Devin Kelley Passed Background Check When Buying AR, Killed Himself After High Speed Chase

Devin Patrick Kelley passed a federal background check.

“Devin Patrick Kelley, the 26-year-old suspect in the attack on a Texas Baptist Church in which 26 people were killed and 20 wounded, is believed to have killed himself following a high-speed chase, Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt told CBS News on Monday.” As we mentioned earlier, the first responders outside the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church yesterday were two ordinary citizens.

We know that Stephen Willeford grabbed his gun and shot Kelley has he left the church. Willeford and Johnnie Langendorf then chased Kelley at speeds as high as 95mph while on the phone with 911. But they apparently weren’t just chasing him.

“There was some gunfire exchanged, I believe, on the roadway also, and then (the shooter’s vehicle) wrecked out,”

Tackitt  told correspondent Jeff Glor. “At this time we believe that he had a self-inflicted gunshot wound, after he wrecked out.”

We also now know that Kelley had applied for and was denied a Texas concealed handgun permit. This was likely due to the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the Air Force.

A former airman with the US Air Force, Kelley, received a “bad conduct” discharge from the military after charges of assault against his spouse and child led him to be court-martialed.

So Kelley should not have been able to legally own a firearm, let alone obtain a Texas CHL. However . . .

The federal government’s firearm transaction record, which buyers must legally fill out, asks about felony convictions. Kelley bought a Ruger AR-556 rifle, used in the attack on the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in April of last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, a law-enforcement official told CNN.

The purchase of the gun took place two years after Kelley had been court-martialed, imprisoned, and discharged from the military.

So Kelley likely lied on his form 4473. Not that anyone has ever dared to do that before. And two years after his discharge, shouldn’t the FBI’s NICS system have flagged that? Does the FBI NICS system even interface with UCMJ information?

Did the Air Force properly report Devin Kelley's criminal record to the FBI?

Wherever the failure in the system, someone’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

We’ve heard for years and will continue to hear more from our friends in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex about the importance of closing the so-called “gun show” loophole. They claim that “universal background checks” are a must in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons.

Yet virtually every high profile crime in recent years has been committed by someone who has either bought his firearms legally or, as seems to be the case with Kelley, lied on his background check form. So Senator Manchin, Senator Toomey, Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts and Ladd Everitt, please explain to us exactly how universal background checks will change…anything.

comments

  1. avatar little horn says:

    this is the only thing i probably ever agreed with obama on, the ATF namely NICS system needs more man power.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Or maybe it should be abandoned entirely . . .

      1. avatar Desert Dave says:

        ^^ The best solution ^^

        1. avatar little horn says:

          if you can muster a response that it being gone would make things like this less likely, im all ears. but then again, im not a fundamentalist in any aspect of the word so most likely we can just agree to disagree.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Interesting attitude. Seems to me, if the taxpayer is spending billions of dollars on a system which is apparently both useless and offensive to the taxpayer, it should be upon the government (or you, should you like to get in the mix) to show how it does *ANYTHING* to prevent a single death, rather than upon me to demonstrate how eliminating it would save lives.

        3. avatar Five says:

          Fix it or end it, otherwise it’s just expensive security theater.

        4. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          “Nix it or NICS, it’s just expensive security theater.”

          There. Fixed that for ya.

      2. avatar The Punisher says:

        Indeed. It’s always this:

        “So Kelley should not have been able to legally own a firearm, let alone obtain a Texas CHL. However . . .”

        Those “howevers” and “buts” will get you every time.

        Laws are only good for describing the punishment for committing a certain act. They can never prohibit the person from actually doing said thing.

        So no NICS check or background check or waiting period or being a “prohibited person” is going to ever make any difference to someone who has decided to commit murder.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      The NICS system is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment and in fact, like the BATFE itself, should not exist.

      There is no provision in the Second Amendment for the government to establish a system that by its very existence infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    3. avatar TruthTellers says:

      And just what can thousands of more ATF agents do to prevent these shootings? Nothing. This was a failure on the part of the feds who are supposed to have all the data on prohibited persons so that they’re denied.

      We’re going to find out in days why this POS wasn’t denied and it’s either going to be because the military justice department or whatever didn’t send this information to the FBI to update the killer’s record of the FBI was too busy investigating Trump’s Russia collusion and didn’t bother with updating his record.

    4. avatar Rand says:

      Get rid of NICS and start enforcing laws against crimes. The money spent on NICS is just chasing who/where someone bought a gun and has no value. Spend the money on crime enforcement and prisons to lock them up.

    5. avatar Fyodor Kamikov says:

      NICS is operated by the FBI. FWIW.

  2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Ah yes…. The divine and all-knowing Background Check where the evil gun dealer converses with the virtuous FBI to receive a bureaucratic blessing in accordance with Progressive Dogma.

  3. avatar Noishkel says:

    This is nothing new, at least not really new. A large portion of the most ‘successful’ mass shooters all were under mental health care that should have thrown a red flag into the system. But the Police just don’t bother to serve weapons seizure orders when someone has a 5150 order slapped on them for mental health reasons. Happened in both Aurora and it happened at the shootings of Representative Giffards.

    It’s a giant problem with the system all around. But as usual the Anti’s don’t care about the broken system as much as they think they can use it for direct gun control. But they don’t bother servicing the preexisting problems that keep these things happening.

    Personally, I’m just flat out against any background check law what so ever. And this is exactly the reason why. It’s completely useless for the interested purpose. Hell there is a lot of us pro-2A people that will accept some background checks, especially for people that are legitimately mentally ill and dangerous. But we still don’t support any new law because we all know how useless they are.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      That’s pretty much it. Yeah, it would be great if we could have a system in place to help prevent people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them (people with a violent past) but to pretend it will prevent all these incidents or murder is absurd. To pretend it won’t be abused by grabbers is equally absurd. They will use registration to deprive people of property they own in the end. I’m not a moderate on this (I oppose background checks in virtually any form) because government and the antis are inhernetly NOT trustworthy.

      Then again if they have a history of violent mental illness and/or criminality perhaps they should be somewhere they can’t hurt others or themselves.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Neither Aurora or Gifford’s attacker had been hit with a 5150. I am pretty certain that neither had been hospitalized at all prior to their attacks. Neither had a disabling record and bought their firearms lawfully. The closest you can get to that is that Aurora’s shrink had reported him to campus police as a person who was potentially dangerous.

  4. avatar Nativeson says:

    The feds screwed up again. And the gun grabbers want to give them even more laws to screw up. Nice solution to the problem.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    I wonder if his Air Force conviction was ever reported into NICS. And was his Air Force conviction the basis for the denial of the Texas license, or was there something else?

  6. avatar N64456 says:

    The first red flag of a violent felon is being (or raised by) a Democrat…

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Have you considered suing your parents for dropping you on your head?

      1. avatar N64456 says:

        Hey Democrat; Shouldnt you be out robbing a liquor store, or selling heroin to teenagers?

  7. avatar Chris says:

    TTAG’ers … there was another recent spree shooting in last couple of years where the NICS system failed on the purchase…which one was it? can’t recall now

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Dylann Roof.

      1. avatar Cliff says:

        And he shot up a church also.

        1. avatar Hoyden says:

          “Bowl cut” Roof didn’t actually pass his background check to buy his Glock .45ACP.

          The application was gummed up at the Fed level. After 3 days, the Feds either green lighted the purchase or the system defaults to “Go ahead” (reports haven’t been clear on what transpired), but Roof’s drug use should have been a no-go for any purchase if the system had worked as designed.

      2. avatar troutbum5 says:

        Dylan Roof was under 21, aonhe couldn’t purchase a handgun. His father gave him the pistol he used.

    2. avatar huntmaster says:

      Which one? Really? Just one?

  8. avatar DUG says:

    When the system fails the liberals feel the only answer is more government intervention. More gun control laws that won’t stop the next mass shooting. The only logical conclusion of this mind set is first universal background checks, followed by gun registration, voluntary by back, government confiscation. Semi-Auto weapons first then pistols. That’s the play book.

  9. avatar MLee says:

    All indications are than he received a court martial for a domestic violence. That is what precluded him from gun possession, the domestic violence conviction. His sentence was 30 days in the cooler and the bad conduct discharge.
    He was legally able to buy firearms. So much for the background check system. It would be interesting to know if he was cleared to buy, or the system timed out and the sale was allowed to proceed. Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      All reports I have seen said he was sentenced to 12 months in the brig, a reduction in rank by 2 grades, and a BCD.

      1. avatar Hoyden says:

        Broke his young stepson’s skull.

        In Texas that equates to “a man who needs killing”.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I wonder if that was wife number 1, and the most recent breakup was wife number 2, since there seems to be a young child involved in his “issues.”

    2. avatar MLee says:

      In my comment above, I mis-typed “He was legally able to buy firearms”
      That should have read that he was not legally able to buy firearms.
      Xfinity has been crappy this morning and I was unable to change my mistakes in time.

  10. avatar Pookiedr says:

    ATF Form 4473
    Question 11.g. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

    Not sure a “bad conduct” discharge meets the definition in question on the form.
    But I’m betting this one applies.
    Question 11.i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

    1. avatar MLee says:

      No it does not apply. A Bad Conduct Discharge does not carry the same weight as a Dishonorable Discharge.
      He was precluded from buying firearms because the nature of the crime he was convicted of, Domestic Violence, not the BCD. Even a state misdemeanor conviction of DV cooks your gun rights, even federally.

    2. avatar bob300 says:

      If I read the law correctly, any Court-Martial — Special Court-Martial, General Court-Martial, or a Summary Court-Martial — makes you ineligible to own a firearm.

  11. avatar rc says:

    “So Senator Manchin, Senator Toomey, Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts and Ladd Everitt, please explain to us exactly how universal background checks will change…anything.”

    As we all know, their ‘solutions’ aren’t designed to inconvenience criminals. They are designed to inconvenience and harass lawful, peaceful gun owners and deter as many people as possible from owning guns. That’s why the MSM never asks them such questions and why they never offer to answer them anyway. Honestly, it’s really all just a bunch of kabuki…everybody knows they want guns banned anyway….the only mystery is why they keep up this ‘common sense’ facade .

  12. avatar Rokurota says:

    So the NICS check didn’t do its job this time. But how many times has it worked? No one writes news stories about crimes that never happen.

    Enforcement failures are not an argument against the law per se. There are reasons to do away with NICS. This is not one of them.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      There’s plenty of data out there showing the wasteful uselessness of NICS.

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        Yes, that’s kind of what I said. I didn’t say NICS is awesome. I just said *this* failure is not a prima facie argument for its abolition. That’s like insisting seat belts be abolished because one seat belt wearer died in a crash.

        I wonder how many actual criminals/felons/abusers it does keep away from guns, though. We all know upstanding folks who have been denied, but there should be some way to measure the effectiveness of NICS on actual prohibited people.

  13. avatar 2Asux says:

    It is with reluctance that I comment, here, and now. Did not want to “politicize” such a tragedy as in Texas. As it is, it seems the “gun rights” cabal is doing the “politicization”, quite well. Without even having all the facts (did the former soldier have an actual bullet-proof vest?), the usual “shall not be infringed” silliness is rampant on gun blogs.

    Americans have a queer viewpoint on implementation of “common sense” gun laws. It is quite useless to drop into your mental bunker, clap your eyes shut and cover your ears while stomping around shouting “RTKBA” and such rubbish. Your rights are not now, and never will be absolute. Should they be? Irrelevant question. They are, and if you wish to call oneself “law-abiding”, you must abide the laws. But about that queer viewpoint: a good poorly implemented is a bad idea.

    Whilst I will agree that poorly implementing a bad idea is itself a bad idea, that is not the point. Many good ideas were begun badly, but with a vision of an improved condition. Many good ideas were disastrously implemented, such as hydrogen gas fueled airships. However, the idea of making air travel smooth and comfortable eventually led to business class airline service (with much tragedy between). So it is with implementing systems that can properly deal with “prohibited persons” attempting to buy firearms. It is all electronics and software, is it not? Every bureaucracy in the country (military and civilian) has computers. Every computer in the nation can be made to communicate with one another (America put a man on the moon, don’t tell me about cost and inconvenience). The difficult part is knowing how to separate the truly incurable psychotics from the merely impaired, but fully functional. It is this last part that gun owners want no part of; someone else should take responsibility, eh?

    There is a common thread amongst the “pro-gun” gallery, and that is the total and absolute disinterest in having any participation in how a better means of protecting innocents can be produced. You run around claiming that every idea about protecting the public from people you cannot deny should not have guns available, is merely a cover story for full gun confiscation. While at the same time you thump your chests about how that is impossible. Seems a bit crazy, doesn’t it? Fear of confiscation, while simultaneously proclaiming it cannot physically be done?

    If you fear the law, then participate in crafting the law. Do what you demand of us….change the laws or “get stuffed”. If you do not trust your favorite politician to legislate properly, that about puts paid to the notion that a representative democracy (or “representative Republic, if you like) actually works.

    Petition your lawmakers to create workable law that can put a damper on these crazed shooter events, while allowing freedom for your precious guns. If the so-called “gun grabbers” can find a way to make laws to restrict unlimited “gun rights”, what is wrong with you that you cannot find politicians to properly work out a means to have both reasonable controls, and freedom to exercise what is clearly a constrained right to firearms:? Laws that do not lead to the mangled concept of gun confiscation that violates your rights, but that cannot actually be implemented?

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      …”There is a common thread amongst the “pro-gun” gallery, and that is the total and absolute disinterest in having any participation in how a better means of protecting innocents can be produced…”

      Not so.

      I am an innocent that has a way to protect myself and my family.

      Yours, and others disconnect is looking at 2A as a collective Right and such must have a collective solution to gun violence, or whatever its called now.

      ‘I’ am responsible for my safety and my families safety. “I” Period.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Yours, and others disconnect is looking at 2A as a collective Right and such must have a collective solution to gun violence, or whatever its called now.”

        You seem to have completely misapprehended my comment. There was no talk of “collective” anything. However, you did jump right into your “gun rights” bunker. The issue is not “protecting me and mine”, the issue is gun owners partaking in finding solutions that protect “innocents” at large. Your people are fond of saying there is nothing can be done to prevent these mass murders. I say there is much that can be done, but unsupported gun owner fear of impossible gun confiscation blocks your ability to think about complex issues.

        Refusing to even explore solutions, and the legislation needed to implement them is just simple selfishness, and belief that each individual comprises the universe, completely disconnected from other individual universes. Can you not see there might possibly be a way to marry technology and legislation is such a way as to properly identify those whose mental state should disqualify them from access to firearms? Are you really satisfied that the return of “the wild, wild, west” is just the price everyone else must pay so that you can maintain your disconnect from fellow citizens?

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I am very selfish when it comes to my safety and the well being of my family.

          …”the issue is gun owners partaking in finding solutions that protect “innocents” at large..”

          I’m not really that concerned about “innocents at large”.

          I’m concerned about me and mine. That guy over there is concerned about his, and so forth.

          It works out rather well in an adult society, unlike a child society in which the government acts as parent.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          It always comes down to coveting toys, rather than seeing any responsibility to the community. Loving guns more than you love the people of the neighborhood, the school, the township. I do hope that your intense and selfish focus on you and yours would prevent you, and any number of others, from banding together to “resist tyrannical government”. Once again, you have illustrated the utter conflict of thought among gun owners, “I don’t care about them and theirs, but I am depending upon them and theirs to fight with me when comes the revolution.”

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          The easy solution, and really the only one, is to eliminate all humans. The fact is that humans are violent and aggressive creatures; it is their primary survival strategy, encoded on the genetic level, and males more so than females, largely because of the testosterone in their systems that is needed for species survival. You cannot legislate changes to our genetic encoding.
          Humans have passed laws and implemented every system of criminal law imaginable since time before history, encapsulated a “do not commit murder” in their religious and other moral codes, executed violators by means instant and barbaric. But no one, not one society, has been able to eradicate murder, much less any other level of criminality. Before guns, it was arrows, spears, swords, knives, clubs, sticks and stones, and poison, to name but a few. Eliminate guns and it will be again. If there is a will to kill, there is a way.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          Here, here. Let the law of the jungle prevail. It is the only sensible, fair and efficient means of regulating human interaction. Good show !

    2. avatar huntmaster says:

      I glad you were so reluctant to politicize this tragedy.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “I glad you were so reluctant to politicize this tragedy.”

        Just following the pro-gun propaganda coming from the US president and the governor of Texas.

        And of course all your pro-gun sidekicks commenting here, lacking enough information to comment usefully.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          The only ones here lacking enough information to comment here usefully are you and crisco kid, so far.

          All other yet-fathomable “solutions” short of an all-out confiscatory ban have, in fact, been explored and been found demonstrably ineffective. Ad Hominem accusations of selfishness, limited mental capacity, and the like are not arguments, either, and are furthermore only more psychological projection from you onto people that in the first place already know far better than you do, anyway.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “All other yet-fathomable “solutions” short of an all-out confiscatory ban have, in fact, been explored and been found demonstrably ineffective. ”

          Demonstrably incorrect. All that has been “proven” is that the gun cabal refuses to even discuss solutions that are not 100% effective, in all circumstances; refuse to entertain any discussion about wringing out every error human possible. And that stalemate is driven by the absurd notion that gun rights (or any other constitutional rights) are “absolute”.

          Yet, every gun owner agrees there are some circumstances where individuals should be deprived of their right to possess a firearm.

    3. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      “. . .Petition your lawmakers to create workable law that can put a damper on these crazed shooter events, while allowing freedom . . .”

      I do. I petition them that any law that limits my ability to defend my life and that of my family, is not workable. This is the third example of an armed person at the scene putting a damper on a crazed shooter at a church long before the police arrived.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “I petition them that any law that limits my ability to defend my life and that of my family, is not workable. ”

        First having limited mental capacity to contemplate the complex does not make any “solution” unworkable. But, could you expand upon the quoted remark above as relates to finding ways to keep obviously unqualified people from legally obtaining guns? I simply cannot agree that passing a background check (with safeguards in place to satisfy your disdain for poorly implemented systems) does anything to physically impair or restrict your ability to defend your family. However, I can be educated.

        Background checks do not impair anything. They may qualify as an inconvenience, but no rational mind can conclude that submitting to a check prevents one from legally exercising self-defense. The “second amendment absolutist” theory is debunked by your (and all 2A absolutists) own words. If you are an absolutist, there can be no restriction, of any kind, for any purpose, permitted. If you believe that there is even a single condition that justifies restrictions on gun possession or ownership, you are no longer an “absolutist”. The best you could claim is to be “an absolutist, except for…”. And once you walk that path, the whole proposition becomes one of “my restriction is more righteous than yours”. Absolute is absolute, or it is not; binary condition. As an absolutist, you must condone, approve and endorse the possession of guns by the criminally insane, and the convicted criminals. Absolutism also means that prisoners must be allowed guns as a means of self-defense. No? Then why is that a “reasonable” restriction? You see, there are no absolutes.

        1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          The checks will be recorded creating a list that is the functional equivalent of a registry. If you truly want universal background checks, make the background check system available to ANYBODY, for free, for any reason, with no record of the search. I think most gun owners, landlords, employers, etc. would love to be able to verify that the person we are doing business with is a law abiding citizen.

          I have detailed how this can be made available in previous topics on a couple of occasions. The only arguments against it are A) IT ISN’T MANDATORY!!! which doesn’t matter because criminals are going to criminal anyway. If your honest goal is to allow gun owners to safely transfer firearms anonymity is an absolute requirement. B) IT DOESN’T KEEP A RECORD!!! which again, will only increase the number of guns lost in tragic boating accidents or transferred before the checks were put in place.

          Make it public, make it free, make it anonymous and you will see HUGE amounts of increased background checks between private parties and you will see them increase for far more than just guns. Anything that does not include those three key elements is a non-starter, no compromise.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Make it public, make it free, make it anonymous and you will see HUGE amounts of increased background checks between private parties and you will see them increase for far more than just guns. Anything that does not include those three key elements is a non-starter, no compromise.”

          You have my vote! Now, how to make it all work so as to build confidence in outcomes? That is the discussion to be had.

    4. avatar that one guy says:

      I’m only going to tackle a couple points in your wall o’ text, since they seem to be the nut of your post:

      “You run around claiming that every idea about protecting the public from people you cannot deny should not have guns available, is merely a cover story for full gun confiscation. While at the same time you thump your chests about how that is impossible. Seems a bit crazy, doesn’t it? Fear of confiscation, while simultaneously proclaiming it cannot physically be done?”

      Any rational person should agree that hundreds of millions of unrecorded and unrecordable guns cannot possibly be rounded up by the government. But, that doesn’t mean that the government won’t try. That doesn’t mean that the government won’t have some small measure of success. I don’t think the government will get all of the guns, but I’m not about to think the government wouldn’t screw up my life in an attempt to get my guns.

      That’s not crazy, that’s being cognizant of the limits and abilities of a semi-functional, ‘fire for effect’ government.

      Why are individual illegal aliens scared of being rounded up, since the gov’t can’t possibly round them all up? Its the same thing. Sure, the gov’t won’t get all of them, but getting Jose’s family is all that really matters to Jose.

      “If you fear the law, then participate in crafting the law.”

      The law has already been crafted. You reference it in your username. Any new law that is created is necessarily an infringement upon the RTKABA. I realize that you aren’t a fan of that mindset, but that’s the wording. Gun-people are not going to participate in crafting a law that either contradicts or repeals the 2A. Gun people are all out of compromises; the NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, AWB, and never ending pile of state-level chips at 2A infringement have had no functional effect on gun crimes, they have only served to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people. So, in short, if you want to repeal the 2A, you’ll do it without our help.

      “Do what you demand of us….change the laws or “get stuffed”. If you do not trust your favorite politician to legislate properly, that about puts paid to the notion that a representative democracy (or “representative Republic, if you like) actually works.”

      Gun people tend to pay attention to who they are voting for, and do fairly well with keeping their politicians in line. Those politicians don’t often compromise for more infringement, and when they act like they might (see: the bumpstock conversation), gun people are quick to let them know about it. Therefore, it will not be likely that you’ll get them on board for your desired 2A repeal, either….but you can try.

      In short, ‘the law’ already exists, and already has too many non-functional infringements upon it. Support for more infringements are not going to come from our side. If you come up with a non-infringement change that might actually be functional, I’m sure we’d be all ears.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Your comments are noted. While they are a variation of “shall not be infringed”, there is cohesion. The interesting element is your identification of “the government” as some sort of amorphous being that is independent of the political system. Curious. You are the government. You have the government you allowed to develop. If you are obliquely saying that the nation is evenly divided on “gun issues”, and therefore the “pro gun” proposition is not the majority thinking, then you have the problem. If your constituency is too feeble to overcome the opposition, then such is the reality of life in “a democracy”. As your side has said so often, “if you want to amend the constitution, good luck with that.”. Well, if you want to change the laws “infringing” upon your rights, good luck with that.

        Overall, you are in a bunker that is indefensible. Your side sees “infringement” where none exists. A qualification test (background check) is not an infringement if you are not a “prohibited person”. Once the check is successfully completed, you are free to purchase your gun. Only failure of the check would “infringe” on your rights. That is, “infringe” just like laws prohibiting criminals from legal possession of a firearm. You seem to agree that some “infringements” are “common sense”.

        At bottom, you belabor the point that the current system of checks upon the obviously disqualified is poorly implemented, but you expend no effort to think how the checks could be improved to be accurate and efficient. Your position (and you are not alone) is that of, “nothing to be done, it’s not perfect, can’t be bothered with contemplating the complex, we just have to tolerate mass murders because restricting the mentally disabled from gun ownership is “infringement”. All of which are hallmarks of a religion.

        The fact that you do not trust “government”, nor your own elected politicians, nor your ability to convince a heavy majority of the voters that guns are good, is a problem that you need to address. Which would take more effort that your side has been able to muster. Fortunately, your lot are hopeless divided between “pure” and “purer” on just about every issue. Our side is completely cohesive in the direction to take, just divided as to methods. Unity is a strength your side cannot tap.

        But even I have digressed. Your starting point is fatally flawed: absolutism. It cannot work. Too much history of “common sense” constraints on what you call “natural, human and civil rights”. The argument is always about how to sensibly allow the exercise of rights within the crowd of society. “Infringement” is necessary to keep any society functioning; an unstated compact that each must yield some measure of “rights” in order to avoid falling into the abyss of jungle rules.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          True, all non-prohibited persons have nothing to fear from a background check–but isn’t that really the point? Unqualified or disqualified persons find ways to game the system or buy firearms through the black market. Do you really think that a 14 year old shooter in Chicago went to a gun store to obtain his firearm? There is no reason–and in fact many reasons, to supect that the firearm was obtained illegally. As long as there is theft, robbery and burglary, there will be a black market full of guns. And as long as there is a black market background checks are security theater. And I will give you a prime example: California (universal background check, no private transfers). Then check out the crime rate in L.A. Then there is New Jersey (no purchase without a permit fr4om the police, which may or may not be granted). Some of the highest murder rates are in Camden and surrounding cities. Universal background checks accomplish nothing but to delay law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. IN California, it is 10 days, no matter how many guns you own. In New Jersey, it is supposed to be 30 days to get the permit to purchase, but it is usually months.

          So you tell us, what do universal background checks accomplish?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The argument that because something can be bypassed, nothing should be done is simply sophomoric. Do you apply that logic to every law on the books? To be intellectually honest and consistent, you must.

          To those who argue that background checks do not prevent anyone from illegally purchasing a gun, there are no laws to prevent anyone from committing any crime, atall. Laws are not preventative, they are punitive. There are laws prohibiting bank fraud. How many fraudsters were prevented from carrying out their schemes because the law prohibited the activity? And why are such laws remaining? The are not 100% effective.

    5. avatar fiundagner says:

      The problem with the solution you’re proposing is how do you prevent bad information from getting into the system? And more importantly once bad information eventually makes its way into the system how do you remove it from the system? Speaking as someone who has had their identity stolen and who is spent most of the last 18 years trying to get it fixed I can tell you there is no easy way. When my identity was stolen I had multiple arrest warrants served on me for a variety of crimes. The demographics were wrong the birth date was wrong the social security number was wrong. But many of those warrants and arrests ended up attached to my name because I was the one they could find. I have been denied employment because of crimes somebody else committed and the all-knowing bureaucracy was too lazy to fix in their system. All it takes is a bad keystroke or nine and suddenly you are a Irrevocably contaminated in the eyes of the computer and you have to go to court to get it fixed. you have to pay thousands of dollars out of your own pocket with no recompense because somebody else screwed the pooch and can’t be held accountable. I have literally stood in front of multiple federal agents and tried to prove that I was not a insert demographic of your choice person and been told yes you’re not now go to court and get a court order that says so and we can clear your record. trusting a massive all powerful computerized bureaucracy to integrate the records and tell you whether or not you’re allowed to defend yourself is never a good idea.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “The problem with the solution you’re proposing is how do you prevent bad information from getting into the system? And more importantly once bad information eventually makes its way into the system how do you remove it from the system? ”

        Now we have a starting point. We agree the current system is terribly flawed. The question is whether or not we can endure any system that is not 100% perfect in design and execution. If the answer is “No”, we are intellectually compromised because there are absolutely (??) zero human systems that are 100% perfect. If we say “Yes”, then we begin to design. First, we need to establish acceptable parameters (design specifications). Then we need to identify controls and corrective measures (such as how to deal with the criminal market for weapons). All this takes conversation, and trading ideas. Such an exercise is superior to blindly repeating slogans.

        So far, the majority here are unable, or unwilling to make the mental effort to even imagine there can be a successful means of preventing any of the mass murders caused by seriously disturbed people.

    6. avatar Accur81 says:

      Nope. I can protect innocents with my firearm when I’m on duty and in uniform. In fact, I’m paid to do so. If I did not have my firearms, I would be less effective at protecting myself and others. Simply removing the uniform, and much of the government’s blessing, does not mean that my personally-owned firearm becomes useless for self defense.

      Please tell me, 2Asux, how you would slow down or stop one of these killers – with your raxor-sharp wit? Personally, I’d prefer to return fire than hide in a corner on a cell phone.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Please tell me, 2Asux, how you would slow down or stop one of these killers – with your raxor-sharp wit? Personally, I’d prefer to return fire than hide in a corner on a cell phone.”

        If I had all the detailed answers, variations, permutations and future vision, I would not be here asking for pro-gun people to use their brains for problem-solving. Obviously I do not have the “gold standard” solution in my pocket. What I have posited is that the idea that a badly executed idea does not render the idea “bad”.

        My overall concern is not individuals, completely disconnected from community, declaring themselves islands of defense. Mass murders are becoming more commonplace, each year. I compare events in the US not to Europe, or individual nations in Europe. I compare America to America. Obviously, there is a problem that is not declining.

        Perhaps instead of futilely depending on your politicians to support and spread the notion of “absolute” gun rights, more brainwaves could be spent by your organizations pondering possible solutions.

        It is easy to say that the background check system should be made perfect, invalid data removed, and so on. All so easy, all so uninformative and unimaginative. For sake of discussion, let us agree that criminal possession of guns in gang environments is different from what we see as mass murders. Let us address the mass murders, because, in “your” words, these mass murders are not the result of “stupid people, in stupid places, doing stupid things”. Mass murders are a thing unto themselves. It may not be possible to stop every terrorist attack, but the death toll from gunfire could be reduced by more careful sales to non-terrorists. At point, how can the criminal background population be better identified? How can the nation make reasonable and accurate determination that one mentally impaired individual is more problematic than another? How can information in any system of data be kept accurate?

        My original commentary was an invitation to a discussion. Not a declaration of a solution.

        1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          “My overall concern is not individuals, completely disconnected from community, declaring themselves islands of defense.”

          You do realize that gun owners that cling to individual liberty are disproportionately far more community and civically minded than just about any other cross section of American society right? They just prefer to help their neighbors directly when they are in need than dump social programs on them to feel like they helped but never actually see them face to face. All these bastions of individualist gun owning civilians are extremely friendly, civil communities.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “All these bastions of individualist gun owning civilians are extremely friendly, civil communities.”

          And you appear only when it is already too late; the shooting has begun.

          All individuals in a community (society?) have a certain measure of responsibility to prevent the decline of the group. Refusing to take any action, whatsoever, to reduce the number of attacks that may be visited upon your your community is a gross dereliction of responsibility to ensure the group prospers (no one is an island, and all that). A tool of potential value is in sad condition, and in need of calm, measured, serious thought about how to make it work to the advantage of the community. But gun owners seem not interested in being proactive. Perhaps it is simply the hope that someone else will shoulder the task, so that you can sit back and complain that perfection is not achieved.

    7. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Americans have a queer viewpoint on implementation of “common sense” gun laws.”

      That’s because we have seen first-hand what ‘common-sense’ (*snort*) gun control really *is*”.

      It is the forced subjection of the citizens to civilian disarmament. For anyone who cares to look, history is replete with examples of what happens to the disarmed ‘common folks’ under a totalitarian system.

      Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. demonstrated it.

      Mass murder in the *hundreds* of millions.

      Warfare by one group against another is as old as history itself. Look at what the Hutu people did to the Tutsi people with little more than a simple *machete*.

      I have some news for you, 2Asux – The Leftists would have *zero* problem stripping civil and human rights from those on the right if only they *could*, since they genuinely believe they are better people than those on the Right.

      What you consider as ‘common sense’ gun laws are nothing more than setting the table for gun confiscation. “Universal background checks” are nothing more than building a database for their use when they will inevitably regain political power.

      The 2A is there for a reason. It is a reminder to those in power that it is people, and not them who are the ones who hold the actual power.

      You will *never* change our minds on that issue, and we will never change yours. The stark facts are, lawful gun owners are among the most law-abiding citizens there are. If America were made up with only those who were non-prohibited for firearm carry, crime would plummet to one-sixth of what it is today.

      Since you people will never change your mind on guns, and we will never change ours, the only rational thing to do is to divorce one side from the other before the domestic violence begins…

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “It is the forced subjection of the citizens to civilian disarmament. ”

        Another casement supporting my contention that the pro-gun cabal is schizoid. On the one hand, you cry about “gun confiscation” being a real threat. On the other you proudly proclaim that there are too many guns and too many gun owners for confiscation to be possible. I read constantly how gun owners will stand in their doorways and unload a hailstorm of hot lead at anyone trying to pry guns from “cold, dead hands”. Yet, the complete disarming of Americans is behind every plea for improving the general safety of the public. Can’t have it both ways, old man. Can’t have it both ways.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    HELLUVA job ATF…we HAVE UBC in Illinoisistan. And no benefit whatsoever. I bet no leftards “get it”. Just the usual ban everything BS😡😡😡

  15. avatar Del says:

    A Bad Conduct Discharge is one higher than a Dishonorable Discharge. Then,

    General under Other Than Honorable.
    General under Honorable.
    Honorable.

    So, checking “No” on DD was correct.

    1. avatar That One Guy says:

      So, DD is the worst, and BCD is not quite as bad, so it doesn’t trip the same things?

      Interesting. I can see that being a negotiable facet of someone’s unplanned exit from the military. Kinda like pleading a felony burglary down to a misdemeanor possession of stolen goods.

    2. avatar 2Asux says:

      “So, checking “No” on DD was correct.”

      Proving my point. There is such incomplete and disputed information, yet the pro-gun people are first to rave that this is not an event to politicize. Simultaneously, those same people are arguing that guns are not a problem, people (whom they refuse to help) are the problem. That, dear Sir, is politicizing.

  16. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    So now we know that the background check does NOT check military records.

  17. avatar cisco kid says:

    Weekly mass murder has now become a reality and the world rightly looks upon the U.S. as a Nation gone mad because it stubbornly refuses to do anything about it.

    At this point the question is why in the hell is not the U.S. Military sharing its information with the people in the Government that run the Brady Bill. If the weapons bought were bought legally than this is the fault of the U.S. Military for not sharing the fact that the Nut Case was sent to a military jail for a year over severe assault upon his wife which under the Brady Bill would have denied him purchase of any firearm.

    It is necessary to note that Texas denied him a concealed handgun permit so obviously law enforcement knew about his violent past and he therefore must have lied on the 4473 Federal Form. The ATF has made the statement he did legally purchase the guns so obviously they did not have information on him that would have prevented him from purchasing firearms. Even if you lie on a Federal Firearms From you will be caught if there is information in the system on you which since the Military had failed to share they are to blame for what happened. I think the obvious question now is how was it that Texas law enforcement knew about him but the Brady Bill people did not? It is possible he used a fake i.d. but law enforcement has yet to release everything that they know about him and exactly how he was able to purchase the firearms.

    It must be remembered that even if the Brady Bill had prevented him from purchasing firearms he would have gotten them anyway because the U.S. being under the influence and control of Hillbilly Republican Morons is the only country in the world that does not make it mandatory that all second hand gun sales be vetted and that guns purchased be locked up in safes to prevent theft. No civilized nation on earth save the U.S. has such an insane gun policy of being able to purchase firearms by anyone whether he be a criminal or a maniac on the loose and a further policy of letting people leave deadly weapons laying around a house or in a gun store so that anyone can kick in the door and cart off all the deadly weapons he wishes. If it were not for the gravity of the situation the rest of the world would be laughing at a Nation like the U.S. that is run by such screwball Morons.

    Meanwhile we have mass shooting now almost on a weekly basis and even the Republicans will soon reach a point where it will be politically impossible for them to keep on pandering to the NRA. Because we have failed to use such basic safeguards gun owners will pay the ultimate price with draconian gun and ammunition bans. I fear it may eventually get to the point where like at one time in Britain farmers were restricted to the purchase of only one box of .22 rimfire ammo per year and firearms restrictions so severe that the common man’s ability to afford to or jump through the political hoops to purchase firearms will be a thing of the past. Only the extremely wealthy and the Power Elite will have firearms and all because we refused to accept such basic safeguards as complete vetting of all firearms and the mandatory use of safes. And the Republicans refusal to institute National Health Care which would give free help to people with mental health issues. According to the Greed Monger Republicans money is more important than human life. They truly are the lowest form of human life on the planet and most of the Nations problems are the result of their policies of blind greed which results in pollution that is destroying all life on the planet, people dying from lack of health care, people going bankrupt for lack of affordable health care, young people giving up on the idea of an affordable college education, our roads and bridges unsafe to drive on, no money for the widening and improving of our roads, inadequate money for police training which results in a horrific 1,500 cop killings a year as compared to civilized nations which have only a few. This is all the result of our incessant wars of rape ,pillage and conquest that result in us spending the lions share of our taxes on this insanity leaving no money for the social programs all the other industrialized nations of the world have already had for decades and decades. We have created a Nation that has become an unsafe mad house to live in and a joke amongst the rest of the civilized nations of the world. Today you cannot even drive down the freeway without worrying that some nut case will start shooting at you for just cutting him off in traffic. Is it a wonder why 65 per cent of the American Public who do not own guns are demanding that all guns be outlawed? Since we have consistently failed to do anything we deserve what we inevitably are going to get and that is a complete ban on firearms and ammunition which the courts time and time again have ruled is legal (even though it Constitutionally is not) but when did the Courts ever really give a damn what the Constitution says or means.

    1. avatar That One Guy says:

      “….he would have gotten them anyway because the U.S. … is the only country in the world that does not make it mandatory that all second hand gun sales be vetted…”

      I’m interested….exactly how would you propose policing those second hand gun sales? How would you force BGC compliance between two private citizens? Let’s pretend, for just a moment, that your concept of UBGC laws existed. What would prevent me from illegally selling a gun to someone else? Remember, you can’t say “the law” because it’s pretty clear “the law” doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything illegal, it only serves to punish them for doing it.

      So, what enforcement mechanism do you propose to actually make your desired UBGC law function to stop the problem you describe?

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        A few years ago, the ATF was running stings on states that border Illinois. They would answer a face to face internet ad, indicate that they were from Illinois and then try to buy the firearm from a resident of Kentucky or Indiana. That sale is illegal. But they caught a few suckers.

      2. avatar cisco kid says:

        To the guy who cannot think

        You live in your own little bizarre world called “all or nothing” or “if the law is not fool proof lets do nothing and go on having mass shootings weekly”. How bizarre. History has proven that the majority of people (especially when they see their next door neighbor going to jail and in the case of the German Nazi’s being shot on sight for a violation, the rest of the proletariat gets the message very quickly. We could make a huge dent in guns falling into the hands of criminals and nut cases by vetting second hand gun sales, requiring safe storage and requiring metal checks and metal records be turned over to the Brady Government people which by the way many States have refused to do. Its no wonder any nut case out there can get all the guns he wants either by buying a new one because the Brady People were deigned by the States the info they need to refuse the sale and of course by second hand sales. This is not rocket science

    2. avatar GaPharmD says:

      I can see the pain and defeat in your comment. Having to admit that a good guy with a gun saved countless lives is a bitter pill to swallow when you’ve been so naive.

      It hurts to know the NRA is right.
      It hurts even more to see your great ideas fail in reality to have any kind of meaningful impact.

      The plain and simple truth of today:
      UBC’s didn’t stop a criminal from killing 20 something people in Texas. But an armed citizen stopped the exact same mentally ill criminal that your UBC’s and thousands of other laws couldn’t!

      It feels great to win. Just wish innocent people didn’t have to die to prove that point.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        to gapharmd

        What kind of bizarre planet do you live on. No you did not win. You lost big time. 13 kids slaughtered and by the time the guy across the street got there everyone was dead and the nut case was leaving. The cops already had his license number, his description and his direction of travel. Yes the guy across the street chased the guy but in the end the nut case killed himself as they usually do. If you call that a victory its only a pyrrhic one that’s for sure.

  18. avatar soccerdad says:

    what type of rifle did the good guy have? can’t seem to find that anywhere?

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “Ruger AR” has been reported. I don’t know how well that’s vetted, but Ruger isn’t one of the usual suspects for media.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        NM, I read your Q wrong.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Some people are saying “shotgun” too. I haven’t seen anything IDing the firearm used by the citizen one way or another past a generic “rifle” or “shotgun”.

  19. avatar CLarson says:

    So the government failed again. Also the entire incident was resolved by a regular private citizen. All the police did was arrive after the fact so another complete dindu nuthin like Las Vegas. So of course the answer is more government. Wow.

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