Can we all agree that the Texas shooter (I don’t want to “glorify” his name) should have had all weapons taken from him and not permitted weapons after he was discharged from the military for assault of his wife and child?
Pretty sure it was illegal for him to have a gun with the whole wife beating thing.
10% said no?!?! Wth?!?
Yep. Apparently we can’t even agree that violent people shouldn’t have weapons. *sigh*
I’m not violent but I have autism, SIB syndrome, SM and seizures. I realize I myself should never have a gun because I should fall into the category of people who, due to medical or mental health issues should not be allowed to posses a gun. I would never hurt anyone but if I were writing up the law, I would write it with safeguards that I would fall out of. I’m very pro 2nd amendment but there have to be limits. The Texas shooter should not have had guns. The sandy hook shooter should never have been in a home with guns. His mother was ridiculous.
Agreed. One would think this would fall under common sense law.
We need legal reform so people are properly found guilty of violent felonies first. Then they should lose gun privileges.
My understanding is he was not dishonorably discharged, which would have prevented him from buying a weapon legally, but received a Bad Conduct Discharge. So when the store received his background check back, it was clean.
This is yet another example of the harm done by the ever parsing left.
JustHarry, that’s what I’ve read too. He was supposed to check something about being a criminal, but didn’t.
That’s the way it is on many forms. That’s why I can’t drive. My mother insisted I check the box saying I did have a medical condition so they want my doctor to sign off, which he won’t. Had I not checked that box, I would have a permit and be getting a license in January.
It relied on self reporting. It seems gun permits rely on that in some sense as well. Not a good idea.
It’s says on the form that it is a Felony in the eyes or the federal government, and may violate state or local laws as well, to lie, but I guess that doesn’t matter to a criminal who is set to do harm
Unless convicted of a felony I don't see a reason to remove somebody second amendment rights.
Robert ... a YEAR in the brig for domestic violence should be a disqualifier!
Robert ... you don’t get a YEAR for slapping your wife. The crimes have to be pretty severe. I believe that it is MORE than enough of a disqualifier!
Still not a felony.
Robert ... that’s a technicality that should be remedied. If a civilian spent a year in jail for domestic abuse, it’d be a felony.
That is correct however he wasn't a civilian nor was it a civilian court so the punishment is uncompensable
Robert ... why should that difference favor a predator?
What? Who said anything about favoring?
The law covers us all.
Robert ... ok, I’d incorrectly assumed you could follow. My apology.
One year in the slammer for a civilian is a felony. One year in the brig for a service member who battered his wife and child shouldn’t be seen as equivalent to that of THE SAME CRIME committed by a civilian because ...?
Could you keep your ego to the side we can stay out of logical fallacy land.
First of all it is speculation to believe that the one year in the brig was a punishment to the domestic assault charge. And more speculation on top to presume the severity of the domestic assault.
Secondly, military courts are not lenient on punishment. A domestic assault is one of those things that they're very particular about.
Thirdly if he had committed felony assault he would have been charged with felony assault.
Robert ... that’s rich! Thanks for your silly response.
Robert ... it now appears that the gunman was in fact court martialed. My position remains unchanged. He shouldn’t have passed the background check.
Here’s my issue. In terms of guns, I don’t care if you laundered money or some other white collar felony nearly as much as if you just punched someone out cold because you easily loose control. It shouldn’t be about felony or not, it should be about violence. If you are a person found to be violent, you should not have access to a gun.
Wino ... while I understand your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion. No matter the color of your collar, a disregard for our laws must have consequences. You don’t get to felon level by stealing Johnny’s lunch money.
The more important point is that there is no excuse for the crime of crushing an infant’s skull is ANYTHING but a felony!
In this particular a**holes case he punched and choked his wife and struck his stepson according to the latest report. Last I checked, that would be a felony.
Wino ... I had a protracted back and forth with another user earlier today who said it is not a felony. And the report I read said that his crack the step-son’s skull.
This kind of scum shouldn’t have been on the street, let alone carrying a gun. Unfortunately, when we rely on the government to protect us we learn that we are really on our own. The Air Force failed these innocent victims. No amount of background checks will protect us from government incompetence.
He didn't buy the weapons legally so the government didn't know he had them. This is the problem in the US, 2000 guns are brought into the US illegally every year but nobody complains about that.
You mean the Right doesn’t complain about that.
He bought them from a bix box sporting goods store, dude. Not some back-alley arms dealer. The store, for whatever reason, failed to catch the fact that he's not allowed to own them, so they sold the rifle to him.
If true, how does a store that regularly sells weapons, which must be compliant, let this one slip? That’s a pretty big slip. Then again, I’m coming from NY.
Not true he had someone else buy them for him. Also he was denied before
From what I’ve read, he made the purchase from Academy (which is a store I like), but didn’t check a particular box on the form informing the store he had a criminal background. Apparently we are trusting criminals to check off boxes and be honest as part of their background checks. If that’s not a huge flaw in our system, I don’t know what is.
That’s insane. New York runs up one sides of your ass and done the other.
Suppressed ... keep up your delusion!
I was just discussing this with someone this morning before I read this poll. I do believe that a domestic violence conviction should include a weapons seizure and long-term prohibition of weapons possession. Guns and an inability to control one’s emotions do not mix.
I would have hoped everyone could agree on that, but apparently not.
Time to break out the handy "Mass shooting checklist":
1. Send thoughts & prayers but don't actually do anything useful. ✔
2. Argue over semantics of the term "assault rifle." ✔
3. Argue over semantics of the term "terrorist" - if Muslim use it, if Christian/white use terms "lone wolf," "mentally ill," "troubled past." ✔
4. Congress does nothing and the NRA increases donations just in case. ✔
5. Wait for next one, rinse, and repeat✔
It's funny because the NRA doesn't really donate much. Also pushing for "common sense gun control" wouldn't have stopped this guy he had these guns illegally
You’re a hoot, smart. 😂😂🤣😂🤣
They don’t donate much, but they have organized their members to call and hassle.
They also run campaigns against candidates for common sense gun control in the primaries.
Wino ... and phone calls, wow, those are tough to take. Snowflake leftist Congressional representatives shouldn’t be forced to have their overpaid staff take those pesky phone calls from the people who pay their salaries, what an oppressive system.
Representatives should only have to take the “pleasant” phone calls from George Soros, right!
Where’s the dislike button?
"Send thoughts and prayers but don't do anything useful"
Lmao, that's what liberals do everytime a Muslim slaughters people.
Literally no one thinks this. Or maybe they just disagree with you on what is useful.
Ignore my previous comment FML
Char ... just the last one?
Yes. That last one would have been my response to what was in quotes. Got too excited and made a mistake. Otherwise I agree with everything I said.
Way to take it the wrong way. I meant they call and are organized. It’s fine that they do it, but most members haven’t read the fine print of the bills.
As someone who contacts my senators and representatives regularly, I’m fine with calls.
From what I read he didn’t check the correct boxes on his 4473 form, shocking that a criminal would lie. The NRA has lobbied against true criminal background checks so that the ATF has to rely on forms like the 4473.
First, fuck the ATF
Second, Blame the Air Force, not the NRA for his criminal record not being available. They never passed the information to the FBI.
This user is currently being ignored
Sadly I know this, but if NRA members can at least agree on this, maybe they can pressure the organization.
Note, I know this won’t happen, I just need a tiny bit of hope in my day today.
I'm an NRA life member at the endowment level, and part of the NRA Golden Eagles. I want to say that people who are convicted of violent crimes (as he was) should not be allowed to own firearms (as he was not). Unless they request a pardon from the governor after 'X' years and can prove that they are no longer a danger to other people.
The problem came from the store employees who sold him the rifle. Did they do a background check? If so, why did they still sell the rifle to him? This is why we have these laws and background checks, because all it takes is one idiot to go out and kill people, and suddenly we lose our Second Amendment rights in one form or another.
I agree with you, Alcerus. I wonder if a company/employee that sells firearms fails to do a proper background check on an individual, or does a background check and red flags pop up but they sell the gun to the person anyway if we shouldn't then say that the company/employee can be charged with something if that customer then goes out and does something stupid. Perhaps companies would then be more careful to train employees and to ensure laws are followed so they stop selling to those who should not have guns?
I believe it wasn’t in his background check because it was just filed under as a military discharge not as a specific issue. That needs to change.
Even if that changes most laws would still allow it, not to mention gun shows.
After all of those are out of the way, had he had this weapon before the discharge, he would have been permitted to keep it.
So, as someone who can tell the NRA an opinion, I request you tell them to work on things like the above to help improve their image.
Also, on the background check paperwork, they have a box to check if you’ve ever been convicted, he failed to check that box. Apparently, we expect criminals to be honest.
On a good note, Texas did deny him a permit to carry (unfortunately, that’s not the same thing as owning a gun).
At this time, I don't recall if a dishonorable discharge is an automatic disqualification from owning or purchasing a firearm. I do know that a DD will show up on a standard background check, though; it's the reason why those with a DD end up with terrible jobs, because they're not allowed to work with any employer that does business with the government (which is almost every business). This is the most likely reason for his concealed carry permit request being denied.
I know that when I bought a rifle in Texas, they made a copy of my driver's license for their records, and did a background check, but I have an honorable discharge, so that wouldn't have been an issue anyway. In my opinion, he was able to acquire his rifle in one of two ways: either those who have a dishonorable discharge are not forbidden from owning firearms (just carrying concealed), in which case the store was just following standard protocol, or the store employees were shady or incompetent and they broke the law.
Alcerus ... first, thanks for your thoughtful and balanced insight on this volatile topic! There’s far too little informed discussion and far too much emotion on the topic. Thanks!
On the topic of whether or not the killer should’ve failed the background check, I wholeheartedly agree that criminals — including service personnel — who are convicted of violent crimes (including smashing an infant’s skull) should not pass the check.
There’s far too much discussion about whether or not it was a dishonorable discharge or some other variation in the theme, that’s just noise.
Anyone who earns a year in the brig should be disqualified. Period.
I’d be willing to go further and say that any disqualified person who attempts to acquire a gun should be sent back to jail.
Hey, I found something I agree about with Think.
Crzy ... that’s swell!
Assault is violence. If a person is found to be a violent person by regular courts or military courts, you should not be able to own or use guns! I would hope that everyone could agree on this simple idea.