Mass Shootings

Devin Kelley, Cleared to Buy Guns Despite Beating His Wife and Son, Couldn't Get a Carry Permit Because He Beat His Dog

A 2014 animal cruelty charge prevented the Texas church shooter from obtaining a concealed handgun license.

|

Facebook

After Devin Kelley murdered 26 people at a Texas church on Sunday, Gov. Greg Abbott noted that the killer had unsuccessfully sought a concealed handgun license from the state Department of Public Safety (DPS). "So how was it that he was able to get a gun?" Abbott asked in a CNN interview. "By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun. So how did this happen?"

The answer, it turns out, is that Kelley's trouble obtaining a carry permit had nothing to do with the 2012 assault convictions that should have prevented him from passing the FBI's background check when he bought his weapons. The Air Force failed to report those court martial convictions to the National Crime Information Center, so the FBI did not know about them, and neither did Texas DPS. But the department discovered that Kelley had been charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty in El Paso County, Colorado, for beating his dog in 2014. The charge was dismissed in 2016 under a deferred judgment after Kelley completed a period of probation. But it was still pending in 2015, when he applied for a carry permit in Texas. The New York Times reports that Texas DPS sought clarification about the case from Kelley, who failed to respond.

A misdemeanor involving mistreatment of an animal (unlike a misdemeanor involving domestic violence) would not have disqualified Kelley from buying a gun under federal law. But the criteria for a Texas carry permit are stricter. People who have been convicted of a Class A or B misdemeanor in the previous five years, for instance, are ineligible for a carry permit, as are applicants who have such charges pending. In Texas animal cruelty can be charged as a Class A misdemeanor or a state jail felony. In Colorado, where Kelley was living at the time of the charge, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The upshot is that Kelley, who was triply disqualified from buying a gun because he beat his wife and son, repeatedly passed the FBI's background check but was unable to get a Texas carry permit because he beat his dog.

NEXT: Cultural Appropriation Means Never Having to Say You're Sari

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. What an afternoon.

  2. [sudden craving for a baked potato]

    1. Why you stealin’ my line, Chipper. I thought we were cool.

      1. Bonus from just below that comment: some rando calling SIV a tinydick leftist. Aww snap!

      2. I was giving you validation. I thought it was understood.

    1. I’m surprised the dude never became a cop.

      1. I bet you dollars to doughnuts he applied to be one at some point.

        1. Apparently he was working as an un-armed security guard, so yeah, probably.

      2. My guess is that they disqualified him because he beat the dog instead of just shooting it.

  3. Of course it doesn’t matter that he failed to get a concealed carry permit, because it’s unlikely he was concealing his rifle when he walked into that church. It’s also unlikely that failure to obtain a permit would have kept him from concealed carrying given that he was willing to violate a much more serious law many times over.

    Concealed carry permits really only serve one purpose: They give law enforcement officers yet another excuse for detaining or arresting a person they’ve decided they don’t like.

    They also have the side effect of reducing the number of law-abiding people who concealed carry for self-defense, because the hassle isn’t worth it.

    1. Of course.

      NH recently removed the permit requirement for concealed carry. I’ve had to point out to a lot of people that pieces of paper don’t magically make anyone do or not do anything. A permit requirement is not going to stop anyone from concealing a gun if they really want to. And it’s not as if it’s hard to get away with it.

    2. In Texas, once you have a concealed carry permit, you can purchase firearms without completing a form 4473 with each purchase.

      1. without completing a form 4473 with each purchase

        Not quite.

        Every purchaser through an FFL fills out a 4473. If you have a FBI-approved state carry license (it requires a background check and is valid for no more than five years) the information on that license is entered on the 4473. Then the FFL can sell you the firearm without calling in a NICS check. (Because you’ve already been through one.)

        When I worked in a gun store I had customers who got CHLs because they kept getting delayed, but eventually cleared by NICS.

  4. Yeah, the failure here was not a lack of gun laws, it was government incompetence. Quelle surprise.

    1. The laws are only as effective as they are enforced. And if they can’t be enforced, and clearly they can’t, then they are worthless.

    2. It’s not hard to guess how they’ll respond to that. “But we need a bigger budget!”

      1. Yeah, I’m sure the only reason the Ariforce failed to inform the FBI was lack of sufficient funding.

  5. It shocks me that hitting your dog as a form of discipline is still considered ok in rural America. I was hanging out with some hunters recently and that’s just what they do if a dog misbehaves. It’s not cool to hit kids, and it’s not cool to hit dogs. Research confirms this.

    1. Please don’t discuss things you don’t understand. Research has confirmed for over a hundred years that punishment is effective as a behavioral modifier.

      You linked to an article that (yes I read the whole fucking steamong pile) does not address the EFFICACY of punishment as tool in behavior modification, but instead discusses aggressive response to punishment.

      You don’t even understand the artice you linked to, so please, stop embarrassing yourself.

      1. Gee, why am I not surprised that you of all people would be offended by that? You probably beat your dogs and kids.

        1. Who got offended? You’re just wrong. Your response to a perfectly polite reply, says a lot about you.

          1. Perfectly polite? Not even close.

            But anyway, I never said that punishment is not an effective behavior modifier. I said beating dogs is not an effective long-term strategy. Here is a metastudy from 2017, and not the 60s, which concludes:

            In conclusion, those working with or handling dogs should rely on positive reinforcement methods and avoid using positive punishment and negative reinforcement as much as possible.

            1. I would agree that positive reinforcement is generally superior, but on occasion negative reinforcement is also useful. Both are tools in the toolbox, and have their uses.

              1. Negative reinforcement isn’t punishment.

            2. That you don’t understand that the very article you cite SHOWS THAT IT IS AN EFFECTIVE LONG TERM STRATEGY is entirely the problem.

              They don’t say it doesn’t work. They don’t even say it isn’t effective. They just show a preference.

              Please, for your own sake, stop.

              1. I will stop, because I feel like I am arguing with a toddler.

        2. So in your view there is no difference between beating your kids out of rage and calmly spanking a child for a wrongdoing?

          Cool story.

      2. I don’t hit my dog. Not because it’s an ineffective training tool, but because i’m not a dick.

        1. I’d have that conversation and agree with you.

          Whether it’s effective is a different discussion.

        2. When I had dogs I’d smack them whenever they did something they weren’t supposed to do, like shit in the middle of the floor.

          Guess what? They stopped shitting in the middle of the floor.

        3. It’s also an ineffective training tool.

            1. Repeatedly hitting a dog will eventually make the dog aggressive.

              1. Yes, and kicking it will not work and is shitty. Netiher have anything to do with specific physical punishment as a behavioral modification.

                1. Then what’s your point? We were talking about beating dogs.

                  1. Actually you said hitting.

                    Hitting and beating describe severity of the physical contact.

      3. Please don’t discuss things you don’t understand. Research has confirmed for over a hundred years that punishment is effective as a behavioral modifier.

        Physical punishment leads primarily to hating the punisher, not to “improved” behavior. If punishment is merely withholding of “reward”, that’s a different story.

        1. “Physical punishment leads primarily to hating the punisher, not to “improved” behavior”

          That is far too much of a generalization, and depends on the type of physical punishment and what one’s defintion of improved is.

          1. Well, the discussion started about beating dogs then you broadened it to all forms of punishment.

            Maybe you think a dog’s behavior is improved if it cowers in your presence and is afraid and aggressive toward other humans.

            1. “Well, the discussion started about beating dogs then you broadened it”

              No, the person posting the Psych Today article did.

              If you read it, it discusses punishment of all varieties, including noises. If he had stuck with “hitting your dog is shitty” I wouldn’t have said anything, because it is, but this is a person who has a habit of posting pseudoscientific nonsense.

              1. No, the person posting the Psych Today article did.

                Which is how the discussion started.

                1. Yes. And the article talks about more than physical punishment.

            2. “Maybe you think a dog’s behavior is improved if it cowers in your presence and is afraid and aggressive toward other humans.”

              What you’re talking about there is learned helplessness. It takes a long time, and abuse. I get that you think hitting a dog at all is abuse, and let’s say I agree with you.

              For the purposes of training, and behavior modification, there is both a tangible and measurable difference between “physical punishment ” and abuse. It’s not just a qualitative difference.

      1. Funny that most of those are from the 60s and 70s.

        1. I wondered how you’d dismiss them.

          But you beleive Psychology Today articles so….yeah.

          1. Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public good experiments
            N Nikiforakis – Games and Economic Behavior, 2010 – Elsevier

            Profit-seeking punishment corrupts norm obedience
            E Xiao – Games and Economic Behavior, 2013 – Elsevier

            Views on the efficacy and ethics of punishment: Results from a national survey.
            FDDG Reed, BJ Lovett – International Journal of Behavioral ?, 2007 – psycnet.apa.org

            The long-run benefits of punishment
            S G?chter, E Renner, M Sefton – Science, 2008 – science.sciencemag.org

            That’s on the first page.

            But, I forgot you’re that clown who linked to a pseudoscientific claim about glyphosate and gut bacteria, so I sgluld have know what I was dealing with.

                1. Bro, I give you elsevier, and you link REDDIT?

                  Are you fucking kidding me?

                  1. Did you even click it? The list is posted on reddit, but the links are to peer reviewed articles. Try to avoid the Attacking The Source Fallacy, you have used that several times now.

            1. It seems that punishment is not useless according to some studies, where there are data indicating that punishment may prove beneficial (as in the one you cited and I quoted from).

              However, if methods other than punishment are approximately as effective then it seems to me that they would, on ethical/moral grounds, certainly be preferable.

              Experiments have shown that punishment enhances socially beneficial cooperation but that the costs of punishment outweigh the gains from cooperation. G?chter, et al.

              Here is a link to the source of yours that I initially relied upon: The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment by T – Simon G?chter, Elke Renner & Martin Sefton.

              The article is less than a page long.

              1. My post was a response to =>

                1. I generally agree with all of your post. There is certainly a preference for avoiding punishment if possible.

              2. “However, if methods other than punishment are approximately as effective then it seems to me that they would, on ethical/moral grounds, certainly be preferable.”

                This is my opinion as well.

            2. What form of punishment are these papers describing? Beating?

              1. Try reading them, so you don’t continue to think punishment is an ineffective training tool.

                1. I don’t have access. Do you? If so, please C&P.

                2. I have access to this one.

                  http://journals.sagepub.com/do…..3.33.3.903

                  They basically shock dogs to see if it changes they way they respond to a Pavlovian bell situation.

                  That’s a fucked up experiment and has no bearing on whether beating a dog will teach it proper behavior. Unless, again, you think proper behavior is distrustfully cowering.

                  1. The results of punishment studies are usually pretty generalizable.

                  2. By the way, you’re assigning to me a personal preference for something that I am just reporting on. I take no joy in the idea that punishment sometimes works. I would prefer a world where that wasn’t true.

                    I don’t really understand why you’ve done that.

                    1. I don’t really understand why you’ve done that.

                      When you act like a dick, people treat you like a dick. It’s weird, I know, but there it is.

          2. See above for a metastudy from 2017.

            1. I read it. It’s as useful as metastudies are.

              1. Metastudies are very useful. Attacking metastudies per se is really weird.

        2. But are they wrong?

          1. Naw. That’s why he doesn’t address them directly. That, and they are too technically challenging for him to understand.

            1. I do not understand your dislike of Chipper.

              Why not simply post evidentiary material* supporting your opinions/conclusions to challenge his claims?

              *(as you have done above)

    2. The trick is to beat the shit out of them the first time then you never have to do it again.

      1. Ah, yes, the “prison yard effect”.

    3. Leaving aside the whole moral aspect of hitting, IMO, the most ridiculous thing about that article is him lumping kids and dogs together. I find that in and of itself pretty immoral.

      1. Also, it shows that he understands neither dogs nor human children.

        1. According to several behavioral measures, Coren says dogs’ mental abilities are close to a human child age 2 to 2.5 years.

          Those of us with dogs might find the following of interest: Data from 208 dog obedience judges from the United States and Canada showed the differences in working and obedience intelligence of dog breeds, according to Coren. “Border collies are number one; poodles are second, followed by German shepherds. Fourth on the list is golden retrievers; fifth, dobermans; sixth, Shetland sheepdogs; and finally, Labrador retrievers,” said Coren.

          Border Collies featured in a experiment mentioned in Dogs Are Even More Like Us Than We Thought, a National Geographic article.

      2. Well, at least the dogs can be trained.

      3. Why is that immoral? Is he saying there is some sort of moral equivalence between dogs and human children? He is talking about mental abilities, not equality before the law or anything like that.

  6. In addition to beating his wife and infant child, I would like to think his escaping from a mental hospital in 2012 would have shown up in his background check and stopped him from purchasing a gun.

    This entire affair is a bloody indictment of gun control. If the government can’t keep this guy from legally buying a gun, even though the laws clearly said he could not do so, then all of these laws are even more worthless than 2nd Amendment advocates have claimed they are. Your “common sense gun control” just let a convicted violent criminal and escapee from a mental institution buy as many guns as he wanted.

    1. In other words, their “common sense gun control” only affects law-abiding citizens. To quote chemjeff: “Quelle surprise”.

      1. It is almost as if that is the entire purpose of those laws or something.

        1. That and giving LEOs another reason to detain/arrest someone they don’t like.

    2. I would think that beating your wife and infant kid (to the point of skull fractures) would warrant more than a 1-year sentence. If he had been locked up for 10 years, the shooting could have been prevented.

      1. That is a great point. I think problem is that the military rarely gets really dangerous criminals. Most dangerous criminals never join in the first place. Mostly they get dumb kids with poor impulse control. So, the need to lock someone up because they are a danger to society often gets lost in military cases. Military cases end up being about the unit and the need to maintain discipline and revolve around the idea that being kicked out dishonorably is some kind of ultimate sanction. It is for normal people. But for truly violent and dangerous people like this guy it doesn’t mean shit. I guarantee you they gave this guy a shorter sentence because they say the Dishonorable Discharge as such a serious punishment. The reality that this guy was a first class asshole who had no business walking free in society got lost in all that.

      2. The conviction carried a maximum prison sentence of five years under the UCMJ. If he had been sentenced to the maximum–which as you note would seem to be warranted in cases involving violence and children–he would not have been free at the time he committed the atrocity in Texas.

        What bothers me even more is the fact his conviction wasn’t reported to the FBI. Why? Having served in the USAF, and having retired because of the ridiculous levels of political correctness required by leadership toward the end of my career, I can’t help but wonder if the omission was purposeful. It doesn’t reflect well on the service that someone like Kelley was able to graduate basic military training, a course meant to weed out those not suited to service, only to have that same someone attempt to murder his leadership.

        By the time of my retirement in the early 2000s, Air Education & Training Command, the MAJCOM responsible for training new recruits, was more interested in the number of successful graduates than in the number of successful washouts. Perhaps this incident will spark some debate in that arena.

        1. My guess is that it wasn’t reported out of sheer negligence. The whole point of a court martial is to get the guy out of the military. And doing that and ensuring the conviction sticks and he doesn’t come back takes some considerable effort. There is an attitude in the military that views getting the guy out and out of the command’s hair as the ultimate goal of the military justice system. After that, he is the civilians’ problem. So reporting these convictions and making sure they follow the people convicted into civilian life is just not a very high priority and as a result often isn’t done.

          1. If I was in charge of reporting military offenses to civilian authorities for the purposes of gun control, I would not.

            The 2nd amendment is quite clear on said infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.

      3. Well, yeah.
        BUT since he was batshit crazy, it would be ‘mean spirited’ to lock him up, so they let him go.
        So the fault does not lie with the weak willed idiots who refuse to lock up crazy people, it lies with the strong willed patriots who defend ans support the constitution.

        Welcome to the revolution.

      4. True, but then most of the good things he did in the intervening time wouldn’t’ve happened either, & if that were common policy, then lots of other people who’d do only good things woul’ve been prevented from doing so too.

        I don’t think battery is enough of a predictor to justify long term restraint. Nor, if punishment is the object, do I think long incarcer’n is efficient. I’d rather see incarcer’n limited to 90 days for anything (usu. much less?just long enough to cool down), something like torture used if punishment is desired, & for people determined to be a long term ngative on the loose, death.

  7. Just imagine how much worse it would have been if he was conceal carrying. #TheSystemWorks

    1. Or if he had had a chainsaw bayonet.

      1. How is a chainsaw bayonet powered? Do you have a little gas container on the gun somewhere? Because that does not seem safe. I doubt you could use batteries or solar cells: you would not be able to get enough power and the chainsaw would probable jam in your opponent’s rib. And a hand-powered chainsaw, with pedal-like handcranks and a bicycle chain, just seems like a lot of work. So, in conclusion, I posit a chainsaw bayonet is not practical, unless you can come up with some sort of steam power set up.

        1. They are powered by the magic evil of the assault rifle. They won’t work with an ordinary rifle. You have to have the extra evil associated with an assault rifle to power one.

          1. Uh-uh. That’s “military-style assault weapon”.

        2. The “Chuck Norris Wielding Double Uzis” rail attachment is really the only accessory you’ll ever need for your AR pattern rifle.

        3. Uh, duh, you use a Micro-fusion cell. I hear super mutants are a great source.

        4. These guys managed to do it:

          https://www.panaceax.com/weaponized- chainsaw/zxcb-chain-saw-in-flat-black (remove the space)

          Personally, I admire any web page that has a link ‘Back to weaponized chainsaws’.

    2. “Just imagine how much worse it would have been if he was conceal carrying. #TheSystemWorks”

      Or if some citizen used an AR15 to try kill the murderous shitbag. The casualties would have been 10 times higher if anyone but law enforcement were allowed to do that! #WokeAF!

  8. So clearly we need to close the gun show loophole.

    1. The loophole that the federal government and states are violating the 2nd Amendment by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

  9. Ron Paul got lampooned for blaming the USG’s law enforcement incompetence for 9/11. Well?

    Libertarians want an honest night watchman, but not one who is over payed and blisteringly incompetent.

    1. Watchmen will always be incompetent because no one watches them.

  10. Domestic violence conviction [for which he spent a year in “confinement”]. Involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital [from which he escaped]. No way should he have been able to clear NICS, and yet he did because the government does not follow or enforce the laws we already have.

    [I know, it’s apparently un-libertarian to mention guns and laws in the same sentence, but then I’m impure].

  11. What did the background check say about that beard?

    1. A national ban on beardo gun ownership might be the one gun control measure even I could get behind.

      1. I resemble, er, I mean I resent that remark. I grow an unkempt beard every winter to keep my face warm. Sometimes when I come inside from snowblowing the driveway my entire beard is caked in ice. And every spring I shave it off.

        1. I hope it looks better than that guys. And I think you have to have a neck beard to qualify as a real beardo.

          1. Well for one thing my head isn’t shaped like a potato.

            1. Beware the potato-headed whatchamacallit.

              And what exactly is a neck beard? I’ve never been quite clear on that one. I thought it was when people shave above the chin, but not below. But it seems to be applied more broadly than that.

              1. I’m not exactly sure. Makes me think of that guy at Starbucks in skinny jeans with a full beard and horn rimmed classes or something.

              2. And what exactly is a neck beard?

                A socially inept smug douchebag. I have no idea why, but it’s somehow related to poor beard grooming.

      2. You’re going to have a hard time selling that one to people who hunt in more northern climates.

    2. He was also sporting a manbun at that time, so he passed.

    3. Sad! [strokes full, lush beard, chuckles softly]

  12. I hope hell exists so this ‘man’ can burn for all time in the lake of fire.

  13. So how much money is Robert Mueller paying his investigators to root through Donald Trump’s underwear?

    Yeah, there’s a case to made to spend to some time and money rooting out corruption. The minimum bill-out for one one his lawyers is $225/hr. It’s more on average of $400/hr. He’s easily spending near a $1 million/day invoiced to the treasury. Come April 15th, remember that this is the law enforcement you’re paying for.

  14. Why did the Air Force only give him a year for fracturing a child’s skull?

    If he was a danger to himself or others because of insanity, then he should have been remanded to a psychiatric facility until a team of psychiatrists agreed he was no longer a threat.

    I understand he escaped from a mental health facility–but that was after he served a year in a military prison.

    The question is why he was only sent to a military prison for a year.

    If battery on an infant resulting in the infant’s fractured skull doesn’t get you more than one year, then that needs to change.

    Whether he should have been free to buy a gun is a secondary question . The primary question should be why he wasn’t still locked up where he belonged.

    1. See my comment above Ken about the military and how it views criminal justice. He got a year because the judge and or the jury didn’t understand that they were dealing with a no kidding dangerous criminal. The military doesn’t get many of those and has a hard time recognizing them when they do.

      1. Because the military’s mission is defend America not lock up “dangerous criminals” even though the military wants as many dangerous people as they get their hands on.

        The military only has so much space in its military prisons and brigs. Its much easier to court-martial military members and then kick them out with a Dishonorable discharge.

        Example being Bergdahl is a real piece of shit and his actions caused the permanent injury of other soldiers. Plus Obama traded 5 enemy soldiers for his ass. Bergdahl helped the enemy while captured. The military judge gave him no jail time and Bergdahl might get POW pay plus back pay at a rank higher than when he deserted, because auto advancement for POWs is customary.

        1. Because the military’s mission is defend America not lock up “dangerous criminals” even though the military wants as many dangerous people as they get their hands on.

          Then perhaps they should send the cases of dangerous criminals to civilian courts when their offenses have nothing to do with their military service.

          1. They sometimes do when there is joint jurisdiction.

            I don’t know all the circumstances of his domestic stuff (location) but maybe it happened overseas or on a military base rather than military housing located in the local community. Local jurisdiction would not apply on the federal land of a military base.

            As someone pointed out, even if this guy got the max 5 years for that offense, he would still be released in time to commit this shooting.

            Most times, the government cannot solve these problems and violence cannot always be prevented.

  15. Not surprising. When concealed carry permits first were allowed in Texas, it was either Houston or Dallas that denied a permit to a man for failing to buy a dog license. The fact that the dog was dead and had been for 2 years was immaterial.

  16. I can’t look at his stupid fucking face.

    1. He has that grease-sweating, Fanta-chugging, half-retarded redneck look.

      1. Every picture they post of him, he looks like he just ate a handful of ghost peppers.

      2. You’re saying he’s a Juggalo? The FBI would love that.

        1. That would be Faygo, not Fanta.

      3. Look dude, if you’re talking about BUCS, just say BUCS.

          1. He didn’t say you ARE retarded, he said you LOOK retarded. Chill.

            1. No need to apologize, retards don’t have feelings.

    2. They could use that picture as the definition of ‘vacuous’ in the dictionary and everyone would understand.

  17. Why do so many of these killers look like me and my family?

    1. If the beard fits?

  18. I had assumed that Texas found the Bad Conduct Discharge on his record without the details of the underlying criminal charges.

  19. I had assumed that Texas found the Bad Conduct Discharge on his record without the details of the underlying criminal charges.

  20. Devin Kelley, Cleared to Buy Guns Despite Beating His Wife and Son, Couldn’t Get a Carry Permit Because He Beat His Dog

    Jacob, you know what’s crazier than that? All these gun nuts who are saying that because someone shot at this dog- and child-beater *after* he killed 26 people this represents some heart-warming success story for the “more guns, less crime” theory.

    I guess I would have preferred that based upon his dog and kid-beating that we should have had the laws in place and the resources to enforce a system where he wouldn’t have been able to buy a gun. But that’s because I’m a Maoist and I would prefer to have the state have the sole power of armament ownership so I can easily empty the cities and get all you soft, counter-revolutionary imperialist scum to pay for your crimes by digging a ditch with your bare hands. Work! Imperialistic, capitalist swine! Work!

    1. You know what’s crazier than that?

      How racist you are.

      1. How did you determine my great hatred towards Asians? Was it because I used the word Mao?

        1. When did you learn to play stupid?

          Wait…nevermind.

          1. Are you still upset about that time I remarked that the signs outside the NYTimes office building were amazingly well-spelled. Brian, did you mail-order a bride from Thailand or something? You seem awfully sensitive.

            1. Dude, your racism hurt my feelings. It’s problematic not OK. I flipped out for a good 24 hours after that.

              No wait: that was you.

    2. You have a truly epic ability to completely misunderstand even the simplest of points.

      1. I don’t even understand why we’re trying to place people who are violent or psychotic on lists that would ban them from owning a gun. Such restrictions are against the 2A, which is the absolute word of God as far as I’m concerned.

        https://reason.com/reasontv/2013/11/18/ the-truth-about-mental-illness-and-guns

        1. Such restrictions are against the 2A

          We are getting you to slowly disavow socialism, aren’t we?

      2. That ability really did not help when he signed those mortgage documents.

        1. Did he get kicked out of his house or something? It’s kinda weird to ask about a socialist owning a home.

          1. I think he said he did a short sale or something. Look, the guy is not a deep thinker.

  21. A lot of us are missing the big picture argument–why did the Air Force only give him a year in prison for fracturing an infant’s skull?

    If he was a danger to himself or others because of insanity, then he should have been remanded to a psychiatric facility until a team of psychiatrists agreed he was no longer a threat.

    I understand he escaped from a mental health facility–but that was after he served a year in a military prison.

    The question is why he was only sent to a military prison for a year. If he was found guilty of fracturing an infant’s skull by a court marital, why was he only given a year in prison? If battery on an infant resulting in the infant’s fractured skull doesn’t get you more than one year, then that needs to change.

    Whether he should have been free to buy a gun is a secondary question . The primary question should be why he wasn’t still locked up where he belonged.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.