing a background check?

So you're saying that you want police to have the power to arrest minorities for failing a background check because they have a jaywalking ticket they didn't pay?

TC I think you have the series of events in the wrong order. He had mental health issues and had been committed on several occasion. As far as I can tell, that is why he was denied buying a gun.

He bought a gun from a private seller after he was denied by the background check. Then his mother found the gun and called police, but they didn't have clear authority to take the gun

That part definitely needs to change. Had the police been able to sieze the gun, this could have been prevented. I think there also needs to be tougher regulation on reselling guns. Don't know how they would crack down on it. But he should not have been able to turn around and but a gun through some guy after being deemed unsafe to own one.

But launching an investigation into every person that fails the background check seems excessive.

A_Good_Boy posted...

What innocent people are failing a background check?

I have twice. For a job at food lion and a job at Walmart.

No problem for the prison though but they wanted a lot more information than the other two did.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I have twice. For a job at food lion and a job at Walmart.

No problem for the prison though but they wanted a lot more information than the other two did.

I think the important part is that TC said this should result in an investigation. There's nothing wrong with the cops looking into why someone that failed a background check was then turning around and trying to acquire a gun. Just because there's an investigation doesn't defacto lead to an arrest.

A_Good_Boy posted...

I think the important part is that TC said this should result in an investigation. There's nothing wrong with the cops looking into why someone that failed a background check was then turning around and trying to acquire a gun. Just because there's an investigation doesn't defacto lead to an arrest.

Yeah. I was just answering his question. He simply asked who's failing background checks that's innocent

NoxObscuras posted...

TC I think you have the series of events in the wrong order. He had mental health issues and had been committed on several occasion. As far as I can tell, that is why he was denied buying a gun.

He bought a gun from a private seller after he was denied by the background check. Then his mother found the gun and called police, but they didn't have clear authority to take the gun

That part definitely needs to change. Had the police been able to sieze the gun, this could have been prevented. I think there also needs to be tougher regulation on reselling guns. Don't know how they would crack down on it. But he should not have been able to turn around and but a gun through some guy after being deemed unsafe to own one.

But launching an investigation into every person that fails the background check seems excessive.

You may be correct, I'm going off what I've heard of the situation but haven't done a deep dive into the details, so I may have the timeline wrong.