Court allows Charleston church shooting victims to sue over background check system

[Elderberry]

The Hill by Tal Axelrod - 08/30/19

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that survivors and family members of victims from the 2015 mass shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., can sue the federal government after the national background check system failed to prevent the shooter from being able to obtain a firearm.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that a lower court judge was incorrect in ruling that the federal government was protected from lawsuits under two provisions.

“Because neither provision affords the Government immunity in this case, we reverse the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss,” the three-judge panel wrote.

The Justice Department could still petition the 4th Circuit to reconsider the case.

More: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/459470-court-allows-charleston-church-shooting-victims-to-sue-over

[PeteS in CA]

This case appears to have some substantial grounds:

Federal law bars anyone convicted of a felony or who has illegally used drugs from purchasing or owning a firearm and mandates that federally licensed gun dealers run purchases through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is overseen by the FBI.

Roof, who bought his firearm from a federally licensed dealer in South Carolina a few months prior to the shooting, had been arrested on a drug charge, which alone would not have barred him from purchasing a gun. However, a NICS representative did not immediately contact the correct police department when trying to determine if Roof had used or possessed a controlled substance, resulting in a delay that was long enough to allow the dealer to proceed with the sale.

The NICS reviewer ultimately discovered that Roof admitted he was in possession of a controlled substance, which the 4th Circuit noted would have made the purchase illegal, had it been caught in time.

In addition to the case itself, this case could have implications for the military justice system - its verdicts would need to be reported for use in the NICS DB. It could also bring the possibility of legal consequences to states that are sloppy about reporting relevant mental health information.

[Smokin Joe]

This case appears to have some substantial grounds:

In addition to the case itself, this case could have implications for the military justice system - its verdicts would need to be reported for use in the NICS DB. It could also bring the possibility of legal consequences to states that are sloppy about reporting relevant mental health information.

Just think. If the very officials responsible for making the system work could be held responsible if it did not, how many would want that sort of exposure.

Sure, you can argue that they would go after innocents with torches andd primitive farm implements to ensure their personal hindparts wouldn't be on the line, but they'd have to stop all of the crazies, and history has shown no law to be that effective.

Likely, they'd use this as an excuse to push for red flag laws, but then those become an additional liability, and subject to lawsuits for abuse (overzealous enforcement). Once that door is opened, it swings both ways.

[PeteS in CA]

Just think. If the very officials responsible for making the system work could be held responsible if it did not, how many would want that sort of exposure.
...

But "It didn't work" isn't the basis of the plaintiffs' claim. They are suing based on specific negligence of a specific person. Their claim is that had (s)he done their job correctly, Roof would have been unable to buy a gun.

Just as the shooter who was former USAF would have been unable to buy a gun had the USAF reported his domestic violence conviction to NICS. And from what I've read, various states' reporting of mental health commitments is spotty or worse.

"It wasn't perfect" is not a valid cause of action. But a specific person failing to do their duty often is. As is a government agency failing to do their known clear duty.

[Smokin Joe]

But "It didn't work" isn't the basis of the plaintiffs' claim. They are suing based on specific negligence of a specific person. Their claim is that had (s)he done their job correctly, Roof would have been unable to buy a gun.

Just as the shooter who was former USAF would have been unable to buy a gun had the USAF reported his domestic violence conviction to NICS. And from what I've read, various states' reporting of mental health commitments is spotty or worse.

"It wasn't perfect" is not a valid cause of action. But a specific person failing to do their duty often is. As is a government agency failing to do their known clear duty.

Re read what I said, please.

If the very officials responsible for making the system work could be held responsible if it did not, how many would want that sort of exposure

Yes, that makes it personal. They'd better not set that bar any higher than they want to jump.