Texas Church Shooting : Thread

That would be akin to a thought crime. Unless, you are referring to him possessing a firearm illegally. Then I agree wholeheartedly. I am sure some of his FB friends or IRL friends knew he was Dishonorably Discharged, and therefore unable to legally own a firearm.

Yet, nothing was said??

a reply to: Krakatoa

Wife had to know for sure, but then, if he was abusive, it's easy to see why she didn't say anything.

a reply to: projectvxn

There are a few benefits of having an FFL - like being able to sell certain types of weapons / accessories and being able to sell across state lines.

I agree a UBC wont solve the problem however in the case in Texas, with the dishonorable discharge, it might have prevented the sale.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Johnnie Lagendorff talks about chasing down the killer with the man who shot him with the shotgun.

It's a goddamn shame these guys didn't get to him before he went into the church.

What an amazingly horrible twist of fate. I hope he knows he did all he could.

Yeah kudos to this guy for giving chase without thinking about his own safety.
Without these guys, this asshole might have got away......for a little while anyway.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Stricter laws for domestic violence is really what might have prevented this more then anything else.

The Lautenberg Amendment has been law since 1997 and prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Anyone convicted under the amendments language cannot serve in the military in any capacity either. Anyone who is serving in the military would have to be removed from service as well.

The Founding Fathers knew plenty of mentally ill folks. Wonder why they didn't speak up about that? Maybe dirty old man Ben had a say in this?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: projectvxn

There are a few benefits of having an FFL - like being able to sell certain types of weapons / accessories and being able to sell across state lines.

I agree a UBC wont solve the problem however in the case in Texas, with the dishonorable discharge, it might have prevented the sale.

It should have already. That is federal information that is passed onto NICS immediately.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hmm, ok.
I can understand buying a hunting rifle or shotgun without a check, but that rifle he bought is pretty much an AR, am I correct?

Projectvxn says NICS check is required.

For the perusal of the curious
www.atf.gov...

That is form 4473 as it appears on the ATF website. This is a PDF. Please take the time to review it.

There's no sense in going over the same things again and again.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
Stricter laws for domestic violence is really what might have prevented this more then anything else. Sounds like he only got detained for a year after he was convicted of abusing his wife and child, you'd probably get longer then a year for crimes much less serious.

I say 10 yrs. for abusing a child at the minimum, people that screwed up can't be fixed.

Conviction for Domestic violence precludes you from owing / buying a firearm. However that is being challenged so most likely a new scotus ruling wil be issued dealing with it.

With that said Domestic violence convictions go on your criminal history and will pop when a check is run.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting, so the retailer may have not complied with the law/regulations.
And I'm only assuming the info pertaining to where he got the rifle is true.

Ive opened a new thread so you can debate & discuss

lol mods i need a link to the new ATS thread posted

Thanks.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting, so the retailer may have not complied with the law/regulations.
And I'm only assuming the info pertaining to where he got the rifle is true.

The NICS system is required to return a "Proceed" or "Do Not Proceed" within 72 hours. It usually takes about 5 minutes depending on where you are.

Which means either the retailer completely ignored the NICS check procedure they are legally required to follow, or something else is going on here.

Perhaps the reports of Dishonorable Discharge were inaccurate?

Seems there are reports now that it was a Bad Conduct Discharge...

It also suggests 2012, rather than 2013/2014...

a reply to: TheJesuit

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Forgive me if this has been covered. (840 posts here!) Has it yet been determined why Devin Kelly chose the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs to carry out these executions of innocent people?

a reply to: Greven

Even so the violation of the Lautenberg amendment is still disqualifying.

a reply to: carewemust

That information is not currently being released.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, but the process of getting there is both a state and federal problem.

The mechanisms in place today cannot legally talk to each other.

They can to an extent. When I run someone it hits 3 databases.
1 for driving history
Mules for in state wants
NCIC for the federal database

all linked via NLETS. All local and sate agencies, all Federal agencies with a law enforcement function as well as international organizations (like INTERPOL). US law enforcement also has access to Canadian and Mexican law enforcement networks with restrictions.

Felony warrants issued by states will flag in the federal system so other states can get a hit should they run someone with out of state warrants.

*sigh* This again.

First and foremost, condolences for the dead and the families of the dead. It should be left at that for a few, at least until the initial grieving is done.

But since people insist on being blood dancers...

What laws would have prevented this tragedy? How would you enforce such laws? What would be the unintended consequences of those laws? Is it just to deprive innocent citizens of their property or their ability to defend themselves? Is it just to force innocent citizens to give up their right to privacy so that others can feel "secure?"

I can see several laws that the shooter broke. Murder, assault, prohibited person with a firearm. What is the law that would have made him say "I can't break that law."

- It's clear that guns are here to stay
- It's clear that current gun laws aren't being enforced
- It's clear that a certain percentage of gun owners will refuse to give in to any registration or confiscation scheme

Not one more inch, your move.