Posted on 07/07/2021 10:38:23 AM PDT by devane617
The gun is currently protected by law.
None of the others have money.
So they want the USAF to pay.
buying guns from licensed firearms dealers, and also from possessing body armor.
—
However, both could have been bought from street “vendors” so he would have done the deed in any case
He was convicted at summary court-martial for domestic violence (and perhaps one or two other charges) and given a bad conduct discharge. He likely also had some pay and allowances forfeited and may have been confined for a short period of time, think months or weeks not years.
Per federal law, that domestic violence conviction would have permanently prohibited him from ever owning or possessing any kind of firearm again....if the Air Force had submitted the conviction to the FBI for entry into the NICS system.
They didn’t, so here we are.
First, a correction on my part. He must have been convicted at general court-martial if he received a BDC.
In any event, when he completed his form, you are correct that is all it (the ATF form) asked. But - and again, for the benefit of others who may be reading this comment - the form as it has been updated last year also specifically asks about civilian AND military convictions involving elements of domestic violence.
It also inquires if the applicant has ever been referred to or convicted at general court-martial. I wonder if the form was specifically updated because of this very case.
Um ... no. The shooter is mostly at fault. But yeah, they should’ve put his background info on file.
Thanks for the details. I knew it was a few details that I was missing. Now it makes sense.
From what I understand, for a military member to be placed into the database that would deny him the right to purchase firearms, the entry has to be made by a law enforcement officer. In the case of the USAF, that would be an officer or NCO who is part of Security Forces, or the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).
But once the offender has been arrested, prosecuted and punished, there was no protocol for security forces or the local AFOSI detachment to enter his name into the database. By the time the church shooter was discharged, I’m guessing he was nothing more than a file for both organizations, and unless he did something else to attract their attention heading out of the gate, they would have no reason to question him, or arrest him again.
On the other hand, there were several commanders and multiple admin types who had to deal with this guy throughout the process. Wouldn’t have been difficult to add a checklist item for the personnel folks to call security forces and/or AFOSI as the offender is being discharged and request that his name be added to the database.
If I’m not mistaken, the database and entry procedures were dreamed up by the feds, and there’s plenty of blame to go around. Meanwhile, everyone forgets that the gunman might have killed many more victims but for the actions of a well-trained (and armed)_civilian. The notion the gunman couldn’t have obtained a weapon if he was in the database is ludicrous; plenty of people killed in Chicago over the weekend by criminals who aren’t supposed to have guns, but get them with ease.
U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez is doing what a lot of people are doing these days. Like a lot of people, he does not blame the real perpetrator. He is blaming the Air Force for what this bum did. The man who did the shooting is the killer.
In civil cases, the assignment of liability always seems to be directly proportional to the amount of money each party has. The USAF has lots of money so they will pay.
Sounds to me like the conclusions reached are consistent with the actual facts of the case - the Air Force screwed up, the guy passed the background check as a direct result, and used the gun to kill people.
Apparently you figure some hypothetical alternate way to get a gun somehow excuses the Air Force dropping the ball. If that's true, then (using your example) maybe CVS should go ahead & sell drugs without requiring prescriptions, because the meth-heads are goin' get it somewhere, anyway! And we shouldn't hold CVS accountable for illegally dispensing drugs (if they did), for the same reason.
Thank God for judges who stick to the facts, instead of deciding cases based on imaginary hypotheticals, emanations, penumbras, etc...
“THEY” have been tying us up into knots for long enough using our own laws and culture to do it.
When are Judge’s going to start putting the blame on the FBI who in most instances, knew about violent individuals, that ended up murdering large numbers of innocent people?
The murderer is 100% responsible for the murders he committed. Not someone else. Him. What sort of world do you live in where an individual is a mere 40% responsible for their own, completely voluntary, unnecessary, criminal actions, but a third party IS 60% responsible because they MIGHT have stopped them by filling out a form years before?
Raising the share of third party blame to something other than arbitrary speculation requires proving that the NICS prevents criminals from obtaining weapons near-comprehensively. Millions of criminal cases in court records prove that NICS clearly does no such thing. I’ll grant that the Air Force was incompetent and bears some miniscule share of the fault.
My CVS analogy isn’t worth arguing about, but the things you assert are an inversion of my meaning.
Give me a break. I didn’t say the AF was blameless. I said they are not the primary reason as the judge stated. Yes they screwed up, but aren’t the cause. And the judge made a leap not based on the specific facts. You are welcome to your opinion but I disagree with it and the judge.
100% - really? I imagine you would have a different point of view, if a hijacker managed to board a plane with a gun, due to TSA incompetence, and you lost one of your family members as a result.
Raising the share of third party blame to something other than arbitrary speculation requires proving that the NICS prevents criminals from obtaining weapons near-comprehensively.
On the contrary - it simply requires proving that NICS would likely have prevented access in the case in question, if the relevant information had been submitted by the Air Force, as required.
Millions of criminal cases in court records prove that NICS clearly does no such thing. I’ll grant that the Air Force was incompetent and bears some miniscule share of the fault.
So, NICS doesn't work because the database is incomplete - so a failure by the federal government (USAF) to submit required data should be excused, because NICS doesn't work, because the database is incomplete. Makes perfect sense to me...
/sarc
You have quite the imagination. The hijacker would be responsible for the hijacker’s actions. The TSA didn’t make them do it.
You were “told” wrong. Only a dishonorable discharge or renouncing your American citizenship can fail someone in a 4473 along with any active pending felony charges or past convictions, with domestic violence convictions or a protective order also failing one on the 4473. A BCD does not in itself qualify as a dishonorable discharge nor would a discharge under other than honorable circumstances nor would a ELS either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.