Firearms Background Checks

 

I decided to a little more research into the failure of finding a felony conviction for the Aurora, IL shooter. When his employment was terminated, he shot 10 people. Five employees were killed, and five police officers were wounded.

In spite of his felony conviction in the mid-1990s for aggravated assault in Mississippi, he managed to obtain a Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) card in January 2014. He submitted his name and birthdate, but he checked the box stating he had not been convicted of a felony.

Five weeks later he purchased .40-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol. The purchase was approved on March 6, 2014, after he cleared a second background check. On March 16, 2014, he applied for a concealed weapons permit. According to the Chicago Tribune, he submitted his fingerprints to expedite the process. His fingerprints were sent to the FBI and that revealed his felony conviction.

On April 17, 2014, Mr. Martin was sent a letter informing him that he could not possess a gun. Upon receipt of the letter he had 48 hours to transfer the handgun to someone with a valid firearms permit or his local police department. He was also required to submit a firearms disposition record of the transfer. The revocation of his permit was supposed to be transmitted through a statewide database. His local police department, the Aurora police department would then mail the disposition record of transfer to the Illinois State Police.

None of that happened and almost five years later, ten people were shot by a convicted felon. The process is far too complex in Illinois, and a more complex process does not mean separating a felon from a firearm. It leads to assumptions that someone else is doing their job or it’s someone else’s problem. Illinois state law does not require a law enforcement agency to seek a warrant to seize a firearm, although it is not forbidden to do so.

In spite of the timeline, no one knows where the system broke down. The search has begun by the Illinois State Police, and the Aurora Police Department to find out the why, and how Mr. Martin still retained his handgun for five years after he was informed he could no longer possess a handgun.

Going back to the form that Mr. Martin falsified is the first step in obtaining a warrant from the court to seize his firearm. Falsifying a state document is a crime. It does not matter if a prosecutor will decline to prosecute that crime. The warrant, arrest and the seizure would still be valid. Felon in possession of a firearm is also a crime. If the Illinois State Police are responsible for the background check it would be far simpler for them to obtain the warrant, and execute the warrant.

Do away with the firearms disposition form, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Martin falsified a state document. In all cases of a felon in possession of a firearm, the objective is to remove the firearm as soon as possible. I don’t understand why Illinois allows a felon to transfer the weapon to someone else, especially a felon that falsified a state form.

His criminal record was found but the investigation should also include just what information was available on Mr. Martin in the NCIC and NCIS data system. The NCIS system did not come online until 1998. Mr. Martin was released from prison in 1997. Is there a chance that Mr. Martin’s data was not available in the NCIS. Because the FOID card is a state-issued card did the Illinois State Police only perform a state database check for the FOID card.

The Illinois State police do have access to both the NCIC and NCIS database but the investigation continues.

Note: A big tip of the hat to the Chicago Tribune. 

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    The story always pushed by the gun-registration shills is that somehow, somehow, such systems will always work together, and yet time and again gaps such as this open wide.  Of course the fallback position is always “trust us, we’ve figured this out”.  But this is a perennial problem with massive interconnected databases (especially government ones) where institutional arrogance and seclusion ally with budgetary constraints, institutional isolationism, and an aversion (borne of both the reasonable fear of private industry like Google or Amazon getting their hooks into personal data, and the unreasonable insistence on “doing it ourselves in our own way”) to standardization of data.  Yes, such systems as NICS are theoretically possible to make work, but they rarely actually do in practice what their proponents claim.

    • #1
  2. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    The more complicated the process, the more places for a breakdown.  Seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it?  But then, I’m not a politician.

     

     

     

     

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Doug Watt: Five weeks later he purchased .40 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol.

    Five weeks later?  Illinois must not use the instant background check system.  It’s not perfect either, but it sounds as if the construction of an overly bureaucratic background check system allows mistakes like this to be made.

    • #3
  4. Virtuous Heathen Inactive
    Virtuous Heathen
    @heathen

    I have some experience in this area as I sold firearms part-time for a sporting goods store as an Illinois resident in 2013 & 2014 when they were first rolling out the concealed carry program.

    The primary issue here is that Illinois firearm laws, in an attempt to be more restrictive, are not entirely compatible with federal laws and background check systems. In fact, what records NICS would return on this individual are mostly irrelevant.

    First, the FOID card.  When applying for the FOID card the State Police are able to take their time and check every database available to them–to include the FBI databases that NICS relies on. This doesn’t mean that NICS, being optimized for instant background checks, is even used for a comprehensive records review. 

    Instead, when a firearm is purchased Illinois has its own instant background system independent of NICS. Of course, there are faults in every system–even if this system is runs parallel to NICS, even if its well designed extra layer of protection. In this case, it is neither of those.

    When a FFL calls the state police to perform the check required for the sale of a firearm it is checking the FOID database. That system can return 3 codes: Approval, Denial, or Pending. That system regularly updates with information from the FBI and is theoretically able to access the FBI database. However, the NICS entry for an individual and the FOID entry for an individual are not the same entry. When the FOID system finds a “matching” entry a “pending” code is returned. This requires the State Police to confirm the FBI criminal record is the same individual applying for transfer, rather than someone with the same name. Outright denials are very rare and usually indicate that someone has a recent state level conviction or has tried to purchase at another time and already had their records confirmed by the state police. 

    But we have a constitutional right to bear arms and the state law cannot restrict that without due process–that is–an ability to prove that the FOID holder is the same individual who has records/restrictions with the FBI. And so, when the State Police are unable to process the double check in a timely manner it defaults to approval. 

    Add another unique and overly complicated process for Concealed Carry applications and you’ve got a mess of a system that creates more opportunity for mistakes rather than fewer. 

    Certainly, local PD should have followed up on the order to transfer the handgun, but with so many other conflicting authorities it is easy to see how they could be unsure of their role or process in this situation. 

    In short, when the State Police do a comprehensive background check its possible to miss something. It happens. But the system assumes the comprehensive check is correct and what is missed, stays missed.

    • #4
  5. Virtuous Heathen Inactive
    Virtuous Heathen
    @heathen

    Stad (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Five weeks later he purchased .40 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol.

    Five weeks later? Illinois must not use the instant background check system. It’s not perfect either, but it sounds as if the construction of an overly bureaucratic background check system allows mistakes like this to be made.

    I believe he is referring to the period between receiving a FOID card & purchasing the gun. 

    But the conclusion is the same–as in my more verbose comment above–they think the bureaucracy adds protection but instead complicates it while doubling down on mistakes.

    • #5
  6. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    I’m more familiar with the NCIC system as a former police officer. As a police officer I had more access to the NCIC system than a private employer would have. There are what I would call expiration dates on some NCIC data. Mostly warrants, and stolen vehicle information. These drop out of the system but can be renewed, or must be renewed by the reporting agency.

    As far as I know there is no expiration date on felony convictions, and I found lengthy felony conviction info that definitely went a long way back in time.

    My assumption would be that the Illinois State Police would be checking their state database, NCIC, and NCIS, or should be if they are tasked with processing background checks for firearms purchases. 

    • #6
  7. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    You mean the government messed something up, I am shocked and appalled.

    • #7
  8. Virtuous Heathen Inactive
    Virtuous Heathen
    @heathen

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    My assumption would be that the Illinois State Police would be checking their state database, NCIC, and NCIS, or should be if they are tasked with processing background checks for firearms purchases.

    The State police background check system is automated in a similar way that NICS is. The state police are only checking NCIC and NCIS for purchases when the automated system turns up a conflict. The problem is, the automated system can turn up a conflict for many reasons simply because they are pinging different databases which have overlapping information–not to mention discrepancies resulting from Illinois using State Issued FOID & DL Numbers as absolute identifiers while Feds use their own. And so, when you have a lot of frivolous conflicts and limited resources for clearing them, the time allowed to complete the process expires and defaults to approved. 

    As a supporter of the 2nd amendment I believe the default should be “Approved.” If the state can’t prove that I have convictions they shouldn’t be able impede the exercise of my rights. But the Illinois FOID system, as it stands, doesn’t offer any benefits over the FBI managed NICS system–in fact it only consumes resources and dilutes the pool of cases which really need attention.

    It’s also worth noting that this man lied on both his FOID application to the State and his ATF Form 4473–a federal crime. Yet, enforcing this matter was passed off to local Aurora PD? The only ones who don’t have an active role in prosecuting these offenses.

    • #8
  9. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    At the end of the day, this guy wasn’t missed.  The folks that are supposed to protect the public from this guy knew he lied on the form he filled out.  And they did nothing.  I don’t know if it was you, Doug, or someone else who said it on another post:  law enforcement should have gone and arrested his sorry carcass and confiscated his firearm.

    Nearly 5 years before he killed all those people, law enforcement knew he had a firearm illegally.  And they did nothing about it.  

    • #9
  10. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Spin (View Comment):

    At the end of the day, this guy wasn’t missed. The folks that are supposed to protect the public from this guy knew he lied on the form he filled out. And they did nothing. I don’t know if it was you, Doug, or someone else who said it on another post: law enforcement should have gone and arrested his sorry carcass and confiscated his firearm.

    Nearly 5 years before he killed all those people, law enforcement knew he had a firearm illegally. And they did nothing about it.

    My contention is that a warrant should have been sought, and executed to at the very least seize the firearm. He should have been arrested as well, but if Aurora is in Cook County the chances he would have been prosecuted for possession are pretty slim, but that’s a story for another time.

     

    • #10
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Virtuous Heathen (View Comment):
    Illinois has its own instant background system independent of NICS

    This sounds like a situation ripe for failure . . .

    • #11
  12. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    The Sutherland Springs shooter should have been denied permission to purchase a firearm, yet someone in USAF OSI decided to not do their job and notify the (other) Feds.  I am sure you have read all the news articles about the numerous officials relieved of duty over it (sarcasm meter alert).  Likewise the Parkland shooter and Virginia Tech shooters were lunatics well known to local school officials and exactly nothing was done about them.  Had it not been for the (close) election of a Republican as Florida governor the abysmal sheriff would still be on the job.  

    If gun control advocates really cared about gun violence, they would be shrieking about this incompetence as well as demanding prosecution of straw buyers.  Their silence is noteworthy.

    • #12
  13. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    Their silence is noteworthy.

    Their primary goal is virtue signalling.

    • #13
  14. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Spin (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    Their silence is noteworthy.

    Their primary goal is virtue signalling.

    I concur.  It’s bizarre how so many officials in strict gun control states like New York and New Jersey appear totally satisfied with prosecuting gun owners who fall afoul of the law without hurting anyone while simultaneously avoiding dealing with actual armed criminals.  And they are returned to office ad infinitum by voters.

    • #14
  15. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    As a police officer I had more access to the NCIC system than a private employer would have.

    Private employers have zero access to NCIC.  And if they did, anything more than seven years old is denied to them, up to and including felony murder.  See my posts at: http://ricochet.com/597589/the-aurora-shooting/

    If a background investigator reveals such prohibited information, s/he will be sued and fined out of existence.  “BI’s” are the most professionally dangerous fields for Private Investigators and P.I. agencies.  I was once considered an expert in the field of B.I.’s.  I decided they weren’t the risk, and stopped doing them.  For the last, oh, 10 years of my practice, I stuck to major felonies.  Much safer.

    • #15
  16. kidCoder Member
    kidCoder
    @kidCoder

    How much did Illinois spend to make this system? Curious minds want to know.

    • #16
  17. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    As a police officer I had more access to the NCIC system than a private employer would have.

    Private employers have zero access to NCIC. And if they did, anything more than seven years old is denied to them, up to and including felony murder. See my posts at: http://ricochet.com/597589/the-aurora-shooting/

    If a background investigator reveals such prohibited information, s/he will be sued and fined out of existence. “BI’s” are the most professionally dangerous fields for Private Investigators and P.I. agencies. I was once considered an expert in the field of B.I.’s. I decided they weren’t the risk, and stopped doing them. For the last, oh, 10 years of my practice, I stuck to major felonies. Much safer.

    Yep, I did not phrase that as well as I should have. Martin’s employer did a criminal background check and the felony conviction did not turn up in the background check.

     

    • #17
  18. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Spin (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    Their silence is noteworthy.

    Their primary goal is virtue signalling.

    I suspect their primary goal is to make gun sales between private citizens illegal. Hence their continued emphasis on closing the so called “gun show loophole”.

    If transferring or selling arms between private citizens becomes subject to government review and approval, they will have achieved gun registration through the back door.

     

    • #18
  19. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    Their silence is noteworthy.

    Their primary goal is virtue signalling.

    I suspect their primary goal is to make gun sales between private citizens illegal. Hence their continued emphasis on closing the so called “gun show loophole”.

    If transferring or selling arms between private citizens becomes subject to government review and approval, they will have achieved gun registration through the back door.

     

    See I started to write that.  Then I thought “No, they aren’t that smart.”  ;-)

    Our wonderful voters in Washington approved the first part of your second paragraph a couple of years ago, and the second part just this past November.  They also made it so you waive your right to healthcare privacy when you fill out an application to purchase a gun.  

    • #19
  20. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Spin (View Comment):
    Our wonderful voters in Washington approved the first part of your second paragraph a couple of years ago, and the second part just this past November.

    Welcome to California, Washington.  Or is it, welcome to Washington, California?  Because this is what happens when Californians flee the Golden State, then endeavor to change the place to which they moved, into the place they fled.  

    All – I say again, all, firearm ownership transfers in California must be done through an FFL.  You can’t even loan a firearm to another person, for any reason for any period of time, without going through an FFL, and paying.

    • #20
  21. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Quietpi (View Comment):
    All – I say again, all, firearm ownership transfers in California must be done through an FFL. You can’t even loan a firearm to another person, for any reason for any period of time, without going through an FFL, and paying.

    It’s close here.  I don’t have to do that if I’m passing a firearm to a family member.  

    • #21
  22. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    So if a felon says he’s giving the weapon to his wife or girlfriend that’s swell?

    • #22
  23. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Virtuous Heathen (View Comment):

    The primary issue here is that Illinois firearm laws, in an attempt to be more restrictive, are not entirely compatible with federal laws and background check systems. In fact, what records NICS would return on this individual are mostly irrelevant.

     

    This is a problem the NRA has been complaining about for years.  Many states do not, or outright refuse to, give their criminal data to the federal government.  Thus, the background check database is incomplete.  It is a filter full of holes.  

    • #23
  24. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    So if a felon says he’s giving the weapon to his wife or girlfriend that’s swell?

    I suppose it depends.  I read a story about a guy who was shooting a .44 magnum in his backyard.  He let his girlfriend shoot it, but she was not ready for the recoil, and the bullet ended up flying high, over the trees, and hitting an old dude in a park and killing him.  My memory is a little shaky, but she was not charged.  The guy was, because he was not allowed to have a firearm at all.  I think it was the FBI who investigated and brought the charges.  I might have that bit wrong.  

    The point:  I don’t think it’s swell for a felon to turn over his gun to his wife or girlfriend  he still has access to it.  And again, he ought to serve some more time, because he knowingly violated the law.  

    • #24
  25. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    Spin (View Comment):
    And again, he ought to serve some more time, because he knowingly violated the law.

    Not to the point of the conversation, but you know what?  When possession of firearms becomes illegal, when Pelosi comes to confiscate my firearms, I may forget how many I have and where they are, and I may knowingly violate the law myself.    

    • #25
  26. Joshua Bissey Inactive
    Joshua Bissey
    @TheSockMonkey

    One might be forgiven for thinking that some people do not want our current gun control measures to work very well, with the aim of encouraging further gun restrictions. Those will be enforced with equal vigor, encouraging yet more restrictive measures. Rinse and repeat, until an outright, universal ban on private ownership is seen as the only effective measure.

    • #26
  27. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    And again, he ought to serve some more time, because he knowingly violated the law.

    Not to the point of the conversation, but you know what? When possession of firearms becomes illegal, when Pelosi comes to confiscate my firearms, I may forget how many I have and where they are, and I may knowingly violate the law myself.

    All my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident.  Prove me wrong.  

    I get your point.  But you aren’t a felon, are you?  And there is a process for felons to get their rights restored.  

    • #27
  28. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Hope I am not hijacking the thread, but reading through the comments I am struck by how problematic it is to alienate unalienable rights. No, I don’t want criminals, violent persons, emotional disturbed and suicidal persons having guns if they are going to use it on someone or themselves. But assuming someone has been deprived of liberty for a period of years and is released, have they really given up the right of self-defense? 

    We can justly chastise the gun grabbers for their illogical reliance on increasingly complex government processes to protect us all. But should we take comfort in the argument that most gun violence involves existing ineffective gun controls so that additional rules will not make us safer? 

    Is not the answer that we need more, not less, of a “gun culture”? That isn’t necessarily ownership, but it does mean that the population is more educated about guns, their types, their characteristics, safety, and spotting and correcting misuse or unsafe situations. Instead, the “gun free” zones are in heads — ignorance is dangerous. 

    Guns are a critical component of effective self-defense — particularly for the physically weak and small. We need more gun ranges for practice — not fewer. We need capable citizens, not ignorant ones.

    • #28
  29. Virtuous Heathen Inactive
    Virtuous Heathen
    @heathen

    Rodin (View Comment):

    We can justly chastise the gun grabbers for their illogical reliance on increasingly complex government processes to protect us all. But should we take comfort in the argument that most gun violence involves existing ineffective gun controls so that additional rules will not make us safer?

    I don’t read any of the above comments as being in favor of additional rules–or even in support of existing ones. Simply that the enforcement of existing law is insufficient. Be those shortcomings due to indifference, incompetence, unrealistic expectations, or some combination thereof, appears to be the only real discussion.

    That said, I concur with most of your comment and I believe there is merit to the idea that not every felon–having served their time–should be considered to have forfeited their second amendment rights. In this case however, the individual in question was convicted of aggravated assault. That’s one step shy of attempted murder. For something of that degree I am satisfied to see these rights forfeit.

    Maybe if we focused on these cases rather than someone who has committed some sort of fraud (for example, no particular reason it comes to mind) it would be easier for law enforcement to actually keep them out of the hands of people like Gary Martin.

    • #29
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.