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.'"
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.'"
Government staffing has issues. Who was this employee related to? Patronage lives at all levels of government.
Employee's story doesn't make sense, dates don't line up. Who was her supervisor? What's his/her version? Next supervisor up?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
All those concealed carry permits without background checks? It's an authoritarian's worst nightmare!
How many murders and shootings were committed by those unvetted CCW holders? I will guess zero.
Match the sales of what? This was for concealed carry licenses, not buying guns. The background checks for those are done by dealers, who are auditable and who face very strong penalties for not doing it right.
Given that most states go out of their way to avoid looking into such things and the Dickey amendment makes in depth research a practical impossibility (it's written in such a way that it doesn't explicitly ban gov't gun research but does for all intents & purposes) we'll probably never know. Maybe if one of those guys goes on an honest to goodness shooting rampage.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
True, although the logic applies--how many concealed carry permits are issued, vs. how many queries are made. This can be audited and if they don't match, an investigation launched.
... and now that we have the password, the computer will use AI, blockchain and the cloud to find all you bitches (or bastards, as may apply).
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
of politicians and government. Once they pass them they for the most part don't care about whether they work, are effective, harmful, who gets hurt or are properly implemented by the government bureaucrats. They got their bullet point/talking point for campaign ads/tools to attack their political opponents and they just move on, problem solved.
;)
I also want to say again, about gun violence, what is it about our culture and society that creates individuals who think gun violence is a good way to get their fame on social media/solve their problems.
Maybe the real issue is not directly the gun (a tool) but the person and their state of mind along with our culture and society! Lets be open minded and at least ask the question.
Just my 2 cents
Employee is given a task, then doesn't do it, because cannot.
Boss doesn't find out for over a year that employee didn't do the assigned work.
My first thought is that it isn't really fair to fire the employee for that, but that really depends on whether she made clear to her boss she couldn't do the job. And why not give her the old job back, was she no good at that? If not, why give her oversight of this database? Do explain that one, please.
But the boss not finding out about it for over a year? Or the boss' boss? And so on? That's inexcusable. They're supposed to know that sort of thing, that's their job. So if any heads are to roll, I expect at least several levels of middle management to start sprouting vacancies. If not, the firing of managers shall continue until the idiocy stops.
Right up to the governor if necessary. Go on, have a full-blown election with only new candidates over the firing of an ex-mailroom clerk. Or what is this democracy thing for, anyway?
What do you think triggered this investigation in the first place?
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
IMO: When a successful background check is made; the national database should issue a Background verification control number which MUST be recorded by the states in their own databases and must also
appear stamped on a concealed carry permit; A permit without the correct control number is not valid. The control number can be looked up later and will match to the personal information that was used to query the background database.
If the background database info of that person changes later, for example an arrest or conviction is added, then the state will be sent a notification and be required to revoke the concealed carry permit.
Process, process, process... Why didnt management know how many checks had been done per month? if this process were *important* why was one persons memory enough to break it? Firing this person is scape goating of the worst sort. Management is responsible for measuring employee results. Not measuring for a year, and then firing, is either abusive, or negligent or both... unless there was deceit involved, where they were asking the right questions, but she was giving deceitful answers.
if the background check takes more than X days you have to issue the permit.
Why should it take more than X seconds? It is a database lookup.
Well, I already refuted you above, but I'll link to the study again anyway. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319...
The majority of guns used at the time of arrest "came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market."
Note that gun shows are not listed there, nor are failures to properly check backgrounds.
And letting anyone who applies and is not objected to by the government have a permit is not a loophole, it is the intended function.
Inconsistent reporting standards across decades from all 50 states can result in a suspected false positive, where a human will need to go an investigate the information to either permit or deny a NICS sale, like if you happen to share a name and birth year with a person who committed a crime in your state
Connecticut's gun laws after Sandy Hook reduced gun killings by over 40% across the board.
And your cite? Does not say "Guns help prevent crime more than they cause it. " at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for unrestricted gun access, but let's not muddy the waters with BS. If we as a society want these rights to guns, we have to pay the price and know - with open eyes - the costs.
I keep hearing about this supposed loophole, but all I see every time I go to a gun show is licensed dealers performing background checks as required by law and the odd exempt private party transfer (except in states where private parties are required to transfer through a dealer, in which case the background checks still happen) -- and private party transfers can occur anywhere, not just at gun shows. In fact, most gun shows don't allow private sales at all, so they're actually less likely to occur at gun shows than they are in a private residence.
The real loophole is what I like to call the "dark alley loophole", wherein stolen and/or smuggled guns are sold out of some guy's trunk in a dark alley. Not legal in the slightest, but it's where the guns used in the vast majority of crimes come from.
Nobody is using a weapon with their name on it to commit a crime, and nobody is willingly transferring a weapon with their name on it to someone else who may use it to commit a crime without ensuring that the transfer has been recorded. Too much liability.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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?
"It takes one to know one..."
The old regulations had a flaw where officials in charge of background checks, who were political beauracrats, blocked all carry permits by refusing to do the checks.
So nowdays all background check laws have a time limit, so that it does not allow extreme gun-banners to block all of them.
Yes, I'm referring to gun dealers who go to shows and claim to be "private sellers".
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The numbers in the story don't make any sense.
Typically about 1% were rejected, then suddenly 291 of 365?
It also appears she was supposed to submit a list for background check. I suspect that the reporter is an idiot and each 'application' was a batch (state totals/days would say of about 1000, the 1% reject estimate would say of about 100).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Alot in a lifetime... In a day even.
[($)]
You had ONE JOB lady... Incompetence of the worst sort--!
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
... what can be perfectly explained by stupidity.
The so called, "Gun Show loop hole" is a myth. The legal requirements on sellers and buyers are the same as they would be at other times and places.
The 2nd, like the 1st and other Amendments to the US Constitution protects RIGHTs, not suggestions. And I think it is HILARIOUS that you reference " Bureaucracy®" as if it doesn't exist, or that it can't act in ways contrary to the law, regulation, or rights of citizens. (Do the recent years of abuses by the IRS ring a bell? How about #Resist?)
Do you have anything to back up that "claim" regarding "it's just a big 'ole loop hole to let anyone have a gun or a concealed carry permit"?
The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics
7 Gun Control Myths That Just Won’t Die
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
I live down here, love the place, but the number of mouth breathers are as thick as the mosquitoes at times.
This is pointless. A lot of states, such as New Hampshire, do not require a permit to carry or conceal. If a state is so concerned it should be up to them to audit there own checks.
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.
So, even though there was no background check done, this employee signed official government documents stating that it had been done? Isn't that fraud?
Have gnu, will travel.
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
Nobody is using a weapon with their name on it to commit a crime, and nobody is willingly transferring a weapon with their name on it to someone else who may use it to commit a crime without ensuring that the transfer has been recorded. Too much liability.
If there is no law preventing background checks for private sales, how do you know there is a liability? How can there be a liability if nothing illegal was done? Can you cite an example of someone privately and legally selling a perfectly working gun to an adult and then losing a lawsuit because of what that person did with it?
Now that they found out, can we have a number for how many of these approved applications should have been denied?
Eliminating guns will not fix the essential problem, mainly that I am crazy. If you eliminate guns, then you are going to have to eliminate knives and then large hammers. The problem, is not the guns or the knives or the hammers. It is crazy people like me.
If you think you could walk into a nightclub with a knife or a hammer and kill over 50 people, or kill that many and injure hundreds more from a 32nd floor hotel room hundreds of feet away, well, you really are crazy.
But you're a gun freak, so I suppose that's redundant.
And I think you need to be deported for thinking it's ok to require a permission slip to exercise rights. We don't have to get a permit to speak, or worship, or not be thrown in jail without a trial. Fuck you and your permit bullshit.
Sounds like you haven't seen government work before. It is similar to welfare, but the employees believe they are accomplishing something.
Read it carefully: what it says is that they found 365 applications where Wilde was supposed to have done a "further review," presumably to the NICS database, based upon some other criteria (the precise criteria is unstated, but characterized as "non-criminal disqualifying information"), and when that "further review" was performed, 291 were found to be ineligible.
As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
Not legally in the State of California, where you reside. Private party transfers are essentially banned in the State of California, you must use an FFL dealer as an intermediary. Or did you avoid the FFL? Or buy out-of-State? Both of those would be illegal, too... Only exception would be those antique firearms, which are exempted.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It strikes me that the manager's head should roll, too, and possibly the manager's manager, as well.
Well managed organizations catch failure on the front lines, and generally sooner rather than later.
Every one was supposed to go through the database query process.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I've only recently moved to California from Houston, you creepy stalky fuck. I've lived all over the US. My gun buying days are behind me. I'm standing pat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If there is no law preventing background checks for private sales
First mistake. There is no law requiring them. Not only that, as a private citizen and not an FFL licensed dealer, you actually can't perform the background check. Because there's a law preventing it...
how do you know there is a liability?
Second mistake: misunderstanding. Let me clarify. The liability doesn't come from selling the gun, it comes from the fact that you are the last owner with a background check assigned to the serial number of that gun, which means the cops will be at your door after a trace if that gun is found to have been used in a crime. If "I sold that thing years ago" with no proof was a valid defense, every perpetrator of a gun crime would have an easy get out of jail free card.
How can there be a liability if nothing illegal was done?
Just to make sure you get it this time, I'll clarify in a different way. The transfer itself might not be illegal, but what the next person does with it might be. If you bought the gun through an FFL dealer, or in a state that requires an FFL to handle private party transfers, you had a background check run and the serial number of that firearm is on that background check. If no background check is done for the transfer and law enforcement was not made aware of the transfer when it occurred (meaning who it was transferred from and to, with copies of ID), as far as the law is concerned it's your gun.
Can you cite an example of someone privately and legally selling a perfectly working gun to an adult and then losing a lawsuit because of what that person did with it?
A lawsuit? No. Criminal charges? Spend 30 seconds on Google yourself.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I keep hearing about this supposed loophole, but all I see every time I go to a gun show
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I hope you registered every single one of those firearms with the State of California, and that all of them (and any accessories such as magazines) are 100% compliant with our laws here. Otherwise you are once again breaking the law.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Completely compliant, thank you very much, including with California Penal Code 26150 and 26155.
I believe in citizenship and the rule of law and punching Nazis and all that good American stuff.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Except that if you have your concealed carry permit then you get to walk out with a gun that day. At least that's how it worked when I bought one in Washington.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
You don't plan a murder and get a Concealed permit. And increase in accident and murder is not instantaneous. Firstly you have to separate "first holder" of gun, and already holder of gun getting a CHP to conceal carry. For rise in murder it is a bit complicated : I do not expect a huge rise in murder if those new licensee are not new gun owner (e.g. they had gun before but now are CHP holder). I do expect more accident and a slight increase of murder (if only because having a gun in some situation may cause escalation and use).
"How many murders and shootings were committed by those unvetted CCW holders? I will guess zero." the huge part of accident, suicide and murder is about *owning* a gun, not having it conceal carry. Conceal carry only increase the probability of usage in some situation, not a huge increase above "owning a gun". As for your nearly zero, you are pulling it out of thin air - not to say from your ass. Without proper study and statistic over a few year , nobody can know the impact now.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"...potentially allowing drug addicts or people with a mental illness to carry firearms in public..."
Here is a newsflash: having a creditcard-sized piece of plastic didn't "allow" drug addicts or people with mental illnesses to carry firearms. They can and will do so with or without that piece of plastic.
Just a thought: how many of these CCW holders committed crimes in Florida? It's still lower than the general population or even law enforcement.
Seriously, re-run the NICS checks, revoke the permits of those who are prohibited and go seize their firearms as they are prohibited persons.
Just because he moved to California doesn't mean [all] his firearms moved with him. Many folks relocating to California store them just across the state line because many types/models are illegal in California.
He may have stored them all out of state, and then purchased any "new" models in California.
People who have CCW permits are far more law-abiding than the general population.
FTFY - plenty of folks are denied permits, and in "Shall Issue" states (and even "May Issue" states) are criminals (which is why they are denied).
Same with Florida - have a CCW permit, no 3-day waiting period.
Fla. Const. art. I, 8(b); Fla. Stat. 790.0655(2)
Every CCW/CHL/CPL/LTC permit I have (9 states) has a permit number of some sort on them. They are locally-issued and tracked numbers, and nothing to do with NICS. But if someone were to forget one of these, and should a LEO run a check during a traffic stop or other contact with a permittee, they'd be caught because the LEO would use the permit number to obtain the name and address on file, no matter what the permit says, and in the states that require a photograph, they'd probably have that up on their mobile CAD system as well.
So you like to threaten people and assault them, and you like firearms? Sounds like you're a risk, you should turn your firearms over to the local sheriff, you are too dangerous to keep them.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Florida Constitution can't override the federal requirement that FFLs use NICS before delivering a firearm. In a lot of cases, the NICS determination is effectively instant.
I was just reading about this actually, and the law states if you have a ccw, you have already passed stringent enough background checks often enough(recurring checks) that you are considered safe to sell a weapon to, considering you're probably carrying at the time anyways.
that is already done.
Only in a few states, Florida not included: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...
You mean the ones where the perpetrator plans on committing suicide by cop so they don't really care about getting caught? I'm talking about repeat offender career criminal stuff, not one-off mental case attention whore stuff we could easily deal with by making mental health a priority in this country. Think someone killing or robbing hundreds of people over their career, rather than someone killing a handful in one go before the go lights-out.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Well, these weren't for purchases,but for CCL. Even for sales, the number of requests could far exceed sales (people changing mind, double checks) or be drastically under sales (people buying 2 guns at a time).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Since it wasn't working they just got rid of it. Too much money.
That's a joke... I hope it's not true.
So since Florida did not perform the approval work, they will be refunding the fees, right? RIGHT?
Don't be a troll. You know exactly what he means and you even admit as much.
YES, he means private sales. and don't fool yourself. There are people who act as unlicensed dealers and they often operate at or around gun shows.
Those aren't gun-owners who just happen to want to sell a gun from their own private collection. Some of them are doing it for profit and acting outside the law. You can whine all you want when people call it a "gun show loophole", but it is a way around background checks and if you think that's not one avenue for felons to get guns you are horribly naive.