Mass Shootings

Gun Control Failures Allowed a Criminal to Carry Out the Texas Church Shooting

What the Air Force knew about Devin Patrick Kelley, but didn't report, should have prevented a gun sale.

|

Jay Janner/TNS/Newscom

As more details emerge about the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: The tragedy was at least in part an institutional gun control failure.

Devin Patrick Kelley—who killed 26 people and wounded another 20 at a Sutherland Springs church on Sunday—was legally prohibited from owning a firearm. While he was serving in the Air Force in 2012, a military court convicted him of assault for strangling his then-wife and fracturing his stepson's skull. (Under the law, that conviction disqualified Kelley from possessing a gun; a federal background check was supposed to prevent him from purchasing one.

But the Air Force ignored its legal duty to report Kelley's conviction to the FBI, so it was never entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The Air Force also failed to report Kelley's apparent escape from a New Mexico mental health facility, where he was being held awaiting trial for assault. Nor did it report the death threats he made against his chain of command, or his attempts to smuggle weapons onto the base where he was stationed to make good on those threats. So when Kelley lied on a background check form about his conviction, about ever having been a fugitive from justice, and about ever having been confined to a mental institution, the NICS system failed to catch it.

The Trace reports that as of December 2016, the Department of Defense has entered only one conviction for domestic violence into the NICS Indices, one of three databases that make up the FBI's NICS background check system. (The other two are the National Criminal Information Center database and the Interstate Identification Index.) That could indicate that Kelley isn't the only oversight in the system.

Defense Department spokesman Tom Crosson tells Reason that he can't currently speak to the NICS Indices numbers, but he did say that the department's Office of the Inspector General was reviewing both the Kelley case and the department's broader "policies, practices, and procedures to determine whether appropriate qualifying information is submitted by the [Defense Department] to the FBI for entry into the National Criminal Information Center [NCIC] database."

If the Defense Department was giving information to the FBI to enter directly into the NCIC database, that could explain why the NICS Indices show no domestic violence reports from the department.

If that is the case however, it raises further questions about how well the background check system manages hundreds of departments entering thousands of convictions into three separate databases relied on by thousands of gun sellers to instantly vet potential customers.

It is clear Kelley fell through these bureaucratic cracks, and other domestic abusers might be falling through them as well.

Rather than focusing on how this current background check system can be better administered and enforced, gun control advocates in Congress have demanded more unspecific restrictions on the ability of law-abiding Americans to possess guns.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said this via Twitter (@SenBlumenthal) shortly after new broke:

Horror, heartbreak, shame. Prayers are important but insufficient. After another unspeakable tragedy, Congress must act—or be complicit.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl.) echoed Blumenthal's sentiments on Twitter (@SenBillNelson):

Nelson and Blumenthal are longtime members of the Senate Armed Services Committee which legislates on military affairs, and is responsible for overseeing the Department of Defense. If the DOD failed to administer background checks adequately, these senators failed to fulfill their role as DOD watchdogs.

Blumenthal, to his credit, said in a CNN interview this morning he intended to send a letter to the Secretary of Defense to find out what exactly DOD is doing to enforce background check laws already on the books. "The best laws on the books are dead letter if they are not enforced," he said. Belated, but welcome.

And yet, in the same sentence in the same interview Blumenthal demands Congress pass more background checks.

Blumenthal's demand that something be done shows the senator is more interested in restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns than in understanding out how a violent criminal disgrace to his military uniform was so easily able to get his hands on them.

A better approach might involve waiting to find out how the current system of background checks failed before pushing for more background checks.

Advertisement

NEXT: Treating Drug Overdoses As Homicides May Be Deadly

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So… we need better gun control.

    1. I think of it more as going down the involuntary commitment slope rather than the gun-grabbing one.

      We either lock crazy people up or we tailor the rules to the craziest common denominator.

      1. It wouldn’t be surprising. The mentally ill are a very easy group to imprison and beat without many giving a shit.

        1. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

          Read more here,,,,, http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    2. I was savaged yesterday for even questioning whether more restrictive gun control would prevent attacks like this from occuring and here we have this author flat out saying that yes the lack of gun control “allowed a criminal to carry out” the attack. I guaranfuckingt you that if we put the gun control in charge of making the list motherfuckers like this shooter would not have fallen through the cracks. I suspect the military is full of gun right sympathizers and those loyalties may have played a part in the utter failure to register this guy but then again it may also be regular negligence. Fuck you John.

      1. if we put the gun control *true believers* in charge of making the list.

      2. It doesn’t need to be more restrictive than it is now to have prevented this shooting.

        1. Right, but when the shooters aren’t convicted domestic abusers more restrictive gun control would prevent the attacks for the same reason.

          1. And it would prevent people from defending themselves and make criminals more secure in knowing they have the upper hand if they have an illegal gun, likely leading to more victimization which may dwarf whatever murders are prevented.

            And it would do nothing to stop gang violence, ask Mexico about that.

            But yeah you might well be able to chip away at this minuscule fraction of murders in america by being fascist assholes who take away everyone’s liberty.

            1. Re: “by being fascist assholes who take away everyone’s liberty.”

              Agreed. For the sake of 3000 deaths in 9/11, hundreds of millions of Americans suffer daily injuries to their liberties every day, what with the NSA spying, TSA groping, and many small law enforcement actions that rarely make the news (like warrantless searches within 200 miles of the border, searches of smartphones when crossing the border, etc.)

              9/11 is partly why David Dao was beaten up on the United Airlines flight–the post-9/11 response was to give the airline staff too much power, and of course like the Stanford prison experiments proved, just a little too much power can turn ordinary people into monsters. Talk back to a flight attendant and find out in person how fascist an ordinary person can be.

              Putting gun control fanatics in charge of making the gun control list would end up something like Communism, where all resistance is simply mass-murdered. Oppose the gun control list? Into the concentration camp you go, for your re-education, because you obviously aren’t thinking about the good of the country.

              1. dchang0|11.7.17 @ 11:30PM|#
                “Re: “by being fascist assholes who take away everyone’s liberty.”
                Agreed. For the sake of 3000 deaths in 9/11, hundreds of millions of Americans suffer daily injuries to their liberties every day, what with the NSA spying, TSA groping, and many small law enforcement actions that rarely make the news (like warrantless searches within 200 miles of the border, searches of smartphones when crossing the border, etc.)”

                I do not recognize the handle, but please continue to post.
                It is not difficult to show, by 5th grade arithmetic, that TSA has cost more deaths than any if the terrorists could have hoped to do.

      3. Failure =/= lack you disingenuous fuck.

        1. Fuck, I’m too genuine. I should have kept my mouth shut instead of arguing gun control on the greatest libertarian website in the history of the world.

          1. Since gun control is unconstitutional, you are advocating for said unconstitutional gun control and you are a socialist…

            I can only assume you want to enslave us all.

      4. Are you angry at John due to some previous conversation? Why call him out now?

        1. A little mad I guees and I wanted to preempt his ad hom attack.

      5. I’m not sure where there’s room to discuss more restrictive gun control in this instance, in which there was a restriction in place that would have kept the guy unarmed had everybody done their job. Ultimately, no human endeavor has an error rate of 0%.

        Also confusing to me is – given that the Air Force apparently messed up – how did Texas have a red flag in their system related to this guy? The Governor of Texas said Sunday night or Monday that he had applied for a CCL in Texas but was turned down due to an issue related to his background check……

        1. in which there was a restriction in place that would have kept the guy unarmed had everybody done their job

          Not very damn likely. The only difference it would have made is whether the mass murderer obtained his tool legally or illegally.

        2. The shooter applied for a Texas LTC ( license to carry – Texas allows open carry as well). The restrictions in Texas are more stricter than those for purchasing a gun and the background check more extensive. Any discharge other than honorable from the military is a disqualifying factor. However, getting the license is easier than many other states, but it is restricted to only law-abiding citizens. This attack was an isolated related to domestic violence, not access to guns. Texas wants every citizen who is legally permitted to carry a gun to do so, if they choose. However, the state makes sure those who do carry are also thoroughly vetted, which of course is totally contrary to the typical media narrative. The claims that law enforcement oppose citizens carrying firearms depends on the city, county and officer. Recently I was stopped for speeding and when giving the officer my driver’s license, he saw my LTC which I keep right behind it. He asked if I had a gun in the car and when I answered “no” , he responded by saying “Shame on you, why not?”. My point is Texas law enforcement has no problem with citizens having guns, only criminals.

      6. With some of the participants here, the “greatest libertarian site in the history of the world” as you put it, any suggestion that someone should be forbidden from possessing a firearm for any reason, is tantamount to apostasy. I actually love my f’n guns, including AR platforms, and use them regularly in competitions etc., but for even mentioning something like “enforce the laws we already have” in regard to procuring a gun got me several “fuck off slaver” responses. Guess I failed the libertarian purity standards.

        1. As far as limiting anyone’s rights, my concern is only regarding those who are felons convicted of violent offenses and those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

        2. Most people here agree that enforcing the laws we have should be sufficient for the gun grabbers and that all the new laws that get proposed wouldn’t stop these kinds of events.

          Also: Fuck off, slaver. /s

  2. Audit NICS. We already know the NFA database is full of inaccuracies. At this point nothing would surprise me regarding NICS.

  3. Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless violence.

    “Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless poverty.”

    “Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless hunger.”

    “Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless disease.”

    “Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless lack of contact with extraterrestrials.”

    1. Regardless of motive or mental state – enough is enough! We have to find a way to put an end to this senseless political posturing.”

      In other news we apparently have to pass a law making it against the law not to enforce the law-or something.

    2. What’s your point? That people are too impatient for good things?

      1. I wish could say this more succinctly:

        Demanding action is an emotional response. Actions taken purely on emotional responses are, by their nature, not very well thought-out, so it tends to be an ill-advised action. We can demand action in a variety of ways that’s going to result in bad decisions and hurtful or wasteful policies.

        In the late 80s going into 90s, the action to stop this senseless violence was the “War on Drugs.” And it’s been an abysmal failure which has helped militarize the police, severely punished people for minor offenses, and swelled the prison population even as violent crime rates plummet.

  4. Maybe we will actually see someone in the Air Force held accountable for this screwup.

  5. Mistakes were made…

    1. The passive voice was invoked…

  6. “Nelson and Blumenthal are longtime members of the Senate Armed Services Committee which legislates on military affairs, and is responsible for overseeing the Department of Defense. If the DOD failed to administer background checks adequately, these senators failed to fulfill their role as DOD watchdogs.”

    Hit ’em hard, Christian! Don’t let them get away with their posturing!

    1. “Hit ’em hard” in this context means “criticize them harshly.” Just to be clear.

    2. The bottomline is that gun control works but at the cost of punishing innocent people. Personally, I don’t think restricting lawful gun ownership to shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols is that great of an infringement on freedom. But whatever.

      1. “Personally, I don’t think restricting lawful gun ownership to shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols is that great of an infringement on freedom. But whatever.”

        Do you somehow think that it would be impossible to kill 25-30 people with shotguns and pistols?

        1. Impossible? No, but I think fewer would have died in that church and in Vegas if shotguns and pistol were used instead of semi auto rifles. I just imagine that some of these events are carried in fits of rage without much forethought and they grab the most convenient best weapon. If it’s more planned out attack then I bet people could find ways to kill as effectively other means.

          1. Memory Hole|11.7.17 @ 7:37PM|#
            “Impossible? No, but I think fewer would have died in that church and in Vegas if shotguns and pistol were used instead of semi auto rifles.”

            Folks, Hole wrote that. You can see it right there.
            Hole, most pistols ARE semi-automatic, and a lot easier to use in confined spaces, so I think you’re full of shit.

            1. Agreed.

              Navy SEALS PREFER to use their pistols for combat due to the tight confined spaces onboard ships and the hearing damage/shockwave that comes from firing a rifle indoors.

              They are just as lethal with a pistol as with a rifle simply due to the extra practice they put in with pistols.

              This killer had a pistol with him at the church; we don’t know how many he killed or injured with the pistol, but it was what he used to shoot at the hero Stephen Willeford.

              1. “They are just as lethal with a pistol as with a rifle simply due to the extra practice they put in with pistols.”
                In any sort of confined space, a pistol is far more deadly than any long gun, except (per Morbo) a shotgun.
                Hole is a not-too-bright lefty.

          2. A 00 buckshot shotgun shell packs 9-10 9mm lead balls. You can put out about as many projectiles per minute with a shotgun as with a submachine gun.

            A shotgun fired into a massed crowd would not be pretty.

            1. Even with a short barrel [18″] cylinder bore shotgun buckshot patters pretty tightly, about 4-5″ at 25 yards, so not all that much of a spread especially for an indoor situation. You still have to aim at a specific target in order to reliably hit it. But otherwise I agree, they are devastating weapons and with a semi auto and nine shot mag you could inflict a tremendous amount of carnage with one.

          3. Re: Memory Hole,

            Most of the current restrictive gun laws are meant to keep people from owning and carrying pistols because Guns Are Awful?. Not semi-automatic rifles, but handguns.

          4. Semi-autos with detachable magazines seem to do more than manual actions with lower capacity, but caliber doesn’t seem to matter much: Luby’s and Virginia Tech (9mm pistol) killed as many as Kelley, Sandy Hook, Aurora and San Bernardino (AR-15). Orlando and Vegas were outliers, and we’ll never know whether Omar Mateen could have killed as many with a pistol as he did with the MCX, but given that he had 30 minutes in a confined space full of targets I’m inclined to think he would have. Paddock would’ve had to change his tactics and get closer, but a truck ramming- or plane crash with one of his private planes- would likely have equalled it.

            The problem (from a controller’s perspective) is that you can control caliber in a homemade gun, but not mechanism. Rifle barrels are very hard to make at home, but pistol barrels can be improvised from hydraulic tubing; and making an open-bolt, full auto SMG, like a Luty or Holmes, is very easy for a garage gunsmith. Even if the shooter can’t make one himself (but anyone with a spare few weeks can, and a large number of killers *do* plan these things out ahead of time), one can be purchased from a black market dealer easily enough in societies (like Palestine, Brazil, or a post-2A USA) where they are popular with local drug thugs. No background check, no serial number, no control, and 500 RPM from a 30-round mag. And of course factory semi-autos will also be smuggled…

            1. …and restricting semi-autos *would* be a big burden on personal liberty, because semi-auto handguns are much more effective for self-defense than revolvers- not because of the magazine size or rate of fire, but because of the lighter 3 to 6 pound trigger that a striker-fired (Glock pattern) pistol has, compared to a revolver’s 10 to 12 pound double-action trigger. Criminals don’t need accuracy because they don’t aim, but self-defenders do- and if you’ve ever wondered why the NYPD has such a standout reputation for missing their targets? That’d be the aftermarket 12-pound triggers their Glocks and SIGs are mandated to have.

              Meanwhile, semi-auto rifles- which, as mentioned above, don’t seem to be more effective for mass killings- are superior for self-defense compared to shotguns due to their greater accuracy and ability to engage multiple attackers, and, more importantly, are ideal for killing feral pigs, feral dogs, coyotes and varmints that do a combined billion $ in damage to US crops and livestock- damage that devastates small farms and increases the likelihood of the affected farmer losing his job and succumbing to suicide, opioids or alcohol. How many hogs are killed every year because the hunter had a faster ROF or a few more bullets than a walnut stock bolt-action? How many poor families bring in more meat to eat? And for what- to drive a few killers to use trucks, smuggled AKs and garage SMGs instead?

              1. Very true about the poor families and game meat. My neighbors where I grew up would have literally starved (large Catholic family of 9) had they not been allowed to have guns for hunting. They hunted year-round with shotguns for ducks and rifles for deer.

                These are of course the Basket of Deplorables(TM) that the left hates so much. Being a pro-gun libertarian, I guess I’m a Deplorable too.

                1. Yeah, shotguns and bolt-action rifles have an order of magnitude stronger of an argument in their favor regarding subsistence and economic use. Semi-auto ARs, AKs and 10/22s only add in a slight advantage for hunting terrestrial game (and none for birds), but a poor family needs every advantage they can get, both for acquiring food and, more practically, for keeping pest animals at bay. City folk really don’t realize how devastating a single incursion, even by just a fox or raccoon, can be for a family that depends on a chicken coop or sheep herd. Rapid .223 fire from a greater-than-10 round mag can be the difference between a dead bobcat and an empty wallet.

                  While I’m spitballing, there is also the matter of pets and children in areas with coyotes and feral dogs. I’ve heard horror stories about pariah dogs attacking children in Detroit- and on Indian reservations, which are even worse, being in the middle of the wilderness. And if a coyote pack moves into an area, say good-bye to Fluffy and Mrs. Whiskerson. State hunters are often more important to getting rid of problem animals, but oftentimes they’re slow to show or never bother (especially for the aforementioned Injuns). Private guns are faster to respond, and once again, ARs and AKs push the dial just a little more towards Mankind’s favor…

              2. Just get an “action job” on the revolver. Go to any cowboy action competition and you can find a gunsmith who can fine tune your revolver to fire faster than a semiautomatic pistol.

                1. I assume this “action job” consists of a quick-release cylinder and a lightened trigger? The former is a useful enough addition (albeit still limiting an armed citizen or mass shooter to 6- to 8-round “magazines”), but I wasn’t talking about capacity, only trigger weight- and with a double-action revolver, if you lower the trigger weight enough to equal a Glock-off’s, you’ll get light strikes with standard primers. A really good gunsmith can thread the needle to fine-tune it, but it’ll still be finicky unless you up the weight to at least 8 or 9 pounds, which is unideal for most male shooters and unacceptable for most female. It’s an inescapable mechanical difference- a self-loading gun uses recoil or a gas tube to perform the work of cycling the action and cocking the hammer, whereas any revolver uses either the trigger finger (DA) or thumb (SA) to perform the same, which is always going throw off sight alignment either during or immediately in between shots.

            2. People in prison have make legit semi-auto pistols out of the crap they can manage to scrounge up.

              Motivated humans are resourceful.

              1. Plus the large intestine is great for holding more than poop.

      2. The bottom line is that the Patriot Act works, but at the cost of punishing innocent people…

        1. The bottom line is that politically-motivated holocausts work, but at the cost of punishing innocent people.

          1. I’m agreeing with the gist of your sarcasm, just in case you are wondering…. 🙂

            1. I once made a post about how “right-wing-created holocausts” are far worse than the far-larger socialist (i.e. left wing) death tolls because the right wing ones are “hate holocausts”, and people questioned whether I was being sarcastic.

            2. ? sarcasm? What sarcasm?

            3. I appreciate that the sarcasm dripped through.

      3. “The bottomline is that gun control works but at the cost of punishing innocent people”

        No, the bottom line is that it doesn’t work, but Reason is too busy chasing its own tail over this bureaucratic failure with the background check to realize that it’s undermining its own position with readers like you by unwittingly implying that it does.

  7. Is this gonna affect my annual review sir?

  8. “A better approach might involve waiting to find out how the current system of background checks failed before pushing for more background checks”

    Pffffft. It’s common sense, more is better.

  9. “A better approach might involve waiting to find out how the current system of background checks failed before pushing for more background checks”

    Pffffft. It’s common sense, more is better.

  10. “A better approach might involve waiting to find out how the current system of background checks failed before pushing for more background checks”

    Pffffft. It’s common sense, more is better.

  11. “A better approach might involve waiting to find out how the current system of background checks failed before pushing for more background checks”

    Pffffft. It’s common sense, more is better.

  12. Let’s pass some new laws so we don’t have to enforce the existing ones.

    1. “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We *want* them broken. You’d better get it straight. That it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against … then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
      — Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged , Ch. III, “White Blackmail”

      1. Very well played, sir.

  13. Honestly, no matter the outcome of the background check, he could have robbed one of his neighbors houses at random and found all he needed on the first or second house.

    A bit more risk to be sure, but of course you mitigate the risk by choosing a time when you know most of the houses in the neighborhood are empty…during a weekday. People keep schedules so identifying when a neighbor is not home would be a piece of cake.

    People tend to underestimate the lengths a motivated person will go to.

    1. And overestimate the effects of “A LAW!”.

  14. So, apparently running horrendous slander works in Virginia.

    1. Well, Virginia knows they are part of the swamp that is being drained.

      Did you really expect them to just let their bloated part of the government just get dismantled?

    2. Yep. Gone from “The mother of presidents” to just “a mother’.
      Sad.

  15. “Gun Control Failures Allowed a Criminal to Carry Out the Texas Church Shooting
    What the Air Force knew about Devin Patrick Kelley, but didn’t report, should have prevented a gun sale.”

    I appreciate the sentiment behind that–because the Air Force failed to report a crime, etc. is no reason to add more laws.

    If he hadn’t gotten his hands on an gun, I suspect he might have used other means. It could have been a homemade bomb. It could have been arson. It could have been . . .

    Ultimately, the behavior of violent lunatics doesn’t justify violating the right of other responsible people to own a gun–regardless of whether the Air Force failed to follow procedures.

  16. If you want to talk about a serious oversight, I’d also look to why he only did a year in prison for fracturing an infant’s skull. I am not familiar with military law. I’m sure it’s different.

    In civilian court, if he was so insane with severe PSTD symptoms at the time he broke his child’s skull, then he shouldn’t be sentenced to prison at all–he should be confined to a psychiatric facility until a psychiatrist is willing to risk their license and assets on vouching that he’s no longer a danger to other people. On the other hand, if he wasn’t insane and didn’t plead insanity, then fracturing a child’s skull deserved a lot more than one year in prison–especially if there were other extenuating circumstances with making terrorist threats against superiors, smuggling guns onto base, etc. Any way you slice it, the Air Force should have put him away for a lot more than just one year.

    Yeah, he shouldn’t have been able to pass a background check, but if he were behind bars where he belonged, he wouldn’t even have been able to go to a gun store.

    1. I wonder, how much time you get in the Air Force if you’re caught with a pound of marijuana?

      Fracturing an infant’s skull is only good for a year behind bars? That’s barely even a felony?

    2. According to Michael Daly at The Daily Beast, the killer should have still been in jail at the time of the killings. Can’t post the link here due to the 50 character limit.

      Search for the article “Texas Killer Devin Kelley Should Still Have Been in Jail” at The Daily Beast.

      1. “Can’t post the link here due to the 50 character limit.”

        There is a way around that:
        Post the link. Go back and stick obvious 3 or 4 spaces in it every 25 characters or so.
        And, yes, there is the HTML ‘one special trick’ I’ve learned, forgotten, learned, forgotten…
        Hey, all you HTML snobs: Ever learn the orthographic projection of a physical object on 2-D space?

  17. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Background checks, banning arms for ex-felons and domestic violence people, and any other infringement is patently unconstitutional.

    1. That is true. It is also irrelevant.

      1. And here we are with the libertarian purity position again; all laws that impact to the literal reading of the Second Amendment are just plain wrong.

        I love my f’n guns, and I want everyone who is not a discernible threat to me to be able to have what they want, including suppressed full auto if they desire. I do not however wish to see those convicted of violent felonies or adjudicated mentally incompetent to be able to walk into a sporting goods store and buy one off the shelves. They may very well get one out of the trunk of a black market dealer, but why make it easy for them? I completely believe in the right of self defense, but I do not want to make it easier for someone who is a known threat to arm themselves against me or other potential victims.

        So I guess that will get me some “fuck off slaver” comments. If so, try going beyond the profanity to explain why we should be ok with selling guns to those with multiple felonies? Beyond “just because,”

    2. “2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

      What do they mean by “a well regulated Militia”. That’s where the controversy comes from. Those in favor of some sort of regulations think it means that the National Guard and military on the state and national level need to keep and bear arms. Others think that it means there should be no regulations on arms at all and everybody can have closets full of automatic weapons, grenade launchers and put tanks in their backyards so that they can carry out battles against repressive government.

      1. No, the controversy comes from leftists that don’t like the natural right to self defense as it impedes their ability to control things.

  18. I love it when Democrats say we need background checks on ALL gun sales. I really want one of them to explain exactly how they will enforce this proposal. when they talk about banning tactical rifles, the only thing they can do is ban the sale of new ones. Do they actually think they can compel us all to turn in the ones we already own? First that is unconstitutional but in addition, what if states simply said, “No”. Democrats do not seem to grasp their championing states, such as California, ignoring federal immigration law set a precedent for states to ignore any Federal law they do not support. My favorite is the proposal to limit magazine size to 10 rounds. Okay, so I use a coupler on two ten round magazines and *TADA*, I have a twenty rounds. All of these proposals will fail for one reason. Democrats are incapable of discussing the actual issues but instead regurgitate the same lies they have every time we have a shooting. As long as they continue to lie about purchasing, using and owning guns, we gun owners will not listen.

    1. For one I think they are just playing to the constituents who vote for them, and whom they hope will continue to vote. After the 2012 debacle DiFi went home to SF and stated “I did all I could” for gun control.

      In terms of their agenda; “universal” background checks they mean all guns sales, public and private, need to involve in FFL to run the NICS and document the transaction. This will naturally lead to universal registration of all guns, as with cars [often touted as an example of “common sense and reasonable”] , and will then provide a very handy database when the “Australian solution” is on the table. Those are their goals, they just have to roll it out incrementally and until they have sufficient power to enact it.

    2. And ironically, the more the Dems push for draconian and stupid gun control laws, the more they actually drive up gun sales. But the Left causing much of what they claim they are fighting isn’t exactly new.

  19. It was pure genius of Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles – “we must do something to protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen”. This has never produced good results that take into account the rights of everyone. It has produced the Patriot Act and other abominable legislation. We need to get to the point where we say – take breath, sit back and find out what happened instead of piling on more crap legislation that will not be followed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.