Texas Church Shooting : Thread

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Greven

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

What do you think could have happened in this case, then?

Seems it may have been court martial rather than a civil trial. Would that matter to applicability?

Thanks!!

a reply to: vonclod

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I have to wonder where in the process the mental detainment and adjudication system fits in.

You've explained how it works for law enforcement, but what about the NICS call center? What are the rules for the handling of protected health information the support of he NICS system? That is the issue here, not whether the police can get access to information that is ACCESSIBLE, but the information that is typically not.

As I said, there are many, MANY cases of dangerously mentally ill people who never make it to the adjudication process because of the above issue.

don't think we will ever know for sure but who is to say after the church he was going to shoot up some other place,,those 2 guys stopped him

originally posted by: RazorV66

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: carewemust

His mother inlaw is connected to the church..that's about it so far.

a reply to: infolurker


Well, to be fair xcathdra mentioned background checks and not registration.

This would essentially provide non-FFL holders a means to run a potential private buyer through FBI Clarksburg's NICS system

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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?

That recent?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Greven

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

What do you think could have happened in this case, then?

Seems it was a court martial rather than a civil trial.

That doesn't matter. They fall under the same rules for reporting convictions to national databases accessible by state and local LE agencies.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: infolurker


Well, to be fair xcathdra mentioned background checks and not registration.

This would essentially provide non-FFL holders a means to run a potential private buyer through FBI Clarksburg's NICS system

Unfortunately none of the current schemes proposed or made law at state level do that.

They render themselves unenforceable that way. I think the best way is to allow citizens access to NICS. But no one wants to expand NICS call center or their online system to accommodate. I think instead of trying to ban things working with gun owners to help police the problems out there is a better solution than to try to attack rights.

Wow. How unbelievably sad....

Prayers for all the ones who lost their life, their families, and friends!

This nut job KNEW no one would be carrying in church. What a coward!!!! Had just one person had their gun, dude been dead upon entering the church or perhaps before he entered..definitely wouldn't have been as many casualties.

People who own guns NEED to be carrying every single time they walk out the door.

To even talk about gun control is idiotic. People kill people. Without the human finger, the gun wouldn't fire..point, blank, period.

My take on the root cause is this....

Way too many people on opioids and way too many on antidepressants. Seriously... Mental health has gotten worse in people because there is a pill for everything. After losing my son, my doctor felt as though I needed Zoloft. It may work for others but after one day of being on it, I was even more depressed..suicidal depressed. I stopped taking it changed doctors and was prescribed exercise. Damn if it didn't work. I came out of my depression and got fit at the same time.

I've decided I'm going this week to get my permit and shop for me a hand gun. I should have already done that. I'm a Realtor® and meet strangers to show them homes. I've never been worried and still not fearful but I'm definitely aware there is a HUGE problem with our society.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have to wonder where in the process the mental detainment and adjudication system fits in.

You've explained how it works for law enforcement, but what about the NICS call center? What are the rules for the handling of protected health information the support of he NICS system? That is the issue here, not whether the police can get access to information that is ACCESSIBLE, but the information that is typically not.

As I said, there are many, MANY cases of dangerously mentally ill people who never make it to the adjudication process because of the above issue.

as far as I am aware I dont believe it would show unless a law enforcement officer requested a criminal history for an investigation. Since criminal histories are very restricted on who can run them and require an investigative need to run one (which has to be entered and sent for the CH request) something would need to be done to get that info (or a warning) to a general return.

Maybe attach something to a Department of Revenue / secretary of State (state agencies responsible for drivers license info) return for driving history. I know some states are doing that for conceal carry holders.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The best thing I've read all day

a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: TheJesuit

NP, if you're trying to post a link to a thread or page of a thread, just copy and paste the info from the particular page in the address bar of your browser

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Lol no.. from a few years ago but still relevant to the discussion.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I just wanna say that I've been dying to have an actual policy discussion for a while on this matter.

But its impossible to have that discussion without all the shouting.

Thanks man.

a reply to: MamaJ


Great choice MamaJ, always a great idea to exercise your second amendment rights. Any responsible adult capable of carrying a firearm should do so, IMO.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Lol no.. from a few years ago but still relevant to the discussion.

So no matter who they are and who we are under the same bull# is still there?

If they have allowed felons to own guns this wouldn't have happened.
Serve their time, get their rights back.