Lafayette Theater Shooter’s Pistol Purchase Was Not, In Fact, Legal

Hi Point C9 (courtesy auctionarms.com)

According to ABC News, the handgun used in the Lafayette theater shooting this past week was legally purchased. “John Russell Houser, 59, bought the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun at a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama, in February of 2014, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference.” It is entirely possible that the pawn shop FFL holder followed all the rules, did a proper background check, and released the firearm in accordance with the laws. That said, the sale was still illegal. Why? One simple reason . . .

In order to purchase the handgun, the person in question would have completed the ATF’s “Firearms Transaction Record” paperwork, affectionately known as an ATF Form 4473. Anyone who has ever bought a gun from a FFL license holder should recognize question 11 (F):

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

As we already know, the attacker in this case was involuntarily committed to a mental institution after being judged a danger to himself and others in 2008. Legally, the person filling out the form would be required to tick the “YES” box — anything else would constitute a felony, as stated on the declaration that the buyer is required to sign. The problem in this case is that the attacker most likely lied, checked the “NO” box, and the subsequent NICS background check didn’t include that nugget of information.

And even if the ATF had discovered Houser’s lie, there’s almost no chance they would have done anything about it.

So this isn’t a story of broken gun laws, but one of a broken system. Just as in the case of the Charleston church shooting, the attacker in question purchased his firearm from a law-abiding gun dealer who dutifully followed the law to the best of their abilities. Where things broke down in both instances was that the NICS system apparently did not have the relevant information at hand, and as a result the individuals (who should have otherwise been barred from purchasing firearms under existing laws) walked out with a brand new handgun.

Despite these two individuals falling through the cracks in the system, that doesn’t make this handgun purchase “legal.” The Lafayette shooter committed a felony when he lied on his ATF Form 4473, and the system simply didn’t have enough information to detect it. So before the rallying cries go up for more gun control laws, can we at least try to fix the existing system? Crazy as that idea might be, it might just work.

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Gonna go out on a limb here Nick, but if the gun was bought at a pawnshop, I might bet it was not a new handgun.

    1. avatar Matthew says:

      What does that matter Dirk? Used vs new guns make no difference in a background check.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        The article said he walked out with a NEW handgun. relax

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Relax
          Frankie Goes To Hollywood

        2. avatar Dennis Rymon says:

          New to him?

    2. avatar Zach says:

      From my personal experience, our finer gun stores in Georgia do not keep Hi-Points in stock but most pawn shops have new ones for sell. Remember a brand new Hi-Point is still cheaper than a used .40 Glock, SIG, S&W, Ruger, HK, basically every other brand.

      1. avatar 3006Al says:

        Houser bought the Hi Point in AL.

    3. avatar Zach says:

      By the way, don’t most used hi-points end up in police evidence storage or in the bottom of rivers, lakes, and ponds.

      1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

        Or chocking your tire, when jacking your rig up.

        1. avatar tmm says:

          Wouldn’t that job be better filled by a brick? Wait…

    4. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      NEW Hi-points sell for less than 200bucks-I have have found pawn shops to be ultra strict…

    5. avatar Mark N. says:

      For all sales, new or used, an FFL muist perform a background check. Private sales (in most states) do not require background checks.

    6. avatar mark s. says:

      Lots of pawn shops sell new guns . Where do I miss it ?
      The problem always is some dumb whack off not doing their job correctly . No rewards mean ‘ no do job right’ . No one seems to give a shit what kind of quality they put into their job anymore ……………. No integrity .
      I was brought up to always do my best at everything I did , even if it was carrying out trash , sweeping a floor or cleaning a toilet , my reward was ‘ I did my best ‘
      I once had a little altercation with a police officer in a tiny community where my attorney was able to get me community service as opposed to a felony sentence and jail time . I built playgrounds , cleaned the city parks , cut grass , removed brush and weeds and even cleaned out a vagrant nest in an old well house on state hospital property that had accumulated about 18 inches of bum debris over many years . I spent an entire day removing all the crap and by the time I was done you could eat off the floor . point being , I DID A GOOD JOB , so good in fact , that by the end of my 30 day community service , the city mayor , chief of police , the police officer I punched and a few other city officials offered me a job .
      I can’t even get what I want on my fast food anymore and the stuff is just thrown on the bun .
      Anyway , PAWN SHOPS SELL NEW GUNS .

    7. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Gonna go out on a limb here Nick, but if the gun was bought at a pawnshop, I might bet it was not a new handgun.”

      Having worked at 3 pawn&gun shops over the years, they all sold new low-end guns like the Hi-Point, Jennings, Bryco, Lorcin, etc.

    8. avatar B says:

      That question can’t be legal. The NFA was nearly repealed due to the courts ruling forcing criminals to register their guns was self incrimination and it had to be amended to reflect that.

      1. avatar Rat says:

        A Pawn Shop with an FFL can sell new guns, I used to work wholesale yrs back and one of my biggest accounts was a pawn shop. And he bought hi end guns ,not cheap junk

    9. avatar john says:

      Lots of pawn shops sell guns and have a license to.

    10. avatar Mike Tinsley says:

      Sorry to burst that bubble, but I have personally purchased Hi-Point pistols and carbines “new in the box” from pawn shops that order and stock new weapons so they have adequate selection for their customers. Eastern NC.

    11. avatar Dave says:

      Here in the south, actual gun shops are rare. The pawn shop takes care of this role, selling new and used.

    12. avatar Marc Spector says:

      In point of fact many pawn shops do indeed sell new guns as well as used. We have several in my area.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    To be precise: the sale was legal, but the purchase was not.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Chip, you make a really pertinent distinction here; and, in a succinct way that I wish I could emulate.

      The 4473 form is nothing more than a voluntary-compliance “parchment barrier” to keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited-persons. To rely upon criminals or crazies to abandon their quest to arm themselves upon answering a question honestly is pure fantasy.

      The muddy details of the recent NICS-check failures lie deeply in the underlying data processing challenges. The Charleston perpetrator was wrongly delayed – apparently – because his misdemeanor arrest was mis-coded as a felony by the originating law-enforcement agency. Had this mistake not been made he would have been given an instantaneous “PROCEED” response.

      The mess we associate with NICS is NOT – in fact – in the NICS system FFLs use. Instead, it is in the FBI’s databases underlying both the NICS and NCIC inquiry systems. Of far greater concern to society is that law enforcement officials have incomplete, out-of-date and inaccurate results from their NCIC inquiries. LEOs – after all – inquire after persons for whom they have probable cause (or at least reasonable suspicion) of being law breakers.

      Public safety calls for cost-effective efforts to improve the FBI’s databases for NCIC. Should NICS inquires be improved, that is an incidental benefit.

      Our rhetoric needs to be focused upon the ineffectiveness of the BC at point-of-sale. Americans are delusional if we imagine we can impact guns in the hands of prohibited-persons through P-o-S BCs.

      If – and to the extent – that we conceded of the Constitutionality and efficacy of any single class of “prohibited persons” then we need the FBI’s databases to detect felons-in-posession.

      (I acknowledge that a segment of the PotG hold that no one lacking the right to possess a gun should be at liberty in the US. While a reasonable principled position, it is not politically realistic to implement. We must concede that at least 1 prohibiting criteria IS Constitutional – that of baring those who have renounced their American citizenship – however lacking in moral or practical justification. We must also acknowledge that a majority of our own constituency would not agree to violent felons released from prisons summarily recovering their 2A rights, nor for the insane, nor for illegal aliens and perhaps some other classes.)

      Our beef is not – precisely – with the idea of a “BC”; i.e., an inquiry into the recorded history of a person’s antecedent disqualifying behavior. The ability to effect such inquiries upon a lawful arrest is Constitutional and socially justified. Therefore, the databases enabling these inquiries are justified and necessary.

      Instead, our beef is that such inquiries are utterly useless at point-of-sale for gun transfers. THIS – and ONLY THIS – is the core of the message we need to communicate.

      Quite incidental to this core message is the distinction between:
      – BCs in the venue of the FFL; vs.
      – BCs in the context of non-dealer transfers.

      The NICS inquiry in the FFL is mostly (90% or so) a nuisance. A nuisance is a nuisance and it is fodder for bitching among ourselves. It is a DISTRACTION from much more serious complaints that John Lott argues eloquently. A few percent of the delays are due to false-positives that take time to work-out. In a few such cases the buyer is a vulnerable individual facing an immediate threat.

      No more outstanding an illustration is known than that of the tragic story of the late Carol Browne. She didn’t even enjoy the 3-day potential delay at her FFL. Her fate was sealed by the NJ legislature which insisted upon the return of a fingerprint check before she would be permitted to buy a pistol. Had her police chief issued her permit when she inquired 42 days after applying, she would have had a chance to buy her gun 2 days before she was stabbed to death in her driveway. This is the “prior restraint” argument that we SHOULD be arguing (not our petty complaint about occasionally having to make a second trip to the gun shop when our BC is delayed.)

      The prior-restraint issue illustrated by Carol Browne’s death – which can easily occur within 3 days at an FFL – must be addressed. And, it is feasible to achieve the political consensus for such a resolution. Thereupon, there are other more important fish-to-fry than the burden of a 2’nd trip to the gun-shop.

      The major complaint about UBC is that we are now in a context far removed from the FFL sales-floor. Peaceable and (otherwise) law-abiding gun owners WILL NOT COMPLY with UBC. This fanciful yet futile idea promises to make felons of millions of citizens who transfer tuns to other peaceable and 2A-able borrowers and buyers. Why would Americans insist upon putting these taxpayers in prison?

      We PotG are failing to make this argument clear to the under-informed public. The logic of this argument would be comprehensible and persuasive, if we bothered to make it. Instead of asserting a politically persuasive argument we waste our few precious moments on the “stump” appealing to abstractions of liberty and respect for Constitutionality. That our appeals are valid doesn’t make them politically effective.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        +++ Kind of like the gun control argument. . .

        “Consider, as well, the attempts to limit the possession of firearms, as a means towards
        their complete and permanent disposal. The futility, and danger, of this idea can be
        demonstrated by pointing one’s first and middle finger at someone with one’s thumb pointed
        straight up and the other two fingers cupped towards ones’ palm. One doesn’t have to utter
        ‘bang’ for most of the population of the earth to recognize what is being mimicked.
        Therefore, since the idea of firearms [a gun] cannot be eradicated, then their legal
        possession by the lawful must be maintained as a contradictory threat to their actual creation,
        possession and use by the unlawful [9]. Employing the maxim ‘I will not pay to raise up an
        army against myself’, hypothetically, I will not pay (provide support in any way) for you to
        prevent me from protecting myself against you, or other foe, who does not feel equal compulsion
        to support such a doctrine.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012 pg. 39]

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          I remember that one . Who did the modern day rewrite ? Pretty good .
          Thanks for that . I think I’ll go back an take a refresher now .

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The defects in the MICS system are well known. Not only bad data, but no data, as exemplified by the Virginia tech shooter, a prohibited person, who was able to buy a gun because the state in which he was committed for mental health treatment did not report to the feds, whether for lack of money, lack of compatible computer systems, or lack of desire (a political decision some states have made). Consequently, NICS is full of holes, and many prohibited persons slip through. Nor does the system catch straw sales. And as noted, the government rarely prosecutes perjury on the 4473s. Even California, which maintains its own separate system (in addition to using NICS) is admittedly out of date with respect to the ownership of guns, which is why it is not an easy task to try to “recover” guns from prohibited persons.

      3. avatar Bayushi says:

        Actually, I believe that the problem lays with legislation that made it illegal to disclose people’s mental health records without a bench warrant.

        This obsession with coddling the terminally crazy is getting other innocent people killed.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          So… Your mother in law calls the cops and says you are crazy. The cops haul you to their friendly associated shrink and they toss you in the “mental” clink. Your name and address, etc. is posted all over town so “everyone” will know you are a dangerous mental case criminal.

          But what did you actually do? Criticize her meatloaf? And how in hell do you ever recover your good name and reputation?

          Yes, that may sound like a silly example, but it is no more unlikely than almost any other if you give the cops and shrinks enough power. And none of that would even come close to preventing others – or even you – from killing helpless, unarmed people whenever you got the opportunity.

          Get over the idea that the “mentally ill” can be readily identified, let alone be prevented from harming others if that is their wish. MOST of those who have mental and emotional problems never harm anyone, but they sure do make handy helpless victims.

        2. avatar JSJ says:

          Ma Liberty’s example isn’t far off the mark.
          Up through the 1960’s it wasn’t unheard of for men to have their wives committed if they discovered their husband’s infidelity. The infuriated woman was “diagnosed” with various mental diseases with little recourse and few legal options.
          While the system has changed considerably since then, it’s still set up on a “Better Safe than Sorry” basis, where you will be held for observation (“involuntarily committed”) if the right person makes the call.
          You have no judicial recourse and lose your 2A rights for life. Making these records easily available is a double edged sword.

        3. avatar Eric says:

          RE: “I believe that the problem lays with legislation that made it illegal to disclose people’s mental health records without a bench warrant.”
          That legislation is called the CONSTITUTION. What is wrong with it?

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Perhaps, and probably so, but not necessarily definitely so. The buyer was a mental defective and the subject of a DV order. I don’t know what the seller knew at the time of the sale. However, regardless of the outcome of the NICS search or the buyer’s indications on the 4473, it would still be illegal for the seller to complete the sale if the seller had reasonable cause to believe that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.

      For example, if the buyer showed up at the gun store obviously high, that would be an indication that he’s an abuser of a controlled substance. It wouldn’t be 100% proof, but an indication, and certainly sufficient for the seller to have reasonable suspicions.

      If this killer showed up at this store and made any comments about his past that were relevant to his eligibility, or if his behavior at the time of the sale would give someone reasonable cause for suspicion about his eligibility, then the NICS doesn’t necessarily provide the seller with cover for having gone through with the sale. The sale itself, not just the purchase, could still have been illegal.

      1. avatar Rat says:

        If any of those things happened . the FFL holder has the right to refuse the sale of said firearm

    3. avatar gsnyder says:

      +1 Concrete and concise. Always great comments.

    4. avatar Wayne Gilmore says:

      The sale nor the purchase was legal, not only had this man been adjudicated deficient, he also was under a restraining order. Which automatically disqualifies purchase of a firearm. The form is the important part, not the weather the gun was new or not.

      1. avatar twency says:

        You’re missing the point. The purchase wasn’t legal but they sale was legal because the seller complied with the requirements of the law: he obtained the required paperwork and he completed the required background check.

        The illegality, the crime, was committed by the purchaser. The seller acted lawfully and (presumably) in good faith.

  3. avatar DoomGuy says:

    No. We don’t need to “fix” the system. We need to scrap it. There FTFY.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      ^^^ This.

      I don’t want government “fixing” any system. I want government to stop all infringement.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Agreed. In my line of work, we say that you shouldn’t try to do better what you shouldn’t be doing at all. Some things should be eliminated, not improved.

        1. avatar Rat says:

          any thing they try to fix gets screwed up worse all they can do is throw money at stuff.

    2. avatar ANgryaz says:

      This

  4. avatar Craig says:

    In RI, “fixing NICS” was favored by the RIGOP a couple years ago. Sufficed to say it didn’t go anywhere. Question is, is this really something we should be pushing for nationally or in states don’t require a background check besides the 4473?

    I’d rather jump off a sinking ship than try to fix what’s already wrecked.

  5. avatar scooter says:

    Stop making sense! Anti-gunners hate that! Facts only confuse them and data gets them agitated.

  6. avatar Randall says:

    Or abolish the system altogether since criminals and crazies get guns with the system in place. Shall not be infringed.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    No, that won’t “work.” The impossible dream of being able to identify and prevent people from harming others can only harm everyone else. Such pipe dreams of government “systems” being effective can only open the door to more and more government control of everything involved, more and more surveillance and ever tighter criteria for the few “allowed” to defend themselves in any manner.

    He can’t have a gun!!! He looked at me funny…. he must be “crazy.”

    A person who wants to harm others has a vast number of options to obtain a gun, or any other weapon. The weapon, and how he obtained it, isn’t the problem. What he did with that weapon IS the problem. Being able and willing to defend ourselves is the answer to the problem.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      In case it has not crossed anyone’s mind, it would be exceedingly easy for a government bureaucrat to declare that a person is legally “crazy” because the person does not embrace the Progressive vision of nanny-state government. After all, who in their “right mind” would reject cradle-to-grave coddling and oppose the Almighty State? Surely such a mindset is adequate criteria on its face to involuntarily commit someone to an “institution”.

      Before you dismiss such a notion as silliness, history is replete with examples of governments who declared political opponents to be “incompetent” or “enemies of the state” and thus justify imprisoning them.

      I don’t want a truly insane person to acquire firearms. Unfortunately, there is no way to safeguard us from ambitious government agents who would label us to justify removing us from society.

      1. avatar David Schantz says:

        The former RSSR declared many folks that opposed them insane. Many were locked away for ever.

        God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          Same thing and more so in Mao tse Tung China . Good point .

      2. avatar Rat says:

        Have they not already put Patriots and terrorist almost in the same box?

  8. avatar Powers says:

    This is going to seem stupid, I am not a lawyer…
    But putting aside the political bs that the antis would push on the public..is there a legal case that could make the background system be stopped? To me the Constitution is the paper that lets me buy a gun. But obviously the politicians don’t agree.
    I know it would as hard to get rid of the NFA as the backgrounds..but was wondering if a lawyer or someone more versed in the legalities could lay it out as to what they would argue to convince from a purely legal aspect?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Powers,

      Your question, “… is there a legal case that could make the background system be stopped?” is a moot point because our United States Supreme Court refuses to hear new cases on the Second Amendment. And even if they did hear a case, they would decide the case based on politics rather than the crystal clear rule of law.

      Unfortunately, our United States Supreme Court is illegitimate at this point.

      And for anyone who scoffs at my statement, the Second Amendment is crystal clear that no government can legally infringe on the right of the People of the United States to keep and bear arms. Period. Unlike the Fourth Amendment that allows reasonable searches and seizures, the Second Amendment does not allow reasonable infringements. Rather, it allows NO infringements.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Let us all bow our heads and close our eyes and thank God , that ‘ this court ‘ will not hear a second amendment case .

  9. avatar JWM says:

    8 comments in and no mention of the Hi Point…..

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      George Zimmerman used a kel-tec pf9. It also did its job

      1. avatar JWM says:

        I wasn’t knocking hi point. I have owned ravens and jennings, etc. I was mostly referring to our gun snobs.

    2. avatar brentondadams says:

      Trust me I thought about it. Its early here, Im to tired to pick on hi-point.

      Let me get warmed up.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        As far as we know, the Hi-Point used in this case functioned flawlessly.
        Their sales will go up. Most would-be gun buyers have never heard of Hi-Point until today.

        1. avatar Gary Kimberlin says:

          My first pistol was a JHP. Initially had frequent failures to feed which have resolved themselves. As mentioned, they are accurate. Low recoil even in .40 S&W due to the heavy slide. It is my current trunk gun. Too big even for open carry, it serves its purpose. It would be inexpensive to replace if lost though there is a lot of sentimental value.

    3. avatar Ken says:

      My first handgun was a used Hi-Point. Besides being cheap, heavy and ugly, it was accurate and reliable. It only has a 10 shot magazine but as we know and the anti-gun crowd doesn’t, that is only a minor inconvenience.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        A used Hi-Point is the perfect gun to have on hand when they come around to confiscate guns…

    4. avatar mark s. says:

      Hi Point make good heavy firearms for the dollar value . Fine guns . ( 9 mm carbine ) niiiiiiceeeee !!!

  10. avatar ThomasR says:

    Nope, Nick, big fail. The NICS is a clear infringement of our right to KABA.

    We went for over two hundreds without a NICS civil right violation.

    Trying to “fix the existing system”, a system that violates our rights, is the wrong direction to go.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      NICS is constitutional. The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” NICS is NOT a gun regulation is is a commerce one. That is why the firearms must be transported across state lines before NICS comes into effect. In theory (an there are actual practical examples) if a firearm is made in a State, it can be sold in the same State without going threw a FFL. Now how far some laws push the Commerce Clause is really question, read Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Honestly, that is the law that makes me want to puke when it was declared constitutional.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        You can make a commerce statement for practically every act that someone might do in a free nation. The federal power grabs related to the commerce clause are sickening.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          I agree that they push it way too much, look at the safe school act, however you can’t really argue that guns crossing state lines for the purpose of commerce is not commerce. So now you are arguing about who the Federal government can restrict from owning firearms. That can get really messy. Personally, I think that they should just introduce an unsupervised prole system, so say an released felon would have an extra 5-20 years of unsupervised prole and after that time if there was no recidivism their full rights would be restored and records expunged.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …however you can’t really argue that guns crossing state lines for the purpose of commerce is not commerce.

          The issue is that “among the States” does not equal “among individuals”. The former is enumerated in the constitution; the latter is not. The federal government has no enumerated constitutional authority to interfere with commerce between and among individuals.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        …shall not be infringed (except when subject to interstate commerce)?

        NICS is unconstitutional. It infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, by subjecting the obtaining of arms to a government permission check, and de facto registry. That it regularly returns false negatives, explicitly denying the right of law-abiding people to obtain arms, only escalates the unconstitutionality.

        1. avatar Binder says:

          Only if the firearms cross state lines
          “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”
          That comes in before the second amendment

      3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        And the “commerce” that is being referred to is that the Federal government has the power to overturn state restrictions on interstate commerce. It means that one state cannot put a tax on goods from another state. It means that one state cannot bar goods from another state from crossing it’s boundaries. It does not mean that the government can tell us what kind of light bulbs we can buy. How much water our toilets can use. Or that the Feds can interfere in any way in a private transaction. The Commerce Cause has been misinterpreted, abused and exploited by lovers of big government for decades.

        1. avatar Rat says:

          I agree

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          +1

          The Constitutional rot runs too deep in too many place and yet so many people convince themselves that we will incrementally get the free exercise of our RKBA back and then everything will be A-okay. Yeah, good luck with that.

          It’s going to take some serious heavy lifting within one, but no more than two, generations to right this Titanic. It’s going to take men and women with steel resolve, willing to pledge their lives and fortunes. I’m not so sure that our people are up to task. 🙁

        3. avatar Binder says:

          OK so you interpret “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” to only include taxes???, Where did that come from? Are you saying that private company can dump waste into a river that crosses state lines because they are not a direct vessel of the local state (as long as they don’t violate local laws). Why don’t we just limit arms to flintlocks while we are at it

  11. avatar neiowa says:

    It would be very interesting to know out of all 4473 annually how many/what % of YES responses to “question 11″ where/are addressed by ATF/Dept of NoJustice”.

    My bet it would amount to less than diddly squat. STILL. By now it is well established that shooter are largely nutters (and Islamist). Both protected groups by the demtards. The 1st as dem voters (who is a more reliable dem voter than a nutjob) and the 2nd on general antiChristian “principles” (and Obumer loves em).

    1. avatar H says:

      “Nutters or Islamists”?

      Really?

      It’s not that simple. Life’s not that simple. Most/all of any group aren’t “bad.” There are outliers.

      You may be putting all Muslims in a group that hates you, but you don’t like it when the anti gunners put all PoG in one group. Guy shoots up a movie theatre they take everyone’s guns away. No likey? I no likey.

      First step to clarity, get off MSNBC & FOX. Do your own research. Question, question, question. Arrive at your own opinion.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        It seems to me that, up until the Chattanooga shooting spree (which may or may not have had anything to do with Islam as opposed to an infamous suicide), there haven’t been any Muslim shooters here. Most of the mass murderers have been white Anglo males (Virginia Tech being an exception), and mostly teens or twenty somethings.

        1. avatar Joe says:

          no muslim shooters?

          Chattanooga
          Fort Hood

        2. avatar mark s. says:

          Just because they say they are Islamic and scream Allah Akbar doesn’t mean they’re Muslim , Work place violence is all it is , I mean really , people just don’t get it do they . Fort Hood and Chattanooga , really ! They were just angry at their masters . It’s all good .

  12. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Yeah, but they aren’t going to let facts get in the way of their narrative. That ABC article was written in a way to make most people think he could have just easily walked into a big box store and bought his gun right out of the case.

    It’s really scary to see how the media is really doing what you guys talked about in your last article about Australia and how the media went full spin on anything and everything gun related to herd the maximum number of sheep into the wolves den. My money says the next gun grab will be a significant push to curtail handguns not ARs. At least that’s the way the wind seems to be blowing on the most recent shootings. History does in fact repeat itself.

    1. “That ABC article was written in a way to make most people think he could have just easily walked into a big box store and bought his gun right out of the case.”

      Well, yeah. Why couldn’t he have? Pawn shop or big box store, the process is exactly the same. Yes, Houser could have bought a gun at a big box store right out of the case, just as he did from the pawn shop. He would have filled out the same 4473, he would have lied in the same way, the NICS background check would have approved him, and he would have went on his way with a brand new gun, right out of the case.

  13. avatar Galtha58 says:

    How to you keep a mentally ill person who wants to go out and kill others and maybe himself from checking the wrong box on the form ? Doubt that he cared about the consequences of that and there seems to be nothing in place to tell if he was lying. Seems like the system is a bad joke for people like this and those who suffer the consequences of their actions.

    1. avatar JWM says:

      The system is a sad joke on those of us who try to live within the law. But then it was set up to harass the law abiding. Not the law breakers.

      It might not have been meant that way. But that’s the end result.

  14. avatar Rick K says:

    Good article Nick!
    If the antis would pull their collective heads out of their butts they would realize that we don’t need more laws, but an overhaul of the existing.

    Of course in their minds that would unleash them to go crazy with more frivolous stipulations and rules. Careful what you ask for! We are not dealing with rational thinkers with adherence to 2A and the Constitution/Bill of Rights as their priority.

  15. avatar PeterC says:

    Requiring a truthful answer from felons and nut jobs might be construed as violating their Fifth Amendment rights.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      It might also be called delusional.

  16. avatar JD says:

    Sitting in my shop right now is a 357 revolver shipped in from CTD. The buyer had his CCW that was 3 months issued and said he was buying the gun for his armed security job. He came back denied. I went on to explain the appeal process. He said never mind I’m calling my attorney because he said the charges would be dropped. The buyer calls the next day wanting to know if his mother, brother, uncle, boss etc could come in and get it. Of course not! A couple weeks go by and he calls and says his attorney says the matter will be dismissed soon and he will be able to get it then, CTD will not take it back and will we hold it? We told him yes. Now it’s 9 months later and he calls yesterday saying he was found not guilty and the judge is going to send us a letter telling us to release the gun. I told him no problem, once the letter gets here we will have him come in and fill out a new 4473 and if it clears he can have the gun. He wants to know why he needs the BG check if we have a letter from the judge and I told him the judge has no power to release a firearm and we only do what NCIS says to do. If he fails the background then he will have to appeal the decision and if they approve then he can have it. That just pisses him off but to damn bad. I told him that he’s the one who ordered a gun while under indictment and then lied on the form saying he wasn’t which in itself is a felony. I relayed this info to the local ATF yesterday and they could care less. Response from them was OK, it happens, if he passes the next BG check then its all good.
    The only thing the current adminstration wants is total civilian disarmament. Enforcing the laws on the books is not enough. The media and admin are screaming about 3 dead in Louisiana but are silent about the 40 dead and 240 shot since July 1st in Chicago. Or the 4 dead this week alone and the weeks not over. This is in a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.
    Who cares how the guy got his gun? Fact is he killed people in a “gun free” zone. Another stupid liberal policy that doesn’t accomplish anything other than to make easy targets.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The only thing the current adminstration wants is total civilian disarmament.

      That’s the natural tendency of any administration in any government. Some administrations just push harder than others. But, government won’t be able to successfully disarm a population without the help of useful idiots…

      I told him that he’s the one who ordered a gun while under indictment and then lied on the form saying he wasn’t which in itself is a felony. I relayed this info to the local ATF yesterday and they could care less.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The media and admin are screaming about 3 dead in Louisiana but are silent about the 40 dead and 240 shot since July 1st in Chicago
      Black lives matter, unless they are killed by other blacks.

  17. avatar Sian says:

    NICS needs to be fixed or round-filed, period. A system that misses exactly the sort of transactions it’s designed to stop is USELESS.

  18. avatar Anonymous says:

    This guy is crazy – mentally defective. We can debate all day about what laws should be passed and what laws should have been enforced that weren’t, but regardless, none of these can stop crazy. Trying to keep him from getting a gun isn’t the solution. Also, stricter mental health laws likely wouldn’t be worth it (are we going to mandate everyone in the US undergo a mental health check yearly? Didn’t think so). Even if this guy couldn’t get a gun, he likely would have still gone on a rampage. I personally am glad he used a gun. If he used cans of gasoline or an ANNM bomb or similar he would have killed many more than he did. Anti’s like to argue that you can’t buy ammonium nitrate – but it’s BS. You don’t need to:

    http://chemistry.about.com/od/makechemicalsyourself/a/make-ammonium-nitrate.htm

    A mixture of pure ammonium nitrate with 6% diesel fuel + homemade blasting cap = giant bomb. If he had gone that method or the arson method:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack

    …a lot more would have been killed, so his use of a gun to me is much preferred over these other methods.

    Every country has crazy people, and normal people can go crazy at any time, so honestly what can you really do about it? Unless you want to take part in an attempted 1984/Brave New World utopia, this is what we have to live with. I accepted a long time ago that the world isn’t a picnic.

    1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      Excellent point. Anyone intent on creating mass casualties can do it easily. The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 from easily obtained material and more recently Boston’s bombing killed 3.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “The Oklahoma bombing killed 168 from easily obtained material and more recently Boston’s bombing killed 3.”

        The Oklahoma City bomb wasn’t just Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil. There was a ‘special sauce’ so to to speak (And *no*, I’m not telling you what it is).

        More crucially, to initiate the bomb, they used detonating cord. (Det cord has PETN explosive in it. It’s a very fast explosive, 20 k feet per sec.)

        They had to have contacts to get det cord. They didn’t get the recipe from ‘Uncle Fester’s’.

        The Ok.City bomb info didn’t come from some website. Someone with EOD training taught them.

        The Boston device was built from instructions in that jihad publication, so don’t be surprised if anti-fireworks legislation come down the pike.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ANFO has to be kicked hard to go boom.

          This video shows how fast PETN is, watch from 2:40.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Special Sauce? You mean like anhydrous hydrazine mixed with nitromethane as an additive to a light and high energy fuel?

          I think McVey used nitromethane only. Anhydrous hydrazine is extremely difficult to handle as it is extremely toxic, flammable, corrosive, and unstable.

        3. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Per http://www.wnd.com/2001/05/9372/ McVey’s bomb was made from readily available materials: fuel oil and fertilizer.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Anonymous – Yes, nitromethane was part of the sauce.

          GayGunOwner – World Net Daily doesnt exactly have a sterling reputation.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Anonymous: 🙂 🙂 🙂

  19. avatar Shire-man says:

    On PBS Newshour last night they interviewed a reporter from USA Today who is apparently tracking multiple homicide events.
    I expected the typical “gunzerbad” tripe but the USA Today reporter stuck tot eh facts and the facts alone being most of these events are family related, “assault rifles” are not involved in most of these events, 15% are committed with weapons other than firearms and to the point of this post when asked about legal/illegal purchases the reporter said that data is nearly impossible to collect because of failures of NICS and straw-buyers and finished with saying that even if they could collect that data as with all criminal activity where there is a will there is a way and said data wouldnt be of any value.

    Of course that segment was followed by a roundtable of talking head morons chanting “we have to do something” over and over for ten minutes.

    1. avatar Kirk says:

      Ah! A fellow NPR listener! For me, it’s like a forced march, staying abreast of whatever lunatic thing the Left will come up with next.

      I suspect Lefties do not listen to, say, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin regularly, just to keep on their toes. At least, I’ve never met them.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        It’s like intelligence collecting.
        Every once in a while they get a report right and factual. Nearly causes me to drive off the road. The rest of the time it’s hysterical whining over the non-existence of unicorns or “why isnt everyone like us?” stories.

      2. avatar doesky2 says:

        Conservatives are awash in a sea of Leftist ideology 24/7/365.
        Conservatives cannot avoid hearing a constant stream of “settled facts” from the Left..

        Conversely, Leftists have to make a conscious effort to seek out the conservative arguments….and they don’t do that….because they know it ALL.

        So when it comes to a debate, we know all the leftist HuffPo Bullsheet, they don’t know our facts, and in the end they get trounced if the debaters capabilities are anywhere near equal.

  20. avatar Kirk says:

    I’ve handled one Hi Point, and my opinion was: What a POS.

    Frankly, I was shocked that any manufacturer could get away with producing such a manifestly defective, poorly designed and produced weapon. The K-Car of guns.

    Except that K-Cars worked as intended, at least for a while.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      When you say “get away with”, it sounds like you’re implying that something should be done about this company. HP is still in business because people buy their products – there’s a market for HPs.

      Forcing guns to not be cheap is a really sad part of gun control. It’s literally disarming potential new shooters and people who don’t have a lot of cash. Think how much food $625 for a new Glock or Beretta or Walther could buy.

      And in places with “what can be sold” laws, like Mass, people have to pay inflated prices for guns with 11lbs+ triggers and other stupid features, like neutered mags or chamber indicators or hammer blocks on guns that don’t need them. Hell, look at Tokarevs. They have to have safeties put on them before import.

  21. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    All government systems have one inherent flaw, people. People make mistakes, people get lazy, and people fail in their job. All of the background check laws and restrictions will not stop this from happening.

    I work for the government and see systems fail daily. Someone then has to come in and fix the failed system. There are also constantly expanding requirements. The bureaucracy continues to grow, preventing even the good workers from accomplishing simple tasks. There are too many regulations, rules and laws to remember or research. I bet the process to update the NICS database is clunky, non intuitive, and poorly constructed.

    As we have seen, throwing more money at the problem just doesn’t fix it. Just check out the ACA sign up website problems, the continued hacks into government databases, and NYS being unable to create the ammunition database according to the SAFE act.

    No matter what, the human element will always exist.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      But with government, there is no greedy profit motive.

  22. avatar Kirk says:

    In theory, the NCICS system can work. But…government.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Just a reminder to all the gun snobs out there. A Hi point long gun did quite well against four home invaders in Detroit two years ago. Mama bear and her three cubs were well protected.

      The second amendment is not just for people with lots of money.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Government forcing gun prices to be higher was one way to prevent newly freed slaves from purchasing a gun. This continued into the Jim Crow Era. It seems today’s racist gun control types are keeping this part of history alive and well.

  23. Regardless of what he put on his 4473 the NICS background check should have came back ‘deny’, unless his commitment was neutralized in the NICS system. Which is possible, depending on the state it was in, and if it was neutralized he could also legally check ‘no’ on that question, from what I understand.

    1. avatar JD says:

      He hadn’t been to trial when he ordered the gun and tried to get it. He had entered a plea and his attorney told him it would be dismissed. I understand innocent till proven guilty but I don’t think I would try to purchase a gun while I was waiting to stand trial on felony charges.

      1. avatar Rat says:

        f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
        affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? http://www.titleii.com/pdf/4473.pdf that should have covered it

  24. avatar kap says:

    How much personnel information should the Government have in the name of safety! or is it about others and not yourself!
    who is the Judge of such information? Surely not our corrupt Justice, or our Government who facilitates more killings than all the Criminals in the USA
    What happens when a petty office manager doesn’t like you and has you labeled Like the VA!
    Talk about hypocritical, for Thee but not for me, then don’t forget interpretation of these laws and selective Enforcement ! We never needed this information and requiring this now is an appeasement too Anti American treasonous and Seditious elements in this Country solely for their makeover! Twisted Sister Law comes too mind ,

    1. avatar click boom says:

      well said

  25. avatar click boom says:

    I don’t really feel like advocating for a stronger fedcoat NICS system ($$$$$$$$$) is going to benefit anyone.

  26. avatar Mike walker says:

    Get rid of the system altogether. Anyone, anywhere, at any time can buy a gun. Then put the burden of protection on the individual.

    You can choose to have a gun or not. The government at any level does not have the resources to protect individuals. You are responsible for your own safety

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep except that I would say that the individual responsibility to protect themselves never shifted. Much like inalienable rights, certain inalienable responsibilities cannot be transfered. Even under guardianship, be it the state, private entity, or individual, that responsibility ultimately rests with the human organism. There is a lessor external moral and sometimes legal responsibility of the guardian but this is not quite the same as the inherent responsibility of the individual to himself. That individual responsibility cannot be lifted from that individual.

  27. avatar gsnyder says:

    Non-reporting of medical issues likely related to Gov’ts own restriction of data, HIPPA standards. I agree with medical data restrictions, but if a person is admitted to a mental institution it appears there needs to be a little sharing of data.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      No! You will see plenty of that “sharing” once the ACA (aka Obamacare) electronic databases get into full swing. It ain’t going to be pretty.

    2. God knows that shared information would be abused; and many good people with some minor emotional problems in their past will lose their 2nd Amendment rights forever. That would also disallow MANY veterans from owning firearms. We dont want that.

  28. avatar guest says:

    a lot of good statements here, more than I can read,—-the best that I can determine is that form 4473 as well as order of protections are just a piece of paper, and to quote the phase–scissors cut paper–making them practically useless————–one question—when politicians have their police force ‘fudge the numbers’ to make their city look safe, how does affect the fed’s stats to apply to background check?????

  29. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    On a certain gun FB group(fairly large) the mere mention of the dreaded Hi-point will get you banned (seriously). Similar disdain for Kel-tec(which I don’t get at all-my PF9 never failed but my used Hi-point NEVER worked).Still- better a Hi-point than a Lorcin,JA,Jennings or similar junk metal guns…

    1. avatar Rat says:

      Send you Hi Point back they have a lifetime warranty ,they will fix it or replace it ASAP and give you another mag for your trouble .I looked at one of theor9 carbine a few years back at the gun shop. and thought it looks like something put together in bubbas basements . Came home did some research on it and bought one . Have friend who also purchased one and the C 9 hand gun and none have had any trouble with theirs. Yours was used .maybe the previous owner goofed with it –Call– Beemiller

      1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        RAT-got it for nothing and sold it to a pawn shop for $75. No Hi-point pistols but I may get a SHTF carbine. I belong to 3 Hi-point FB groups(really) just to peruse the carbines-so I know the Hi-point fanboys love their boat anchors…

        1. avatar Rat says:

          they make good home stash gun .too bulky to carry the carbine I have is the old Plant of the Apes stock I just upgraded the stock to the newer style 25 yds It will throw two mags worth in a golf balll sized hole easy minute of squirrel head

        2. avatar mark s. says:

          They do go bang when you pull the trigger . That 995 TS is a beast , and pretty cheep to shoot . I had forgotten about it actually . I think I’ll get it out on the farm tomorrow . THANKS !

      2. avatar JD says:

        I like pistol caliber carbines and wanted something in 9mm. Sub2k was impossible to find, storm was way to much money so I found a HP 9 in a pawn shop for $85. Old style stock, beat to hell, had a broken head seperated case stuck in the chamber, and dirty as hell. Looking in the chamber with a scope it looked like somebody fried to get the shell out with a screwdriver. I sent it back to HP and two weeks later I get it back with a new barrel, new front sight, extra mag, and new trigger parts. No charge! For all I know I was the 10th owner but they didn’t even ask.
        Its to heavy, the trigger is nothing to write home about, ugly as sin, but it goes bang every time you pull the trigger and is pie plate accurate at 75 yards. For less than $100 I can’t complain.

        1. avatar Rat says:

          yeah stamped cast parts hex head bolts looks like a basement production ,but made IN THE US AND NO QUESTIONS ASKED REPAIR ~~

  30. avatar Rat says:

    ( Handled a Hi Point and declared it a POS.) Well sir I’m sorry, that’s an opinion not a fact. They are ugly , heavy, only 10 rds and not a good carry gun. but for dependability and home defense there’s not a thing wrong with them . search Youtube for the videos where they tried to destroy a C9 Hi Point –My God man they hammered a 3/8″ bolt onto the bbl and it didn’t blow up.,. OH YEAH not to forget they are made in the USA.

  31. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    Often interesting to check facts. GAO’s 2012 report on NICS bolsters many of the claims many have made here. See http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592452.pdf

    The NRA points out defects a dozen years (2000) before the GAO 2012 report. See https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000309/gao-finds-faults-with-fbi-s-nics-operat and GAO 2000 report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/g100064.pdf

    NetNet: lots of problems identified 15 years ago. Scant improvement since. More laws seem unlikely to remedy anything. Particularly when current ones aren’t enforced or sanctions applied.

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Well on Pee BS, they had Buffalo Bob ( sans Howdy Doody) stating that more background checks would close the evil gun show loop holes where all the big bad criminals all get their guns.

  33. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    On the description of this killer’s actions in the arson charge, and what all else he did to his house between selling it and being forced to move out of is after the sale, this whack job should never have been walking the streets, let alone possessing a firearm.

    This is yet another perfect example of a psycho who by any remotely reasonable standard was a public menace and nutcase, who finally crossed over into murderous violence. Surprise, surprise……

    And yet we consistently hear from the psychopath apologists club that the mentally unwell are generally not dangerous. Uh huh. The mentally unwell includes people who routinely cry themselves to sleep because the sun set that day. They’re kooks, but not raging crazies. This man and a long line of prior spree shooters evinced unambiguous psychotic behavior revealing themselves as a danger to themselves and others. We don’t need to line up the entire population for mental health screenings. How about we just lock up and treat the ones who ALREADY have committed flagrantly insane and violent acts? Let’s just start there, and leave aside the hyperbole about not being able to screen and detect homicidal tendencies among many millions?

    And yet we constantly hear the people of the gun decry any and all attempts to quarantine these rabid dogs. Enforce existing laws they demand, but when someone does, such as laws providing for involuntary commitment, then out come the full-throated, long winded editorials screaming like a wounded banshee about civil rights violations.

    Everyone wants to sit around discussing the rights of Man, like some dorm room bull session, but this is real. Every facile defense of firearms rights is a further surrender of firearms freedoms, for failing to address the root causes of this so-called gun violence. Guns don’t kill people? People kill people? Fine. Agreed. Then start doing something about the people, or start preparing for your firearms to be confiscated.

  34. avatar gsnyder says:

    Interesting however the MSM reports the gun was purchased legally and the man had been in an inpatient mental health facility. This leaves the person viewing the report to think, ahha, loophole, our system gives guns to crazy people! This was not on CNN, or NBC, it was ABC. Horrifically bias and crap news reporting.

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      Always was , always will be so slanted you can’t stand up on it .

  35. avatar David Zimmerman says:

    Obviously the system is messed up. Some of you are right and it needs to be scrapped. There is a very simple solution. A national data base that lists every convicted felon. In addition, it would be useful for voter registration. Also on this list should be anyone who has been committed whether voluntary or involuntary. That way the check can be done in a timely way. The Charleston shooter did everything right, but the police didn’t put the correct jurisdiction down which caused the delay of more that 3 days, so the dealer had every right to sell him the gun. Streamlining the process is what is needed, not complicating matters. In case of a dispute, there should be an appeals process to keep the system in check.

    Also, why all of the comments whether the gun was new or used from the pawn shop? It makes absolutely no difference in the end. New or used, the gun was bought by an unstable man who senselessly killed people. By arguing the new/used point only distracts from what is important. It’s easy to lose an argument when you start from a base of ignorance.

    1. avatar Rat says:

      “There is a very simple solution. A national data base that lists every convicted felon. In addition, it would be useful for voter registration.” I don’t want any Nation data base on anything. .As for voter reg. Yup they can find all the felons they want to register. Al l that info get screwed up and Hacked .

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        Rat. Could not agree with you more. Creds: 10+ years as a database administrator, experienced in leading mainframe and client-server databases. Be afraid, be very afraid.

        1. avatar Rat says:

          No system is fail safe. Trying to fix what we have at the feds level will be worse .look at Obama care the IRS

        2. avatar David Zimmerman says:

          So giving up is the best solution? Even Obamacare has gotten easier to navigate since the initial roll out. One must learn from their mistakes in order to improve. Throwing up your hands is the kind of defeatist attitude that only creates more problems and just bithching about how you can’t do anything on a comment section is simply the definition of weakness. Do something, put up some practical ideas, contribute to the debate. Don’t cave in.

        3. avatar Rat says:

          “Since then there had been no credible curtailing of the first amendment. Why not have some clear boundaries of the second amendment?”—- No credible curtailing on the 1st amendment? Are you kidding? today it’s got to the point you cannot even say anything that might remotely be construed as upsetting to another. We are on a slippery slope and peeps beast wake up to the fact the 2nd amend is not the only right threatened..

        4. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Agree.
          Mr. Zimmerman conveniently ignored those bastions of liberal principals that curtail speech. These range from failing to fire the University of California professor that ripped down an anti-abortion protestors sign on campus https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/uc-santa-barbara-professor-steals-young-anti-abortion-protesters-sign-apparently-assaults-protesters-says-she-set-a-good-example-for-her-students/ to similar prohibitions elsewhere.

          Many other examples in academia as a quick Google search reveals. Deeply troubling how students are to learn in an environment where the free exchange of ideas is suppressed or discouraged.

        5. avatar Rat says:

          This is and has been the plan .If I spoke of it 35-40 yrs ago my friends looked at me like I was nuts.it is the only way it can be done. short of bloodshed .and I will say again to all these tuff guys spouting let come and take ’em..~ That too will not happen .A stoke of the pen that makes them illegal. render them useless to you, When you pass they will collect them. no one gonna kick in your door. or they pick you up fror a traffic infraction ,hold you while they empty your home .I urge all to stay in contact worth their Reps.& Sen.be active in your community . Don’t ever depend on media to tell you what’s coming down , they will report after the bills passed.It’s up to you to be informed b/4

        6. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Give up? Hardly Have been arrested so many times in demonstrations that I’ve lost track. Plus strong advocate of the Shewart cycle for improvement.

          More recently got traffic circles installed to slow down speeders cutting through the neighborhood, better neighborhood street lighting, and flashing crosswalks for school children a block from my home. Trash receptacles installed at nearby transit stops to reduce litter, etc.

          This afternoon a group of us gay gun owners met to organize a shooting sports booth at an upcoming public festival. We’re acting because local shooting clubs (which many of us belong to as well) want to keep a low profile and shun any publicity. Closeted seems an apt description.

          Doesn’t seem right so we decided to act. A booth that features a laser target contest, Nerf, or even water pistols will begin to dispel public apprehension about firearms, We hope to rebut the false image that many associate with gun enthusiasts. No doubt we’ll get some vehement anti-gun sentiments, but many have experienced far worse in the irrational hate department.

          The battle for the hearts and minds of the public regarding gun rights will probably not be won in the courtroom, but neighbor to neighbor. Hope that by taking this initiative that area gun clubs will show more courage in promoting shooting sports.

          Will appreciate ideas for the booth and promoting shooting sports – especially inexpensive ones.

        7. avatar Rat says:

          The battle for gun rights has been fought in the schools thru the minds of our children for the last 40 yrs. the next generation will be Europe in North American. Short of what I don’t even want to imagine. They are controlled by social media. what ever is PC on there rules. Are totally ignorant on our history, on how and why they have the rights they do. Fear for your children as we will be gone.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Rat: Yes. IMHO, the long game looks like a losing proposition, especially with the indoctrination that has been well underway through compulsory education and throughout higher education. Social media has been the cherry on top for statists.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Let government enforce its own damned infringing laws and leave sellers out of it. If any seller wants to do a background check, let the seller use a private background check service. A few businesses will start up that specialize in firearms background checks.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        A few businesses will start up that specialize in firearms background checks.

        Still, garbage in, garbage out.

        If the appropriate state agencies do not report to the appropriate databases, the BGC is useless. If medical prohibitions (such as involuntary commitments) cannot be entered due to HIPAA, the BGC is useless. If medical or other prohibitions are not followed up with court orders to ensure that due process is followed in declaring someone a “prohibited person” (and those court orders subsequently entered), then the BGC is useless.

        What unintended consequences occur by opening up the free-flow of information between agencies (LEO, medical, etc.) and jurisdictions (fed, state, local) to ensure that the One Database To Rule Them All is kept current?

        Then, combine all that with the de facto registration that is the Form 4473, and we’ve got an even bigger problem. Maybe – maybe – if the purchase were decoupled from the BGC, then the BGC system could be opened up to everyone: enter a name/DOB/SSN, get a binary, pass/fail response (and perhaps a transaction number).

        Even so: the utility of the BGC system is specious. Criminals get their firearms through non-FFLs about 90% of the time, and there is zero reason to believe that criminals would willingly conduct BGCs for private transfers (family, black market, etc.). The entire system still remains nothing more than an interference with lawful transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens. And worse, making the underlying databases complete and accurate would probably require a level of government overreach and invasion of privacy that would make most people cringe.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I have no problem with garbage in, garbage out. It should be a completely voluntary, private system (no government involvement). Let the market hone it to the best or worst it can be. Of course, I would voluntarily not use a background check service for any firearm that I sold. Even now, if I sell a firearm, unless there is something to indicate a prohibited transfer, I sell. I don’t ask for ID.

        2. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Chip, Excellent points. But to the best of my knowledge, everything is pretty much in place today.

          Medical history? Arrests? Convictions? Yup X 3. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/technology/acxiom-the-quiet-giant-of-consumer-database-marketing.html?_r=0

          It’s just that the information is in separate databases handled by commercial information brokers. Unlike the Fair Credit Reporting Act, people for the most part don’t have a right of access, challenge, purge or disclosure as to where and how information on them was obtained.

          Would seem relatively straightforward for government (at any level) to use this data to identify those who might not qualify for gun ownership. Or match them to suspect purchases. New legislation along the lines of the Bank Secrecy Act (requires disclosure of any financial transaction of $10K or more) could flag ammo or gun accessory purchases.

          Am anticipating that San Francisco or Peoples Republic of Berkeley will do so.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The most important point that information being in the control of private entities is: should an individual’s ability to exercise a right be contingent upon information in a database maintained by a private (and, likely, commercial) database?

          Much of the information is public record (such as arrests), and I have no problem with private entities doing the work to collect and maintain that information. But some of the information is private, and subject to HIPAA restrictions. Having private entities privy to such information is inherently problematic. And decisions to deny the exercise of a right cannot possibly undergo due process if the information belongs to a private entity.

        4. avatar Rat says:

          If you have a smart ph you have no privacy anymore. the IRS has all your heath records (how long to that’s hacked) all the apps downloaded on the phones track everything you do and where you go and what you buy .Even TV & Washing machines are rigged. Did You know some TVs can listen into you and your wife’s conversations .Big Brother is no longer a fantasy. Think I’m nuts? do the research yourself .Most of this should be illegal or probably is. who’s going to enforce it.?.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Chip Bennett: RE: HIPAA and gov vs private

          IIRC, even government isn’t supposed to have access to identifying medical information without proper cause. (Of course, all bets are off with Obamacare now.)

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          John: in theory, yes. And that’s yet another reason that disqualifying medical information should be required to go through a court order to get into such databases: both to ensure due process, and to preserve (what’s left of) the confidentiality of medical records.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You’ll get no argument from me, Chip.

          (Remember though, I don’t think that there should be any government database at all. Any checks ought to be private, from private company databases, and voluntary. The data in their databases ought to be in compliance with law. Since the companies would likely have to pay for some of that information, some entities might be more likely to report information than not.)

  36. avatar Nate says:

    Furthermore the Index of NICS that holds mental health crap is optional for states to input into, like 90% of people who are in NICS as mentally incompetent are just a bunch of vets who said they had a headache and suddenly their dependa is getting the bills and they can’t do X, Y and Z.

  37. avatar David Zimmerman says:

    the basic point is to try. Leaving nothing in place leads to chaos. Is it better to have no checks or balances? Then everyone whether insane, violent criminal, etc. has clear access to the weapon of there choice under the second amendment. As a reasonable society we, for the benefit of each other, should endeavor to come up with something that will take the fringes out while ensuring the responsible ones their rights better to stop some through a flawed system than nobody. Think of the lives. Second Amednmenters have to rally behind some sort of reasonable parameters and not to shut down every proposal as being a slippery slope.
    It’s commonly accepted through case law and common sense that there are limits on the first amendment, the most widely known is you cannot yell fire in a movie theater. It was judged a reasonable limit on the first amendment in the first decade of the 20th century. Since then there had been no credible curtailing of the first amendment. Why not have some clear boundaries of the second amendment? Will the world end? American history, though volatile, has worked itself out over time. When the constitution was written, women couldn’t own property or vote. People, by virtue of even a tiny amount of “colored” blood had no rights. The constitution was written to change with the times. The second amendment is an example of that. An amendment, added later (though in this case not that much later). We as a nation and a people have grown and changed over time. It’s been an extremely difficult road and certainly everything isn’t perfect, but at least we keep trying.
    Reacting from the gut out of fear will not help. Fear is what breeds tyrants, a weak electorate, and a violent society.
    Stop. Think. Listen. Reason.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      There shouldn’t be any requirement. A free people must be able to freely bear arms. Some of us intend to belong to a free people. Unfortunately, some do not wish to remain free. IMHO, we need to return to some articles of confederation. That federal constitution experiment didn’t turn out so well in the end.

      You know there is this wonderful place called Europe, right? You might like it there. Just sayin’. 🙂

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Pop quiz: what impact did implementation of background checks have on the firearm-acquisition behavior of criminals?

      1. avatar Rat says:

        about as much a the drug war had effect on drugs coming into the country

    3. avatar Rat says:

      “Is it better to have no checks or balances? Then everyone whether insane, violent criminal, etc. has clear access to the weapon of there choice ” odd you say that as of now they pretty much do even with all the laws in place. there are too many avenues out side the laws that allow it. I’m sure you agree most shooting are druggies .gangbangers. so what’s stopping the same people who import the illegal drugs from supplying illegal weapons? These people cannot go to a gun shop and purchase ,but if they desire to do ill they will find one

    4. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      David, I hope you recognize the fallacious arguments in your plea. False dichotomy, emotive language, and deflection are among the ones I noticed. Would be nice to clearly articulate your point too. I got lost in the rhetoric.

  38. avatar 3006Al says:

    This article is inaccurate, in that if, if, Houser’s mental illness had been reported to the FBI NICS center they would have denied it, regardless whether or not the checked no no the pertinent question. This system works as long as NICS has all needed information. States need to be required to forward info on people diagnosed with mental illnesses (once facts are absolutely proven). The anti-2A liberals in DC prefer not to have such information in the NICS system; they want to use all the murders by mentally ill to ban firearms. By the way, all of the recent shootings took place in so-called gun free zones.

    1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      +1. Thanks for setting the record straight. Looks like there were 2 missed opportunities:
      1. Houser’s involuntary confinement was not recorded as you mention.
      2. Homeowners refused to press charges after he trashed their home upon his eviction. Judging from the damage description and photos, his vandalism might have risen to felony levels too (> $400 damage in CA; not sure about GA).

  39. avatar fsilber says:

    He was judged a danger to himself and others, and let free. When you free people who are a danger to themselves and others, this sort of thing is going to happen. Making it “harder” for such people to get a gun is a lower priority than ensuring that potential victims can defend themselves.

    1. avatar Rat says:

      Crazy people & Gun Free zones need to be addressed

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email