SIG MMG 338 Program Series

What The Heck Is This ‘Charleston Loophole’ I Keep Hearing About?

Lately, gun grabbers have been calling for an end to the ‘Charieston Loophole’.  The problem is, I can’t figure out what it is.  

According to FBI Director James Comey, Charleston Church shooter Dylann Roof should not have been able to purchase a handgun, but that the National Criminal Background Check System which is used to determine whether a firearms purchaser can legally do so, made a mistake. As far as I can tell, there’s no loophole here.  

Dylan’s Roof didn’t exploit a “loophole” in the law. There’s a system that’s been in place for years and should have denied hisirxhase and referred him to local authorities. But that system didn’t work. Unfortunately, this ‘mistake’ resulted in prohibited person purchasing a firearm who then used it to murder good people. People died at a prayer meeting as a result of the FBI’s negligence.

What should be done is a hard look at the inefficiency of the National Criminal Background Check System and a reckoning for those who don’t enforce existing firearms laws and don’t follow up when prohibited persons attempt to purchase them.

Maybe I’m wrong, and you can explain this ‘Charieston Loophole’ to me?

36 Responses to “What The Heck Is This ‘Charleston Loophole’ I Keep Hearing About?”

  1. Historia says:

    You are correct its not a loophole. They either do not understand that is was an error, or they are misrepresenting the incident to suit themselves.

    • mike says:

      Or, somehow, both.

      The anti-gun crowd’s propensity toward Cognitive Dissonance is real and real powerful.

  2. SShink says:

    Sounds a lot like the “gun show loop-hole”…you know, the one where anyone can walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun (or in some versions a machine gun), having had no background check.

    • Ab5olut3zero says:

      Which isn’t even a real loophole- a private seller doesn’t have the authority to perform a NICS check unless he’s an FFL holder, and then he’s required by law to perform the check unless it’s his private weapons being sold.

      • LCSO264 says:

        That’s not entirely true. In some States, there was/is a mechanism in place to allow for private parties to preform a background check. And now in some States there is a mandate that they do so.

    • Cpfluger says:

      There is No loophole that allows transfer if a machinegun.

      Any transfer of a machine gun requires NFA paperwork to be filed along with a tax stamp, therefore a 6-11 month wait, fbi background check, full fingerprints etc etc etc. Only after that comes back can you transfer a machinegun. Even then you can only transfer one made before 1986 that is on the machinegun registry.

      Know your MG and NFA law before discussing “loopholes”

      MG is a title II firearm and subject to the same transfer procedures as supressors and short barrel rifles, with the additional burden of the registry sytem. Plus many states have an additional layer.

      Period. End of story.

      If some one is picking up their NFA or MG transfer at a gun show it is because their in depth background check, tax stamp and payments were handled six months prior.

  3. Craig says:

    Calling it a loophole is a misnomer that I believe is done intentionally in order to deceive the ignorant into further prohibitions on guns.

    • majrod says:

      Nailed it!

      Just like gun safety is gun control.

      Universal background checks are actually about taking guns away when the owner passes (gun can’t be given to family). As well as making it impossible to share a gun so a law fearing couple/family doesn’t buy a gun because they’d need multiple.

      • LCSO264 says:

        Although I agree with Craig 110%, we need to be cautious of casting a broad net. Remember each State has it’s own laws.

        For instance, the recently passed private sale background check requirement in Oregon, allows for firearms to be sold/traded amongst family members (to the aunt/uncle & grandparents level) without being required to do the background check. Personally, I don’t support the law, but it passed, so it is what it is. The funny part is, Oregon law had already provided/allowed for private party sales background checks, they just weren’t mandatory. there was a simple mechanism in place.

        And conversely I’m certain there are some states with absolutely draconian restrictions/laws regarding private sale background checks, that far exceed the Federal statutes.

  4. Ab5olut3zero says:

    No, you’re on the money. It’s not a loophole, but was simply inefficiency. NICS is by no stretch a perfect system, but it’s about as close as it’s going to get.

    The only ‘improvement’ I could imagine as a former gun-seller would be to increase scrutiny and expedite Delay-status sales to keep those whose NICS checks return from Delay as a Deny from completing purchases. Under the law, any purchaser whose NICS check comes back as a Delay can legally be sold the weapon in three business days, regardless of the final outcome of the NICS check. In the event a Delay becomes a Deny, the FFL holder/seller must make all reasonable efforts to inform the customer and authorities, but even then there isn’t much they can do at that point.

    That being said, the NICS system is as tight as it can be. Any tighter or much more stringent, and law-abiding citizens will have a hard time buying weapons.

    • majrod says:

      “That being said, the NICS system is as tight as it can be. Any tighter or much more stringent, and law-abiding citizens will have a hard time buying weapons.”

      THAT’s the goal.

      Another “improvement” would be making dealers have to hold the gun until NCIS gets back to you. Then the anti-gunners can work on making NCIS less efficient and enact back door gun control…

  5. bulldog76 says:

    Well he just showed a confederate flag and the shop was like you’re good enough not to need a backround check *rollseyes* ……

  6. Jim says:

    Roof had been arrested and charged with a drug felony about a month before he bought the gun and went on his shooting rampage. A felony conviction of any kind is a NICS disqualifier as is any sort of drug misdemeanor. Charges do not equal a conviction in this country, yet.

    The news report I read about this fiasco said the NICS examiner called Roof’s home county of record and was told he has no charges pending. That was true, for that county/judicial district. He had been arrested and charged in a nearby county that was in a different judicial circuit/district. The state court record keeping systems are evidently all their own little non networked islands in South Carolina. The NICS examiner would have had to call every county in South Carolina to catch the fact that Roof was ineligible.

    I think what they are calling the loophole is the fact that PENDING criminal charges are not or are not consistently reported to NICS.

    • SSD says:

      It was a drug felony making him ineligible to purchase as a drug abuser.

      • Bill says:

        It was an arrest, which doesn’t trigger disability. He hadn’t been convicted. It was compounded by the fact that the arresting agency had a nearly identical name as a neighboring agency, so there was confusion on that end, even though they would have had different agency ORI numbers. Best case scenario might have been a delay, and a follow up by the ATF.

        It looks like a confluence of minor errors that cascaded into a tragedy. No system of any sort will ever maintain 100% accuracy. When you consider the number of NICS checks done, and the general variance in quality of record keeping among all the agencies that have to feed into it, I’m surprised there haven’t been more incidents. Typically NICS errors on the side of caution. I’ve never been arrested or convicted of a crime, and I’m a cop. I’ve been delayed once or twice in the past, probably because of a close name match or something.

        • joe says:

          It’s a fairly common condition of bail that the judge orders you to surrender weapons and not buy acquire any more. If he had charges pending and wasn’t incarcerated, that means he most likely saw a judge and posted bail.

          Or just refer to Question 11b on the 4473: Are you under indictment for a felont, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

          • LCSO264 says:

            Joe, that is a stretch. He could have posted bail (which I doubt), been ROR’d, the charge not yet filed, there are any number of reasons he could have been out. Further more, even if it was a condition of bail that he not purchase/possess firearms, I’m not sure the Government could stop him. Citizens are only prohibited from owning/purchasing firearms upon conviction of felonies (certain felonies don’t even apply) and domestic violence (including DV misdemeanors, which I suspect will eventually be challenged in court). An arrest and bail or whatever, does not equal conviction.

            As far as the neighboring jurisdiction records mash up, I’ve not looked into/researched that at all. But, like Riceball says below, computers….. Each county/jurisdiction may have their own database (and likely do), but State Court records likely exist on a State wide database. State (or Superior in some states) Court is where felony charges are filed and tried. Misdemeanors and Violations (or whatever they are called in a given state) are heard in lower courts (District, Municipal, Justice, etc…) which may not be on the State Court’s database, but a felony charge should have been. but again, that is only a charge/arrest, not a conviction.

        • Riceball says:

          The simplest solution to this would be to automate this process, there’s no reason in this day and age of high speed internet and web enabled mobile devices that the background check should be done manually. As long as all of the info exists online somewhere all the dealer needs to do is to enter the info of the purchaser and the system should (theoretically) deliver an answer in less than a minute. Of course, this would speed up the process of purchasing guns and the antis would probably scream that it would allow nutjobs to go on their rampages that much quicker but it would be much more foolproof than the current system of manual checks, not that the antis would acknowledge or even necessarily like that.

    • Ab5olut3zero says:

      That’s actually the case more or less nation-wide. It’s not just SC. The NICS examiner could’ve just been lazy and not thorough enough or it just hadn’t been reported to the right levels yet, as with many bureaucracies. Fact is, the NICS system failed this one time with dire consequences. A more stringent check MAY have caught it but probably wouldn’t have.

  7. balais says:

    i dunno but they need to STFU. They’re sounding stupider and stupider, and attracting other stupid people just like them. Funny thing, the POTUS had a nice tall cup of STFU too on the gun control rhetoric after making assumptions on his part and running with it. Maybe him and the other morons elected by the ‘bread and circuses’ “free shit” crowd should take the same advice?

  8. MK says:

    I believe the “loophole” being referred to is that the gun store can sell the firearm after a 3 day waiting period before the background check is complete. I believe the NICS examiner never stated the Roof could buy a gun, they just took longer than 3 days to say he could NOT purchase the weapon which allowed the gun store to sell Roof the gun.

    The”loophole” allows ineligible buyers to buy guns if it takes NICS more than 3 days to disqualify the buyer. If the law stated that a purchaser had to wait until NICS checks were complee, this would close the loophole. I’m not saying I agree with this suggestion, but this is my understanding of the argument.

    • Ab5olut3zero says:

      Not quite. The seller, if NICS has yet to change the status or issue a new delay order on the purchase, MAY choose to sell the firearm in question, but id they do they tun the risk of being held liable if it turns into a Deny result. Sellers can choose to go either way. I know at least one seller that flat out refuses to sell to anyone without a Proceed result.

      • Ab5olut3zero says:

        *if

        Damn tiny keyboards

        • red2429 says:

          MK is right. The “loophole” that everyone is talking about is the 3 day time period for a background check to take place. After three days with no resolution the store can sell the weapon. From what I have read the 3 day time period was included in the law so a buearocrat could not unnecessarily extend the time to get an approval/disapproval. After saying that, a retailer can wait to sell the weapon to a buyer until they have received the approval/disapproval. Some wait and some do not. Does it make total sense, probably not. I agree with others that the system should be made more effecient.

    • Bill says:

      If the transaction goes through after a delay, and it’s later determined that the buyer was ineligible, the ATF will send agents to collect the gun. There’s also the option of criminal charges for possession of a firearm under disability. This from ATF agents i was discussing this with last week.

      Also discussed was the FBIs’ incessant need to get its grubby little paws into everything.

    • LCSO264 says:

      If the 3-day thing is accurate, that is just plain silly. How can a dealer sell a gun to someone who’s background check hasn’t come back clear?

      and correct about the FBI trying to be involved/in control of everything they can…. and not very good at any of it (at least in my experience with them)…..

  9. Strike-Hold says:

    Funny how they’d rather blather on about non-existent ‘loopholes’ than to actually work on fixing the real problems….

    http://fixnics.org

    • Stefan S. says:

      That would require a brain. Something the liberal cowards lack in spades!

  10. Chuck says:

    What I find very interesting in this situation, and what I would very much like to have more information about, is where the evidence for all of this comes from. I was under the impression that background checks performed through the NICS system were supposed to be destroyed.

    Again, I’m not well versed in the minutiae of the NICS system past the point of filling out a questionnaire, so if this could be clarified, it would be much appreciated.

  11. Disco says:

    Okay. That’s nice.
    However, if someone wants a gun they’ll get it.

    PLENTY of homeboys with dope and agg assault beefs who help their baby momma pick out a gun at a pawn shop.

    Ban all the guns…go ahead. They’ll just break into officers’ take home cars or homes.
    Pretty easy to come up with thede ‘good, common sense’ ideas when you have.’round the clock protection by college educated federal agents who train to protect men that in any other society would be shunned or tarred and feathered.

    • LCSO264 says:

      Very well put! all of it, agree 100%

      I will chime in on one thing, anyone who leaves a firearm stored in a car, that is parked in the open/on the street, for a length of time should simply expect the firearm to be stolen. I have had a take-home car for 15+ years. I either parked my car in my garage, which my equipment secured in the car, or when I’ve had a vehicle that won’t fit in my garage (currently), I carry my weapons, body armor, and other high value equipment into the house upon arriving home. Too many stories of cops, or Feds getting their cars broke into and all their equipment stolen. I am responsible for my equipment, and I would feel horrible if someone broke into my truck, took my rifle (or other equipment) and committed a crime and/or hurt someone.

      Now all that said, a crook could also break into my house and get some of my equipment, the stuff not locked in safes (if I’m not in the house, guns etc. go into a safe), but at that point (burglary) I’ve done everything I can reasonably do to protect my equipment, I just got dealt a crappy hand.

  12. Abettorman says:

    Q: Why do we even have a NICS in the first place?
    A: Because murder no longer carries the death penalty

    Q: But a felon!?
    A1: Non-violent crimes can make someone a felon.
    A2: Truly, if you’re afraid of what someone may do when they are released, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they shouldn’t be released?

    Q: But! Violent criminals are getting let out early due to overcrowding and taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill for more prisons! The guards are already overworked!
    A: See the first question.

    Summary: Nix NICS. Provide fitting ends for violent criminals and promote personal carry. Sometimes, you have to choose freedom over safety.

  13. Henrik says:

    The Charleston shooting “just happened” to take all the attention away from the TPP trade deal.

    Even persons that do not believe in false flags should take note of this. Because that is how the MSM always do its business. Protect the powers that be by using divide and conquer techniques on the population.
    Anti-gun and anti-Confederate battle flag to fill the news with inflammatory opionions while they secure Internationalism (which is always Marxist in the end game) dogma into law.

    Stop watching/reading MSM! (I count SSD as independant media even though he has stated to be part of the regular news system if I remember correctly).

  14. Rob Collins says:

    What should be done is the blame should be placed squarely on the executive branch’s lack of enforcement. Period.

    MSM ignores the FACT that the murder rate is half what it was in 1992. They also ignore the fact that murder rates are higher in metropolitan areas such as Chicago that have stricter gun laws. MSM profits from mass murder, as does their cause to diminish private gun ownership. If you think I’m wrong, watch CNN after an ‘event’. It’s all they can talk about, and their bias is painfully evident.