Obama Forced the FBI to Delete 500,000 Fugitives from Background Check System for Gun Purchases!

Editorial credit: Paolo Bona / Shutterstock.com

When Democrats blame Republicans and the NRA for criminal gun deaths, it’s important to remember that it’s the Democrats who continually weaken our law enforcement tools.

In the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida it was Democrat education/policing policies that allowed Nikolas Cruz to do his evil work. The police were forced to call on Cruz on dozens of times, and yet they never reported him to the national databases for his criminal behavior. The FBI was warned about him on more than one occasion, but because local police were not reporting his bad behavior, they had no way of knowing just how dangerous Cruz was. In reality, if not for the liberal policies pursued by the Broward County School system and their local police – Cruz would have been in the national NICS (banned from purchasing a gun) database.

This past week we learned, again, that liberal policies have made our nation decidedly more dangerous.

Trending: Donald Dishes on DNC Lawsuit, Promises “Aggressive” Discovery Phase

This past week during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich unveiled some very disturbing information about a HUGE hole in the database created by the Obama/Lynch Justice Department.

During the hearing, none other than lefty Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked about a rumor that some 500,000 fugitives were deleted from the FBI’s NICS database.

Dianne Feinstein: “It’s my understanding that under federal law fugitives cannot legally purchase or possess guns. We’ve heard from local law enforcement that the Justice Department has issued a memo that forced the FBI NICS background check database to drop more than 500,000 names of fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants because it was uncertain whether those fugitives had fled across state lines. Mr. Bowdich, can you describe why this determination was made by the Justice Department?” 

David Bowdich: “Yes, ma’am. That was a decision that was made under the previous administration. It was the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that reviewed the law and believed that it needed to be interpreted so that if someone was a fugitive in a state, there had to be indications that they had crossed state lines. Otherwise, they were not known to be a fugitive, under the law, and the way it was interpreted.”

WHAT?

This is preposterous. If they are being called fugitives, but have not knowingly crossed state lines, they are still fugitives from the law in their own state. How can the law have been written to only keep fugitive criminals who cross state lines from getting guns? I’m sure that the authors intended for all fugitive criminals to be barred from gun purchases, whether or not they’ve crossed state lines.

Why would this even be a problem that the Obama DOJ was considering?

The Obama team was hell bent on finding ways to take law abiding citizens firearms, but they were also simultaneously searching for ways to keep guns in the hands of certain criminals? It makes no sense!

We probably won’t ever know why the DOJ would make such a devastating decision and cut the names of 500,000 felons from the NICS database, but we do know one thing for sure – it’s another example of the Obama administration’s decision to reward criminal behavior and make life in America more dangerous.

Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He's also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.