A known "pill popper" was legally allowed to possess a handgun in S.C.

[brentspeak]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/everything-known-about-charleston-church-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof.html

Which he then used to murder nine innocent people.

Of course this crime has everything to do with gun control: LE in South Carolina (and most NRA-bought-off states) is forbidden from thoroughly vetting prospective handgun owners.

The killer would never have been allowed to own his handgun in a state like NJ, a state which has actual sane gun laws: LE is logically required to properly vet prospective handgun owners: personal interviews, contacts with neighbors, employers, etc. to make absolutely certain that any ominous behavior that would slip by a simple felony background check doesn't go undiscovered. Any major red flags? Sorry, no gun, nutjob.

Lives saved, and responsible gun owners get to continue owning their firearms at the same time.

[Fred Sanders]

1. It was not just the lack of sensible gun control, it is also racism, intolerance and media silence.

You can not have "responsible gun owners" in a nation of gun ownership anarchy.

[John_Doe80004]

2. i wonder?

what this conservative obsession with the second amendment and wanting unfettered access to guns is really about?

makes me wonder if a majority of conservatives believe (or are in reality afraid) they would be excluded from gun ownership if we had sensible gun laws?

i am curious the ratio between progressives and conservatives insofar as having mental illness and criminal records is concerned?

from personal experience most progressives i have met seem to be educated down to earth open minded people who tolerate other belief systems where as most (i will admit there are a few exceptions to this) conservatives i have met seem to be bouncing off the walls paranoid, religious ideologues who believe they are at war with the progressives and anyone else who don't believe the same things they do.

i will comment i have a few conservative friends who while hardened in many of their beliefs are still open minded enough to alter their ideas somewhat about some of those beliefs mainly on the fiscal side of things (entitlements, single payer, minimum wage, etc), socially (marriage equality, abortion) they are still old school conservatives and don't appear to budge much on those topics.

just a thought.

[hack89]

3. Once convicted he would have lost his guns.

that is the law.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. "known pill popper"?

Was he convicted of any felonies? Any violent crimes?

Those would stop him from legally owning a gun.

New Jersey might have stopped him from owning a gun legally. It's good to know there's a state where criminals don't have guns.

[magical thyme]

5. not convicted, but drug felony pending

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspected-charleston-church-shooter-gun-birthday-article-1.2262393

[brentspeak]

10. It's good to know people are concerned

about the gun ownership rights of druggies. That's likely what the Founders were most concerned too when they included the 2nd amend.

sarcasm

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

17. "alleged" druggie ,,,

... presumption of innocence and all that.

If law enforcement was concerned, they probably could have had the gun surrendered as a condition of bail. It's unclear if the police had any record of violence.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. I'd bet my life there are literally thousands of criminals in NJ who possess guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Actually, a conviction isn't necessary in this case.

Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by any “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.” If the gift-giver (father, was it?) was aware of Roof's drug problem, he committed a crime when he gave Roof the weapon, as federal law also penalizes knowingly transferring a firearm to a prohibited person.

[frylock]

6. It's my understanding that the gun was purchased by his father, and given to him as a bday gift.

Did the father have a criminal record, or any arrests that would preclude him from legally purchasing a handgun?

[brentspeak]

7. So this was a straw purchase?

And that his father was not legally allowed to gift his son the gun and that the son was not legally allowed to receive the gun as a gift?

[frylock]

8. It would appear as such

[brentspeak]

9. Just checked -- it was legal for the father to have given the gun as a gift to his son

Not illegal in SC, where no such purchases are banned.

So my OP remains the same: South Carolina's gun laws are so lax that even someone known by those around him to be a drug user is legally allowed to own a firearm.

[Amishman]

18. no, it was not legal

I ran across a discussion on this elsewhere, the father certainly had to be aware of his son's drug history, which would make the son a prohibited person. its a federal law.

[link:https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca|

[Mojorabbit]

21. I just read in another thread that it was illegal to bring a gun to church in SC. nt

[Taitertots]

11. You can tell it works because Camden is so peaceful

Why do you support a system that invites bigotry and personal bias?

[brentspeak]

12. Yes, we need to fight bigotry against

drug users who are in possession of firearms. It's one of the great injustices of the day.

[Taitertots]

13. Do you think racial bias never influences their arbitrary determinations

[brentspeak]

14. Prove that it has.

Somehow, I doubt your interest in this matter has to do with the red herring of racial discrimination.

[Taitertots]

15. We both know the data needed to prove it hasn't been released

Why don't you explain why you support a policy that invites racial bias and arbitrary restrictions?

[DanTex]

22. LOL.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. This is where universal background checks can help.

UBCs, combined with a greater degree of (secure, anonymous) access to certain types of legal and medical records and a careful expansion of disqualifying conditions, might have prevented the shooter from receiving that firearm as a birthday present. Here in Oregon, that gift would have required a background check (although with the current level of NICS database access to information, it probably wouldn't have prevented it). Of course, the gift-giver might well have ignored that law, but that's a different discussion, really.