Again the rifle is just a rifle made to look intimidating. Press likes to call them assault rifles because it sounds more threatening. From what Ive heard, he bought the guns legally since there was nothing in his official police records. Maybe that should be broadened for background checks. It was his in-laws church and apparently theres been on ongoing feud in the family. I think in Texas, you can pretty much carry anywhere you want unless its posted. Someone in Texas has to confirm or deny that. My sister in Dallas says she can shoot someone just on her property without provocation. The highpoint of this event that anti gun people prefer to ignore is that the shooter was taken out by a citizen who was armed. If he didnt, there may have been a lot more shot.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: From what Ive heard, he bought the guns legally since there was nothing in his official police records.
Incorrect, it's still illegal. That's like saying "he has felonies but he bought a gun in a private sale so it's legal" or "my tax guy didn't make sure I had the form so it's not tax evasion"
There was a error on the airforce's end, he should not have been able to pass a background check and they are looking into it to make sure there aren't more airforce people who may have slipped through the cracks.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop:
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-07-2017).]
How is it illegal, he goes to buy, they run the background check, he clears he walks out with gun..?? You have proof that he was charged with a felony , outside the milt?
How is it illegal, he goes to buy, they run the background check, he clears he walks out with gun..?? You have proof that he was charged with a felony , outside the milt?
How is it illegal, he goes to buy, they run the background check, he clears he walks out with gun..?? You have proof that he was charged with a felony , outside the milt?
A little bit of searching would have found your answer rather easily...
Excerpt from the BBC
The US Air Force has said it is investigating its apparent failure to enter information about Texas gunman Devin Patrick Kelley’s criminal history into the national database.
Ex-airman Kelley was court-martialled for domestic violence in 2012, and was barred from owning or buying guns.
But last year he was able to purchase a rifle he used in Sunday’s attack on a small church outside San Antonio.
He killed 26 people and fled the scene. He was later found dead in his car.
Police said he died from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound after being chased by armed bystanders.
Kelley was also shot in his leg and torso by a citizen, the regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety, Freeman Martin, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
In a statement, the Air Force said: “Initial information indicates that [Devin] Kelley’s domestic violence offense was not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database by the Holloman Air Force Base Office of Special Investigations.”
It said it was now – together with the Department of Defense – investigating the handling of Kelley’s criminal records. Texas Governor Greg Abbott earlier said Kelley, 26, should not legally have been allowed to own a firearm, after having been denied a gun owner’s permit by the state.
Kelley bought the rifle from the Academy Sports + Outdoors shop in San Antonio. The store issued a statement sending “deep condolences” to the victims’ families.
Mother-in-law argument
Kelley was armed with the semi-automatic rifle and two pistols when he attacked the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs during Sunday services.
He had argued with his mother-in-law before the rampage, officials said.
Kelley called his father after he was shot by an armed bystander and said he did not think he would survive.
“This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs,” said Mr Martin.
“There was a domestic situation going on with the family and in-laws,” he said, adding that Kelley had sent threatening texts to his mother-in-law.
“We know that he expressed anger towards his mother-in-law, who attends this church,” Mr Martin added. Click to show
With the time short time frame between when this guy was discharged and when he bought the guns, was there a lag from when he was charged and when the bad conduct discharge would have shown up on his record? In other words, was there a window in which his record would have been clean even though he was discharged less than honorably? Would he have known this and used that opportunity to buy the guns knowing he might not be able to later? I think it's safe to say that, if the domestic abuse or bad conduct discharge would've been on his record, he would have at least have had a lot harder time buying a weapon. So why weren't those two things on his record? Bad policy? Someone at AFOSI drop the ball?
Like the incidents of the collision with merchant vessels, ignorance and political correctness are showing blame. I am not going to argue away the facts here. I am only drawing parallel to the reasons for faults. I truly believe that there was a time when morals and values preceded stupidity.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a DoD wide review of all recent (last 10 years at least) discharges where the discharge or behavior while in service 'should' have resulted in that former service member being flagged in regards to being able to pass the background check.
Semantics....does your traffic record show you ran a stop sign if you didnt get caught ? Yes, still broke the law, but nothing 'on the record ' says you committed an offense. Nothing in the federal or local records says you shouldnt have a gun = clean record, so he got it. The only real crime is the AF didnt pass it on.
Incorrect, it was illegal for him to possess a firearm wether he passed a background check or not. It's not a one time violation that nobody saw, the violation was the possession. He knowingly broke the law when he checked the wrong box on the background checks making the purchases illegal. Semantics don't apply to black and white law.
Just like a minor buying booze with a fake ID, it's not a legal sale. Nothing changes because they never got caught till their friend died of alcohol poisoning.
Correct, he could have bought them through private sale, straw purchase, stolen or built guns had he not been able to pass the background checks.(all still illegal)
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-07-2017).]
Incorrect, it was illegal for him to possess a firearm wether he passed a background check or not. It's not a one time violation that nobody saw, the violation was the possession. He knowingly broke the law when he checked the wrong box on the background checks making the purchases illegal. Semantics don't apply to black and white law.
Just like a minor buying booze with a fake ID, it's not a legal sale. Nothing changes because they never got caught till their friend died of alcohol poisoning.
Oh I get it now, you expect evil people to follow rules and laws.. Sorry not going to happen, but when the ones that made the rules and laws drop the ball , and that causes the rules and laws to be worthless, you'll want more laws/rules.. FACT HE FILLED OUT THE PAPERS and it went through, this tells me he is not smart enough to even know the rules, or that he could not own a fire arm, cause if he did, he'd get one without bothering leaving a paper trail.. So the rules and laws that should've stopped the sale, and maybe told him he can not own a fire arm, and or reminded him of that fact. would've done more than the nothing that happened.. Again my bet is he didn't even know or understand he can't buy/own one. as no one would bother with the forms/etc when you can get a long gun anywhere . What if the rules stopped him from getting a gun and he then knew he could not own one, and he never got one because of that??
If he knew he'd have not bothered with the forms and got one the shady way.. or a craigslist add, selling ________ for x dollars ar trade for a long gun.. and have had one in hours.
The dropping the ball could've stopped this.. maybe? maybe not.. but the fact that they dropped the ball, shows how lazadaizical(sp?) they are about reporting the info to the database. and that IS A HUGE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 11-07-2017).]
Oh I get it now, you expect evil people to follow rules and laws.. Sorry not going to happen, but when the ones that made the rules and laws drop the ball , and that causes the rules and laws to be worthless, you'll want more laws/rules..
Quote one time I said or inferred this.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-07-2017).]
The reporting part is not quite as black and white as it might seem. It's a given that USAF has admitted they dropped the ball on reporting to the FBI..that is already established, but what is not clear, is where the ball was dropped.
Tho they haven't released much details, and have basically left whoever was supposed to do the reporting to FBI as an un-named scapegoat, I suspect the ball was dropped at the end of the sentencing phase of the court martial itself. I'll explain:
There IS a blanket law for any service member that receives a dishonorable discharge, in regards to ability to legally purchase a firearm, as a dishonorable discharge is the result from conviction of a crime that is equivalent to a felony in the civilian world. That, is cut and dried--get a dishonorable discharge and you can't legally purchase or own a firearm--period.
Not so in the case of a bad conduct discharge, which is the type discharge this scumbag received. Or at least not 'always' the case with bad conduct discharges. Bad conduct discharge is usually the result of the military version of a civilian misdemeanor, but there are some convictions resulting from more serious misdemeanor level crimes that still get just a bad conduct discharge, especially if the defendant pleas out, which this guy did. It's up to the convening authority (the court martial board) to direct that the paperwork include wording that directs whoever is supposed to report to the FBI, to do so..otherwise, that 'reporter' person(s) just sees 'bad conduct' and doesn't forward any paperwork to the FBI database. In addition, one of the premises for reporting is that the defendant get MORE than 12 months prison sentence. This one didn't..he got exactly "12 months confinement". Someone in USAF did drop the ball, but it's anything but clear exactly who..probably someone a lot higher up the chain than some desk jockey 2 striper--perhaps the court martial presiding officer (judge) himself..
quote
The Air Force tells CBS News Kelley's case was a general court martial, the most serious level of military trial proceedings, reserved for allegations similar to felonies in civilian jurisdictions.
While personnel tried under general court martial can be subject to dishonorable discharge, Kelley received the less severe bad conduct discharge.
The use of a general court martial, as opposed to the less serious special court martial, is a sign that the initial charges against Kelley carried the potential for both dishonorable discharge and more than a year in confinement, said Benjamin Spencer, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia who currently serves as a reserve officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army.
"They key difference between dishonorable discharge and bad conduct, as kind of a rule of thumb, is that a bad conduct discharge is for behavior that rises to the level of a misdemeanor, and a dishonorable discharge rises to the level of a felony," Spencer told CBS News on Monday. "The place where this gets relevant to something like firearms is that a dishonorable discharge gets treated like a felony conviction."
Federal law prohibits those who have been dishonorably discharged from buying a firearm, but the law does not include a blanket prohibition on those who have received a bad conduct discharge. However, certain types of bad conduct discharges can stem from cases that would bar defendants from purchasing firearms.
Texas and federal laws prohibit those with domestic violence convictions from owning firearm. The military is supposed to report to the FBI, for the purposes of prohibiting firearm purchases, convictions on domestic violence charges, as well as convictions that carry maximum potential sentences of more than a year in confinement.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-08-2017).]
In addition, one of the premises for reporting is that the defendant get MORE than 12 months prison sentence. This one didn't..he got exactly "12 months confinement". Someone in USAF did drop the ball, but it's anything but clear exactly who..probably someone a lot higher up the chain than some desk jockey 2 stripper--perhaps the (judge) himself..
That's what I was going to ask you if you hadn't mentioned it, I know it was reported he served 12mo confinement and didn't know if that meant he had to have had a dishonorable discharge or not. I've seen dishonorable discharge reported repeatedly and not corrected, I understand that may not be accurate.
So it appears he either wasn't in the system or wasn't supposed to be in the system the way it's being reported. Then possibly the court martial presiding officer's decision is controversial but process afterwards is not at fault.
That's what I was going to ask you if you hadn't mentioned it, I know it was reported he served 12mo confinement and didn't know if that meant he had to have had a dishonorable discharge or not. I've seen dishonorable discharge reported repeatedly and not corrected, I understand that may not be accurate.
So it appears he either wasn't in the system or wasn't supposed to be in the system the way it's being reported. Then possibly the court martial presiding officer's decision is controversial but process afterwards is not at fault.
There are often conditions attached to any discharge, even some of the honorable discharges and they are noted by alpha/numerical codes on form DD-214. (Even in the case of honorable discharge, there are still different codes on the DD-214 that usually refer to under what circumstances the service member can re-enlist and/or retirement benefit qualifications etc.)
His court martial would undoubtedly be noted on his DD214, as well as any other disciplinary actions, and other paperwork would be forwarded to the admin section in the form of attachments to the DD-214. I do not know the exact procedures that take place in the case of a BCD, but in the case of honorable discharges, you attend a seminar before separation form service telling you everything you are entitled to and I have to assume the same holds true re informing this guy of the restrictions his BCD entails.
Having said that, when someone gets a BCD and it involves a prison sentence, the actual discharge and separation doesn't take place until the sentence is completed and the automatic appeals process and all other appeals are completed. Once confinement is complete, the service member is released from all military duties and is placed on what is called appellate leave. IOW, he's still in the service, but is out in the civilian world in a sort of limbo waiting for the process to complete itself. No DD-214 or actual discharge takes place, and this time period may account for why there is a convoluted timeline between his court martial ending and the actual date of discharge. (and oddly enough, had he died before the appeal process was complete, a DD-214 would have been issued showing he died while on active duty and under honorable conditions)
Incorrect, it was illegal for him to possess a firearm wether he passed a background check or not. It's not a one time violation that nobody saw, the violation was the possession. He knowingly broke the law when he checked the wrong box on the background checks making the purchases illegal. Semantics don't apply to black and white law.
Just like a minor buying booze with a fake ID, it's not a legal sale. Nothing changes because they never got caught till their friend died of alcohol poisoning.
My whole point is these people dont care if its against the law. He murdered 26 people...you think he gave a crap he was breaking a law having a gun ? id pretty much bet you money, about every convicted felon who has been released has a gun or has easy access to one. For a gang member, a gun is almost a part of the required dress code. 12 year olds carry them to school almost every day somewhere.
Yes buying alcohol is illegal under age, but if your never caught its never on a record anywhere, so whether it was legal or not is a moot point. Everyone on here at some time has run a stop light or sign...even a 'rolling stop' is illegal. So your saying everyone is a criminal ? How many points do you get if no one see it ? You could go to court and testify you have a spotless perfect driving record.
You said "he bought the guns legally" and tried to defend it calling it semantics, that's what I argued against.
The semantics are also facts. Fact is, in both the USA and Canada, each country has over one MILLION laws on the books. It is humanly impossible to get thru a day without inadvertently breaking a multitude of *somethings*. We are ALL criminals, the only difference is some have been prosecuted and some havent.
If you want to know WHY "the system" is set up like that, Ayn Rand described it best.
Yes. The truth is, it was closer to 5 dozen and the concert was in Nevada.
No, 5 people that were healthy, and part of the running of the concert have come to an untimely death, has nothing to do with the number of people that got mowed down that night.. This is after the smoke cleared since a week after till the other day, the 5th was a 66 year old male, the 2 before died in their car, and then so far 2 others, connected to the show but not "in" the crowd..
How is it illegal, he goes to buy, they run the background check, he clears he walks out with gun..?? You have proof that he was charged with a felony , outside the milt?
Right, Hillary wasn't breaking the law until she was caught according to Rodger and Keel's logic. Passing the background check didn't make it legal, it was a fluke in the process. That doesn't mean it would have prevented the shooting, it just would have made it more difficult to buy guns. This guy's history was a huge red flag, he should have been in prison for multiple charges. How he was able to evade incarceration baffles me.
"Brittany Adcock, 22, said she dated Kelley for two months when she was 13 and he was 18."
He didn't do it alone. Everyone who knew what was going on and had cause to put him away but for some reason did nothing are partialy responsible, the airforce, his codependent parents and victims of his abuse that never reported anything. The system doesn't work when nearly all the participants are negligent. That's why the cry for gun regulations are nonsense and we should be focusing on awareness and encouraging victims to do the right thing when it counts, not years or decades later.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-10-2017).]
On a more serious note, it is being reported that the Pastor plans to tear down the Church and erect a memorial, that it would be too painful to attend now. He plans to rebuild elsewhere.
In my opinion, a bad decision. Made out of raw emotion.
How about your response EVERY time I posted. I said each time, he got the guns by going thru the correct legal hoops. He had nothing in his record to keep him from getting them. Even if he felt he was going to break the law he was going to get them anyway. Criminals dont care about a law period...They will always do what THEY want. EOS. It was illegal to blow up the Mera Building, illegal to kill the church goers, illegal to run down bicyclers in NY, yet not any of those criminals followed the laws.
How is it illegal, he goes to buy, they run the background check, he clears he walks out with gun..?? You have proof that he was charged with a felony , outside the milt?
If you had your license to drive a car taken away, and walked onto a car lot, asked to test drive a car.... Or paid a wad of cash for a car and the guy asked if you had a license, AND you said yes..... "Um, it's at home."
The dealership lets you take the car. You have all the paperwork. Everything is in your name.
Are you now legal to drive?
Of course not. You lied and got a car.
Works the same way with the guns.... Except guns are harder to get because of the loonie lefties.
