Monday, July 20, 2015

Lies About Background Check and Mass Murderers

Profiting from victims’ blood to propagate gun control is nothing new and always sickening. The racist who murdered eight in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, has started a new rallying cry for gun control. 2012 saw the start of the frenzy for ‘universal background checks’, which is just double-speak for banning private gun sales. The impetus for that push had nothing to do with background checks, but rather taking advantage of tragedy. It’s disgusting effect in Nevada is the universal background check initiative, which as SB 221, was vetoed by the governor. Now, Michael Bloomberg’s gun control machine is peddling their toxic wares here. Sadly, the tragedies are exploited by gun banners to hoodwink the unwary into thinking something as pedantic as banning private sales, repackaged with a lie for a name, would somehow stop random acts of violence.

None of the most notable mass shooting suspects in recent American history bought their guns in private sales which would be subject to the provisions of the universal background check initiative. 

Supporters of the universal background checks and the various Bloomberg backed gun control groups like to imply that the recent mass shooting in America would have been prevented had universal background checks been in place. By playing on the residual horror, many can be swayed into believing that a simple background check could have saved the day. Anecdotal evidence shows that petition gathers and supports have outright lied about the facts to the public when it came to the details of these terrible crimes.

In this most critical season for our gun rights, here is the ammunition you will need to respond to the liars, frauds, and brainwashed who will do anything deceptive to sway votes to their side. When they say “X shooting could have been stopped by universal background checks,” here is your response. Remember to share this will anyone you know. There can never been enough people who know the truth.

Dylan Roof is the man who killed nine people in a church in Charleston. Roof legally purchased the pistol used in the murders, despite it being illegal for him to do so. Roof was an unlawful user of narcotics, a disqualifier for purchasing a firearm. He was in fact a prohibited person and had to lie on his background check form, the ATF 4473 (see below).

“He used drugs heavily a lot,” Mullins said. “It was obviously harder than marijuana. He was like a pill popper, from what I understood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

Roof unlawfully possessed without a prescription for Suboxone, a pain reliever. This caused him to be arrested on felony charges—another lie on the background check form—a few months before the shootings. Due to an unfortunate clerical error, this information was not properly entered into a criminal record database. When his instant background check was delayed, the examiner reviewing the file manually never saw that record. Without a denial within three days, the sale can proceed.

The approval of the sale within three days is a safety measure included in the Brady Law intended to protect an individual’s freedom and the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty. This is not a flaw, but an intentional design in order to prevent the frequent misidentifications by the background check system from unintentionally denying someone the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, politicians see this as an opportunity to call for more background checks and further restrict citizens’ rights. One of the calls is to extend the three day wait for approval to allow a more comprehensive record search or to eliminate the due-process safety provision entirely. Ideally, gun banners would like a ‘delay’ on a background check result in no sale until a specific approval comes through from the FBI. This would discriminate against those who have been subjected to identity theft or have a name too similar to that of a felon.

Thankfully, Senator Grassely got it right:

“It’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale,” he said in a statement. “The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws. The American people, and especially the victims’ families, deserve better.”[ii]

Adam Lanza was profoundly mentally ill. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and possibly undiagnosed schizophrenia. Additionally, he refused medication and psychiatric therapy. His behavior was bizarre, to say the least. Though his mother did reportedly contemplate institutionalizing her son, she did not take any formal steps to follow through with that. Nancy Lanza basically was letting a vicious tiger roam free.

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the shooter.” 

Lanza shot his mother as she slept in bed with her own gun and stole the rest. She kept the weapons unsecured from her son, who she knew or should have known was serious disturbed and a threat to others. All weapons were legally purchased.[v] His mother wrote him a check to even buy his own firearm. Adam Lanza would have theoretically been able to legally purchase a firearm, as he was not disqualified under law from buying a gun. 

A Litany of Failures

Washington State was recently the battleground for I-594, a background check initiative that was the model in every way of 'ours.' Shortly before the election, a high school student shot four classmates. The murderer, 15, obtained the gun from his father. In 2002, his father, a prohibited person, illegally bought the pistol by lying on the ATF sales form and passed a background check. This senseless tragedy was a double failure of law and more proof that background checks are not a cure-all for violence.
The Virginia Tech shooting victims were not saved by the state mental health system or by background checks. The also verifiably mentally ill suspect, Seung-Hui Cho, who had been subjected to a mental health hold for being a danger to himself or others, was able to purchase his pistols through a dealer, “easily” passing a background check. Universal background checks would not have helped here either. Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and former US Army major, who engaged in a terrorist attack against his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, legally purchased his weapon from a gun store. Despite the fact that he was under suspicion for bizarre behavior, anti-American sentiment, and seeking ties to Al-Qaeda he still passed an instant background check when buying the weapon. James Holmes, who shot up a theater of moviegoers watching the “Dark Knight Rises” Batman premiere in Aurora, CO also legally bought his guns from retail outlets. All of his weapons were bought from retail dealers who required background checks. According to a spokesman for Bass Pro Shops, where the Aurora suspect bought his guns:
"Based on the records we have reviewed, personnel in our Denver store correctly and fully followed all federal requirements with respect to the sale of one shotgun and one handgun to the individual identified in this incident. Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved. Again, our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We also offer our support and appreciation to the law enforcement and emergency response professionals and all others who responded to give aid to these innocent victims."

Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 and injured 3 more, in his shotgun attack on the Washington Navy Yard, bought his shotgun after passing a background check In Arizona, Jared Loughner, the man who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011 had his personal shotgun taken away by his father, who was alarmed at his son’s bizarre behavior. Yet that didn’t stop him from murder and the killer didn’t need the internet or private sales to buy guns. He bought his pistol used in the attack back in 2010 from aretail store. In the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, both under 18, utilized a straw purchase, obtaining guns through an adult friend and also through a corrupt dealer. Both methods were already illegal and not necessarily subject to the universal background check. Not to mention that both were already prohibited by law from purchasing firearms by virtue of being under 18. Sales of firearms to minors in Nevada is already a crime.

Lastly, in the recent cowardly ambush murders of the LV Metro PD officers Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck along with the armed citizen who tried to intervene, Joseph Wilcox, it was the accomplice wife who legally bought the guns for her husband who, as a felon, could not purchase or possess firearms, a so-called 'straw purchase,' something that a background check couldn't prevent. Doubtless, there are plenty of examples where criminals obtained guns illegally through private sales by duping an honest, unwitting law-abiding gun owner. Yet the most sensational crimes were not committed with guns obtained that way. Let’s make no mistake: lots of bad people abuse the trust of honest, law abiding citizens selling their guns face to face. However, we cannot let the fact that the minority of private party gun sales are to criminals override the right of innocent gun owners trying to conduct lawful business with one another. Also, it is downright malicious and deceitful to imply that the most horrific, emotional crimes in recent American history would have been prevented if we had a universal background check law. The supporters of this initiative do not care for the truth.
Learn more at


  1. Let me be the first to say that formatting sucks. Sorry, don't know what happened.