Slashdot Mirror


Unresolved Login Issue Prevented Florida 'Concealed Weapon' Background Checks For Over a Year (tampabay.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Tampa Bay Times For more than a year, the state of Florida failed to conduct national background checks on tens of thousands of applications for concealed weapons permits, potentially allowing drug addicts or people with a mental illness to carry firearms in public... The employee in charge of the background checks could not log into the system, the investigator learned. The problem went unresolved until discovered by another worker in March 2017 -- meaning that for more than a year applications got approved without the required background check.

During that time, which coincided with the June 12, 2016 shooting at Pulse nightclub that left 50 dead, the state saw an unprecedented spike in applications for concealed weapons permits. There were 134,000 requests for permits in the fiscal year ending in June 2015. The next 12 months broke a record, 245,000 applications, which was topped again in 2017 when the department received 275,000 applications... There are now 1.8 million concealed weapon permit holders in Florida.

The employee with the login issue, who has since been fired, "told the Times she had been working in the mailroom when she was given oversight of the database in 2013. 'I didn't understand why I was put in charge of it.'"

6 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Now can we audit the states use of the database? by ebrandsberg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since each state should be having their sales verified through this database, the FBI should be able to audit how many queries are made per state, to validate that they match the number of sales being made. If there is a significant discrepancy, then the state should be investigated for failure to follow procedure. This should be EASY to catch, and will help find the points where failures are occurring, like this.

  2. Re:Good question by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Dickey Amendment restricts only the CDC (e.g. not the entirety of the government), only restricts them from advocacy or promotion of gun control (e.g. not the study thereof), and only places that restriction on the specific portion of their funding earmarked for injury prevention and control (e.g. not their entire budget). Perhaps you should actually read the damn thing sometime?

    Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. But, if you choose to do that, be prepared to explain how they've actually been able to legally conduct such research (this from 2013) and even as recently as 2015.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database by GWXerog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Non-licensed gun dealers at gun shows would be illegal. Being a non-licensed gun dealer anywhere is illegal. Are you referring to private sales?

  4. Re:None of that matters by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative

    She was 'given oversight of the database' of the DB in 2013. Failed to run the checks, starting in 2015. Not a very good liar.

    You missed a rather relevant bit from the middle of TFS:

    On April 7, 2016, 40 days after records show the department stopped using the database, Wilde reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement that her log-in to the background check system wasn't working.

    So it looks like the checks were progressing just fine until late February 2016, which implies that Wilde's login was presumably working from 2013 through until some point around then, depending on how long the system could run without Wilde logging in. Sure, Wilde dropped the ball by failing to follow up when it wasn't resolved but, regardless of that failure, her supervisors (and their supervisors, etc., etc.) also failed to query a massive spike in concealled carry permits on the books - up over 40% in just two years. Setting aside the issue of gun control, it takes a whole other level of managerial incompetence to fail to react to a stat like that.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Re:Now can we audit the states use of the database by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you've ever been to a gun show, you've seen them. As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.

    So you're the one you've been warning us about for years? Huh

    And you didn't turn in either the ones you thought were illegally dealing guns, or yourself? Huh.

    So your years of complaints and invective on the matter boil down to, "Our system is soooo f-----d! Why the hell isn't anyone arresting me for what I did?"

    It seems we've found something that you and the NRA agree on.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. Re:Good question by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    And yet the CDC did exactly that research. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319...

    Guess what? Guns help prevent crime more than they cause it. And we're not talking about indirect deterrence here where knowing a populace is armed keeps potential criminals scared. We're only talking about direct defensive uses of firearms.

    If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, Guns and Ammo summarized it here http://www.gunsandammo.com/pol...

    Funny, because for over 20 years, the CDC was prohibited from studying gun violence. Yes, the NRA has bought legislation that prevents any money the CDC gets from going into gun violence research.

    So obviously the CDC did not conduct the research, because they're not allowed to. They're allowed to contract it out for no money, which basically means really self-interested researchers (i.e., industry) gets to write an opinion piece about it.

    Your article is dated to 2013, and the CDC has not conducted any gun violence research since 1996 (Dickey Amendment).

    And all my article states is the AMA is lobbying for its appeal since 2016, because one really cannot make any sort of judgements without proper research. Of course, the NRA opposes this, almost as if they're worried about the real truth, that it might be the next cigarettes, or leaded gasoline, or climate change, or something. Or it might be because their whole set of mottoes end up being lies...