Rancho Tehama Killer, Kevin Janson Neal, Had Been Charged With Two Felonies, Was Under a Restraining Order

Kevin Janson Neal had been charged with two felonies

According to the Sacramento Bee, the Ranch Tehama shooter who murdered four and wounded another ten people in a northern California shooting spree was Kevin Janson Neal. And he was no stranger to the local law enforcement community.

District Attorney Gregg Cohen told The Bee that Neal is currently being prosecuted by his office for assault with a deadly weapon and a stabbing that had occurred earlier this year. Cohen said in that incident the victims were two of Neal’s neighbors . . .

One of whom he apparently shot to death — despite an outstanding restraining order — before moving on to other random victims and then the Rancho Tehama school.

Reportedly using “a semi-automatic rifle” . . .

At least two young boys were shot, one inside an elementary school and another when the suspect fired, seemingly at random, at a car heading to the school. Both boys are expected to survive, but the mother driving the car was critically wounded, said Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston.

He was apparently unable to enter the school due to a lockdown that was initiated when teachers heard Neal’s gunfire outside.

After leaving the school the suspect stole another car and began firing at officers when they raced to town to confront him. They returned fire and killed him at a nearby intersection. All told, the ordeal lasted around 45 minutes, Johnston said.

Seven different shooting locations were being treated as separate crime scenes.

So let’s recap. We have in individual who had been charged with at least two felonies and was out on bail. He was also the subject of a restraining order issued to his neighbors, one of whom is now dead.

Despite the fact that all of that made his possession of firearms a legal impossibility, Neal somehow got his hands on a rifle and two handguns. And all this in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.

What’s the over/under on the number of hours until calls for still more stringent gun control laws emanates from Golden State legislators to make what Neal did today even more illegal-er?

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    “We have in individual who had been charged with at least two felonies and was out on bail. He was also the subject of a restraining order issued to his neighbors, one of whom is now dead.”

    Umm… the restraining order maybe but the two felony *charges*, federally speaking, would require a conviction to make him a prohibited person. Does Cali remove firearms from those who are simply charged with a crime?

    Oh, and that guy looks crazy as hell. That hair is a serious crime all by itself.

    1. In most jurisdictions, those who are out on bail on felony charges are ordered to surrender any firearms they own. Given California’s anti-gun record, I assumes that would have been the case with Neal.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Not to nit pick here but doesn’t that mean he was out on bail and “gave up his guns” as a condition of bail being granted rather than due to a conviction? That doesn’t make one a prohibited person does it? Perhaps a technical difference but, I would argue, it is a difference.

        I mean, you could still pass a 4473 since they’re not supposed to pass on any information until you’ve been convicted, right? You’d probably have to lie on 11.b (I dunno if they can reject you for a “yes” on that one) but how would the FBI know unless states are giving NICS up to date information on every person charged with a felony?

        I’m not trying to be a dick here, just pointing out that technically speaking I don’t think you’re a “prohibited person” until you’ve been convicted and even if you are technically a “prohibited person” that statute is completely unenforcable. As far as I can tell you might give up some rights as a condition of bail but that’s a different status.

        It’s just a technicality the anti’s might pick up on to counter-argue and I don’t like giving them *ammo* when I can avoid it.

        1. avatar Chito says:

          The “antis” don’t care about gun laws at all really. They want our guns removed. To them that is the solution.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Not in Texas. Once indicted, no new guns for you. I don’t know CA law.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Chito, it’s not that yhe antis want your guns to promote safety, or peace and harmony, the do it in order to bring about global communism. And they are all getting paid, in some fashion, to do it. They can’t do the UNs 2030 Sustainability Agenda, where there are armed citizens that’ll break the US Constitution off in their asses. Each ‘shooting’ incident is just their hope of getting their toe under the turtle of yhe 2nd Amendment. They know they can’t do it legally, so they have to attempt to ‘overpower’ it with a supposed majority. I pledge to keep their numbers low, and their headcount lively.

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          California runs its own background check system, only part of which is the federal NICS check. What we don’t know is whether the restraining order, since it was with respect to a neighbor and not a spouse or family member, included a clause requiring him to surrender his firearms. If it did, he would have shown up in the Armed Prohibited Persons System and that would have precluded him from buying more firearms. All transactions in California–legal ones anyway–must be run through an FFL with a background check.

        5. avatar DaveL says:

          He could not pass the 4473. 18 USC 922(d)(1) and 18 USC 922 (n).

        6. avatar YAR0892 says:

          If you answer yes to any of the yes or no questions on a 4473 except for ‘Are you a US Citizen?’ then you absolutely can and should be denied by the FFL. I was trained- when I sold guns at AAFES- that if they put yes down to any question, especially ‘are you currently under indictment?’ we were to immediately stop the sale. This was to protect the store and ultimately us doing the selling from ATF liability. I’m also reasonably sure that the fine print instructions on the 4473 tell the applicant that Yes answers are instant no-gos as well.

        7. avatar Stereodude says:

          @YAR0892 I guess you’re not very familiar with the 4473 then. You have to mark Yes on question 11a in order to pass.

          “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?”

        8. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          I don’t think you’re a dick. This is a serious matter with specific elements. You want to be specific in our understanding of them. No problem there. However, you are mistaken.

          Per California law, anyone under a restraining, or who is under an indictment or an information for a felony, not necessarily a conviction, is a prohibited possessor.

          An indictment is a formal charge of the crime by a grand jury. An information is a prosecutorial document that submits the charge directly to the court. All federal felony prosecutions require a grand jury indictment, unless waived by the defendant, typically the result of a plea agreement. Some states, like Texas, require such, too.

          In other states, like California, the law allows a prosecutor just to file an information charging the defendant with a felony. That information filing alone is grounds for prohibited possessor status.

        9. avatar Icabod says:

          He was charged with an assault with a gun and a knife. That “should have” carried a years jail time. He also had a restraining order. If it was “for stalking” then both the order and charges “should have” prohibited guns

          “Note that federal law prohibits gun ownership by people in additional categories, including:

          anyone under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year,
          anyone who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions,
          illegal aliens,
          anyone who has renounced his or her US citizenship,
          anyone under a court order for a stalking crime, and
          fugitives from justice.19
          https://www.shouselaw.com/firearm-offenses.html#1.1

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “indictment”. That is a word I didn’t search for previously. It would have been necessary for the defendant to lie on a 4473 to “legally” buy new firearms.

          Now I understand the original “…all of that…”

          Thanx

    2. avatar Freeheel says:

      California prohibited persons include:

      “Any person who is under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”

      “Any person who is subject to a temporary restraining order or an injunction issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6 or 527.8, a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218, a protective order issued pursuant to Penal Code sections 136.2 or 646.91, or a protective order issued pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03”

      Source: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
      PROHIBITING CATEGORIES (Rev. 01/2012)

      Looks like both would prohibit him.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Thank you for quoting the relevant statute law and saving me the time.

        Yes, this perp was absolutely prohibited under California law. Black-and-white letter of the law, laws that the California legislature has passed with great fanfare in the last 10 years.

        As in Texas, we see that the real threat is the number of mental defectives who are allowed to walk the streets.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          “… the real threat is the number of mental defectives who are allowed to walk the streets.”

          As is the number of oblivious people who have no means to defend themselves from said mental defectives.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          My only disagreement would be that, in Texas, we see that the real threat is the number of mental defectives who are allowed to make the laws.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Well that answers the question. I certainly hope none of the antis notice what I’ve noticed about this or we’re gonna have a total “loophole” shit show on our hands.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          On the upside, it looks like their lockdown protocol worked, for the most part.

          A few tweaks, like ballistic glass may be in order…

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Send your kids off every day to the prison, where they can be protected while learning about gender fluidity.

          Fuck it all.

        3. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

          I always ask about the “trunk of the red Dodge behind the liquor store at Colfax and Clinton” loophole. Or the “Cherry Creek Bike Path undocumented pharmacist” loophole for Oxycontin sales with no prescription.

        4. avatar hellofromillinois says:

          Really Joe? Why are people so against just letting people be whoever they want if it isn’t harming anyone else? Kids should be taught to respect others regardless of their background or identity unless that identity is directly harmful. I’m not going to be respectful of pedophiles, murders, etc., but I don’t give a damn if someone want to dress like a bunny rabbit every day as long as they aren’t harming others and respect the rights of other. Isn’t that pretty much what liberty all about?

          I do agree that turning our schools into mini-prisons with armed guards, blast doors, and other non-sense is a bad idea.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          @ Mellow from Annoyed

          Goeff was talking about (us being required to nearly wall the kids in at school to protect them. Schools are a big enough prison already).

          And. . .

          ANYONE OUT THERE HAVE A KID IN COLLEGE RIGHT NOW? ? ? And I understand that the vast majority of the “same sex’d” relationship or “gender fluid” might not (ever).

          ALL of those precious young beings in college are having a more difficult time getting through it because some asshole thought gender identity needed equal time IN PRE-K AND GRADE SCHOOL with math, science, reading, writing, YOU KNOW, THE BASIC SHIT FOR WHY SCHOOL IS THERE IN THE FING FIRST PLACE. FING DUH.

          FU

          Gender studies shouldn’t even supplant gym. If that shit agenda rises to any level over after school extra-curricular activity THEN WE FING DON’T NEED PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

          FU again.

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        Well said, sir.

    3. avatar Badposter says:

      Don’t name the shooter please. This only gives these ass hats more fame and encourages copy cats.

    4. avatar Glenn Woodruff says:

      “ The Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program proposed in 1999 and updated in 2006, makes California the first and only State in the country to establish an automated system for tracking firearms owners and to provide the legal authority to proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous.” Source http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/07/californias-unique-gun-confiscation-program-in-spotlight-after-texas-church-massacre/
      Seems to me that being charge with assault after stabbing someone would qualify as “others deemed dangerous”. So tell us how you blame the NRA for California not enforcing the state’s law?

    5. avatar Eric says:

      Its not just getting convicted, but charged.

      The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

    6. avatar Icabod says:

      No guns

      “Typical Conditions
      The bail conditions that a judge imposes will ordinarily depend on the facts of the case. But some of the more common conditions require defendants to:

      obey all laws
      refrain from drug and alcohol use and/or participate in testing
      not possess any weapons
      stay away from certain places or people
      maintain or seek employment
      follow a curfew, and
      comply with specific travel restrictions.”
      https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/a-defendants-release-on-bail-with-conditions.html

    7. avatar Charles Applegate says:

      California criminal defense attorney chiming in here. In California, it is illegal to possess firearms if you are the party restrained by a restraining order – his possession was illegal.

  2. avatar Ironhead says:

    Very curious to know how he got the firearms. Especially in commiefornia.
    But i would say it wont be 24 hours before the pass some more bullsh!t laws that wouldve done nothing to prevent this.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Yet another example of:
    — crazy, evil person who goes on a rampage
    — “prohibited person” who acquires firearms
    — “prohibited person” who uses firearms to attack others
    — multiple maimed/murdered victims during police response time

    And once again we see a timeless truth, “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!”

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Likely a crazy (D) or else his neighbors who set him off are.

  4. avatar W says:

    CA emulates Chitown catch and release. Gets similar results.

  5. avatar Xcom says:

    Let’s count the crimes not including murder.

    -Obtaining 3 weapons while being a prohibited person
    -Violating a restraining order
    -Openly carrying firearms in California
    -Discharging a weapon in public not in self defense
    -Grand Theft Auto
    -Carrying weapons onto school property
    -Reckless driving
    -Resisting arrest
    -Attempted murder

    I am sure I missed a few, but will someone inform me of how *1* more gun control law would have stopped him?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Some of those murder attempts were successful, so that’s another law broken.

      This, Las Vegas, and the Sutherland church massacre all reinforce one central fact: The government CAN NOT protect everyone from evil. Not even in the most tightly controlled and cohesive societies on Earth can it be done. And the harder the government tries, the more it becomes an evil in itself.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Gun rights protect you from your government.
        Gun laws protect your government from you.

    2. avatar MLee says:

      @Xcom
      I’m sure there is a violation of California Penal Code 26100

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      IF he was in APPS, it would be more logical to assume that he owned these weapons prior to his arrest last February, because the APPS listing would bar new purchases. And since that arrest was for a stabbing, there is reason to believe the police did not seize his firearms at the time.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Well that makes PERFECT sense.

        If you are arrested and charged with criminally stabbing someone why in the world would authorities feel the need to take away your firearms?

        But did they raid his house and take away all of his knives?

        Did the TRO require him to stay away from his neighbors, not stab is neighbors, or not shoot at his neighbors?

        Aside from being worthless and made of paper, not Kevlar, TROs are foolish security theater because a “Stay 100 yards away” TRO is hardly an impediment for anyone who is even remotely a good shot with a rifle.

        The worst thing about any TRO is that it gives the intended victim a false sense that they are somehow now safe from harm. Bullshit. Unless that TRO gives you immediate authorization to carry a weapon for self protection and to shoot the son of a bitch if he violates the order it is useless.

    4. avatar Beuford Blabsnaggle says:

      The law that confiscates all our guns. Don’t kid yourself; that’s the real end game.
      Unfortunately, that would make us ALL “soft targets”; no need to go to schools, anyway…

    5. avatar Swabbie says:

      First, I’m very much for the 2A and an NRA supporter but we don’t know he didn’t have these guns already before being charged w 3 felonies.

      To me the big mistakes here are the cops not responding to the complaints of him shooting all night and liberal judges being too lenient with the bail amount. 160k? For stabbing somebody? Guys in for that or other violent crime-million dollar bond minimum. Something like that. Problem is there, low life’s would bitch incessantly since for them, stabing someone means it’s tuesday.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        There is no constitutional right to bail. If you’re charged with assault with a deadly weapon, you should be remanded.

  6. avatar PeacefulDreamer60 says:

    The gun is not the criminal here it was the crazy person using it. Was his home searched to make sure he had no guns? Did he take guns from a relative? Or did he somehow legally buy the guns because his background did not come through when checked and California dropped the Ball.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It is of course possible, but unlikely, that California dropped the ball. It runs its own system, and TROs banning possession of firearms are automatically entered into the Armed Prohibited Persons System. They have a lot of practice doing this.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        A long history, yes, but not a particularly successful one. Their Armed Prohibited Persons database typically has thousands and thousands of people on it that the state just hasn’t gotten around to dealing with yet.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        California receives no benefit from enforcing its own gun laws.

        Every crime prevented is one less tragedy that can be used to push an agenda of more laws.

  7. avatar UncleGrandfather says:

    In a perfect world of a liberal, everyone would be a prohibited person, so the murderer wouldn’t be able to get a gun. It’s not that liberals don’t want to keep felons in prison, they just want prison to be extended to the general populaton.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      What Liberals don’t also understand or acknowledge is that prisons are rife with weapons, drugs, contraband and assaults. And who is supposed to keep the inmates in line? The same racist police or military institutions they loath?

    2. avatar Sandy says:

      Bullshit. Liberals own guns too, to protect us from Trump and his supporters. We don’t want any lawful persons guns taken away, we want criminals and crazies to not have access to them, and we want the ban on weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds to be reinstated and made permanent. No one except military and law enforcement has any legitimate reason to have them.

      1. avatar Phil McCrackin says:

        Your implicit trust in government is cute, albeit pitiful and sad. I could tell you all the hundreds if not thousands of times in human history when a monopoly on arms has been granted to/by any government. Then I could count on one hand the times it didn’t end in war, genocide or some kind of dystopian slave-state.

        So based on your reasoning, we can go one further using the same *logic*: “No one other than Rhodes Scholars or lawyers should be allowed to use more than a 500 world vocabulary. So let’s have a list of authorized words so as not to potentially influence any violent behavior, cause any harm or hurt with our words.”

        Also, We The People *are* the military (USC:T10/SS311). A standing army is technically not even allowed by the Constitution, and must be “raised and funded” two years at a time, as needed (hence the NDAA). The security of a free state is hard to maintain if we’re not allowed the tools of those who would deprive us of our life/liberty/freedom. Not saying everyone in the government is like that, but there are those in there who are.

        Believe it or not, your right to believe and say what you want has been preserved in-part by those who have bled to keep people like you from wresting our liberties away.

        Ironic, no?

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        Liberals own guns too, to protect us from Trump and his supporters

        I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but Trump is currently Commander in Chief of the US military, and the boss of the FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE, and CBP. Not to mention all the miscellaneous federal agencies like the Dept. Of Education which unaccountably maintain their own SWAT teams. Does that factor at all into your calculus of what sort of weapons you believe you should have access to?

        We don’t want any lawful persons guns taken away, we want criminals and crazies to not have access to them, and we want the ban on weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds

        Any firearm can fire hundreds of rounds. So you don’t want to take away lawfully owned guns, except all the guns you do want taken away, which is all of them. Did I get that right?

        No one except military and law enforcement has any legitimate reason to have them.

        Civilians have to deal with the same criminals the police do, and in the same civilian environment. So what reason would they have to possess any weapon that does not also apply to civilians?

      3. avatar Stu says:

        I want life, liberty, and the means to preserve such things.

      4. avatar Marus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Trump and his supporters don’t pose any danger to you. In fact the cry of “make America great again,” or any direct reference to trump by the supposed offender is a sure sign that a reported hate crime is a hoax.

        Every weapon can fire hundreds of rounds, given enough time. I don’t say this just as an empty ‘gotcha,’ but to point out that the terminology you’re using is without meaning in and of itself. Yes, everyone here knows that you mean “…in a short period of time,” however you do not actually say it.

        Perhaps this is a reflection of the thoughts being expressed. Just as the statement you made is a vague reference to an idea that we are all familiar with (and have successfully refuted previously), and has no meaning other than symbolically representing that idea, perhaps the way you conceptualize the issue of firearms and firearms ownership is mostly empty and does not reflect the reality of the issue and your passionate desire to keep people safe prevents you from examining your conceptualization of the issue in detail.

        As for such military style weapons, those are the very weapons who’s ownership the 2nd amendment was intended to protect for the people. A nice modernization of the 2A would be “because militias can be needed for defense, the people have to be allowed to already own the guns.”

        Also, while you, personally, may not want to disarm the populace, the pro gun control politicians that you support do. They have said so on numerous occasions, usually while not realizing they are on the record or that a hot mic is nearby.

        Lastly, disallowing the ownership of some guns is still an infringement. I’ve heard repeatedly from pro gun control people that as long as people are allowed to still own guns in some way, then the 2nd amendment has not been violated, this is woefully wrong. “Infringe” does not mean “totally eliminate” and therefor anything short of total elimination of the right is allowable under the 2nd. Infringe means “to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” This means that any restriction constitutes an infringement

      5. avatar Bryan says:

        If you examine all of the mass shootings and most of the murders made with guns in cities like Detroit, they are done by Liberals. It is not the Trump supporters you need to concern yourself with, it is the Liberals.

  8. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Heroin and coke are illegal…people still manage to get them…go figure…
    laws (usually) only come into play AFTER the crime is over…and the damage is done…

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Rape is illegal.

      Rape is highly prevalent in maximum security prisons.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        As are physical assaults and stabbings with home-made “shanks”.

        I may have mentioned here as well as on other sites that many years ago I was friends with a former CO at the Deer Lodge, Montana, State Penitentiary. He retired after being shot in the back of his head by an inmate using a pistol cobbled together from stolen parts, including an radio antenna broken off an official vehicle. The propellant was crushed match-heads and the projectile (muzzle loaded) was a tightly compressed large paper clip.

        BTW, the projectile did not penetrate the skull, but he had an impressive scar on his scalp.

  9. avatar tdiinva says:

    Almost every black, Latin and many Asian politicians in California are beholden to criminal gangs — does the name Leland Yee ring a bell? Their hidden agenda is to disarm law abiding Californians to assure that the gangs are free to operate against the community. They know that weapons will continue to flow to the gangs through Mexico and Asia long after the last legal gun is confiscated.

  10. avatar Tom near Atlanta says:

    Cali just un-felonised these crimes:

  11. avatar Doesky2 says:

    Everybody mentions “crazy people” over the many recent years about these mass killers.

    To me the common trait are people that have embraced the Leftist belief that you are a victim and the world owes you something and if you don’t get it you have right to get mad and violent.

    1. avatar Momma_B_Packin says:

      Couldn’t have said it better myself!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      In other words, they are “crazy people”.

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Rancho Tehama Killer, Kevin Janson Neal, Had Been Charged With Two Felonies, Was Under a Restraining Order”

    And yet, he was still able to acquire weapons, which completely deflates the lefts main talking point…When evildoers want to do evil, there is nothing to stop them, EXCEPT, a “good guy with a gun”…

    1. avatar perry sims says:

      55% of the Precinct where this turd lived voted for Trump. It is a WAY more far right wing place than the rest of California which voted 62% AGAINST him. The Sheriff of Tehama County, five years ago, VOWED to never enforce any new gun laws proposed by President Obama. He’s a pro-gun ammosexual. Do you really expect he was going to take an old boy’s guns just for a couple of violent felonies? These CSPOA Sheriffs have been endorsed for years by the Jefferson State Militia, the paramilitary arm of the breakaway 51st. State.

      1. avatar Slick says:

        Except those laws are not new. They’ve been around before Obama.

        Nice try, Cletus.

      2. avatar HP says:

        The 51st state? You mean those vile Communists currently trying to make Calexit a real thing? Wouldn’t be too sure of those numbers of people that allegedly voted against Trump considering the massive voter fraud in California, which Judicial Watch has proven as a fact.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          That is southern California. This case is in northern California. There aren’t enough people up here to have voter fraud. The total population of Tehama County is 63,000. Glen County, due south, has only 28,000. Butte County (east and south) has a much higher population, but it also has a Cal State campus. Shasta County to the north has 178,00, but Trinity County (west of Shasta) has only 14,000. The Sacramento Valley is mostly rural hay ranches and orchards, east and west are mountains. Which is why residents up here believe that the only thing Sacramento cares about is assuring the continued flow of water from our rivers and streams to support the urban centers in the south. In short, you could hack every polling place in the entire north state and it would have no effect on the outcome of any election. Which is why some people keep promoting the (ridiculous and impractical) idea of making the north state the State of Jefferson, the 51st state.

      3. avatar WI Patriot says:

        WTF is your point, and what does it have to do with my comment…??? You’re blathering on about some BS that has nothing to do with anything…take you BS rhetoric and GTFO…

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    It’s ALMOST as if there’s a conspiracy…😫😡😢

  14. avatar Momma_B_Packin says:

    He previously stabbed his now deceased neighbor. If it wasn’t a gun, it could have been anything! If there is a will, then there is a way. This area is just too close for comfort. The fact he was offered bail is astonishing. Even a temporary restraining order “should have” prevented him from having access to a gun. Laws don’t work on psychos, only restricts law-abiding citizens. As an embarrassed Californian, they want to slap new laws on without fixing the underlying problems. Sad day…

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    Any talk of ilicit drug or excessive alcohol use?

    These aren’t the actions that typically occur un-predicated.

    He was probably using in his own home and “not hurting anyone”.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Getting free government marijuana from a local dispensary is more important than having a gun in California.

    Being able to walk around naked on days the government gives you permission is more important than having a gun in California.

    Performing sex acts in public on days the government gives you permission is more important than having a gun in California.

    Electing anti gun, anti civil rights homosexuals and pro gay marriage straights who are anti gun, is more important than having a gun in California.

    Being able to shoot up crystal meth in public to improve your sexual experience is more important than having a gun in California.

    The grand experiment is moving forward on California. All guns will be confiscated to make the state a safer place to live. We will see if that comes true.

    The three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, got their drug and sexual utopia in California. One more step and it will be complete.

    1. avatar James Oeming says:

      What is needed as to tighten up the hyper-liberal gun ownership policies in this country. The policies need to become much more conservative.

      As it is, guns are freely circulating around, and they can be picked up by guys like this wacko.

      We need to tighten up on gun accountability.

      Yes, continue to own guns.

      But, it must be always very clear who owns each gun, and who is accountable for it. The gun should be registered, the same way motor vehicles are registered. If the gun is lost or stolen, it should be reported immediately, because the registered owner will be responsible for what the gun is used for.

      It’s all about being very conservative, and very well-regulated about our guns.

      Right now we’re hyper-liberal, and lax as hell, and it’s biting us in the ass, again and again.

      If organizations such as the NRA do not step up to the plate and advocate strongly for greater accountability, than they are part of the problem. If they continue to actively resist policies for 1:1 accountability for each weapon at all times, then they are partly the cause for events such as this.

      1. avatar Stereodude says:

        Uh… No!

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I would much prefer the days when you could purchase a firearm through mail order, and have it delivered to your home. Back then crazy people where locked up and doctors took care of them until they were cured of what ills them.

        Instead the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left are totally focused on personal pleasure and using the powers of the state to interfere in the private intimate lives of straight people.

        Law abiding gays, the three L’s, they all need guns. But that is very low down their priority list. And that is why California will soon become the largest killing zone in the United States.

      3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        Absolutely not. Never. Not on my watch. We will not allow this unacceptable infringement.

        Besides, who is this “we” you keep referring to? Got a mouse in your pocket? It ain’t gun owners in general you’re talking about, since the vast majority of us strongly disagree with your idea of Utopia. I certainly don’t want to live in your fantasy world, where everyone is documented and regimented!

        Hmmm… speaking of documentation… here’s my offer: Once liberals complete the process of documenting every single illegal alien in this country, then we can begin the process of documenting gun owners.After all, we’re here legally, so no one can claim that documenting gun owners is a higher priority than illegal aliens… right?

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          For decades now surveys have indicated that the Three L’s Libertarians liberals and left do not have children. Having children would interfere with their extracurricular sexual activities. The general public having guns would interfere with their sexual activities in they’re weird way of thinking.

          That’s why the Three L’s totally support illegal aliens coming here and in fact have publicly stated that they do not believe in borders. They don’t believe in National borders. It doesn’t matter that these aliens these illegal aliens don’t support the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t matter to the Libertarians liberals and the left.

          If you lose the Bill of Rights that’s okay with the Three L’s because they want the cheap labor coming here since the Libertarians liberals and the left don’t generally have children. And in fact the Three L’s will never have enough children to replace what’s needed in the United States.

          The Libertarians liberals and the left support the welfare industrial complex. They have stated that the traditional American family is not necessary. So the government can replace the father in the family. The mother can have children from five or six different men. That is the American Family that the Three L’s see, Libertarians liberals and the left.

  17. Guy looks like a cross between Chuck Barris of the Gong Show and Robert Reich about 20 years ago. Paycheck says he’s a mentally ill lib off his meds. and the mother was an enabler.

  18. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    Governor Gerry Brown just banned carrying guns on school properties. No means of self defense allowed. I don’t know if the outcome would have been any different if a staff member was armed.
    What would you expect from a state that spared the life of Charles Manson by their laws?

  19. avatar the phantom says:

    pffft!
    (yet) another WHITE ‘mass shooter’….that record has just abt worn out its grooves by now….any-one with more than six fully-functioning brain cells knows what ethnicity commits the most violent crimes in the US…. ☻

  20. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Stop using the word “spree”. We don’t need to be doing the libs work for them.

  21. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    If I had been the neighbor he stabbed (and then killed), once I had the restraining order against him he would have only been out on bail a few days. Then he would have violated that order and wound up a dead man.

  22. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    We need to make good arguments. This article doesn’t make one. If I were on the other side of the issue, I’d tear it apart to make my points.

  23. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    I am so happy that – once again – calipornia’s magic crime shield of ever expanding gun control stopped another psycho from illegally obtaining weapons….

    Oh, wait, what was that….

    He was what?

    He did what?

    With WHAT???!!!

    MOOOORRRREEEE GUUNNNN CONTROOLLLLLLLL!!!!

    1. avatar James Oeming says:

      You’ve got it completely wrong. There is very poor gun control in California. Where did you get the idea that California had tight gun control?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Dude. I live in CA. I don’t want to call you a liar. Or full of shit. Maybe you’re just incredibly ignorant about gun laws in CA?

  24. avatar RH says:

    Yes, California gun laws are very strict.

    Arizona and Nevada gun laws are not. All he had to do was take the relatively short drive over the state line and buy anything he wanted from a private sale table at a gun show in either state.

    Nevada has a state law requiring background checks for private sales, but the law is so badly written, it is unenforceable and ignored. Arizona’s governor signed legislation prohibiting universal background checks.

    As a result, a whole lot of violent gun crime in California stems from guns coming from Nevada and Arizona.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      So why aren’t Nevada and Arizona hotbed of crime if guns are the problem and are so readily available?

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      Wrong. Interstate firearm sales between private individuals are prohibited by federal law.

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        Well that’s just a bullshit law, and fck it, I will sale what I want to, wherever I want to. Laws be damned

        1. avatar Stu says:

          I’m gonna guess you don’t have an FFL.

  25. avatar Matt says:

    I’m wondering if this will be another case showing the government very clearly failing to do its job.

  26. avatar Nate says:

    He kind of looks like a crazy, disheveled Aaron Rodgers.

  27. avatar James Oeming says:

    What this means is that every gun has to have a registered owner, direct out of the factory, just like cars and trucks do. What this means is that every year the owner has to bring it in to be re-registered, and verified by law enforcement that the gun is still in the person’s possession.

    If the gun is stolen or lost, the person has to report it very quickly, because if they don’t, they are responsible for what that gun does.

    What it means is that we need a system more like Japan’s where there is meticulous accountability for the ownership of a gun.

    The way it’s set up now, guns are just circulating out there freely , with little or no accountability, and are getting picked up by a wacko like this guy.

    Outfits like the NRA are making it very difficult to prevent incidents like this.

    We need to tighten up on accountability for gun ownership. It’s very lax.

    Gun ownership policies are hyper-liberal. They need to become much more conservative.

    If big gun organizations like the NRA, and so forth, do not step up to the plate and take responsibility for promoting greater accountability, then they ARE part of the problem. They ARE part of the cause.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      No thanks! You can stuff your registry where the sun doesn’t shine.

    2. avatar ColdNorth says:

      You know, up here in Canada we had a long gun registry, similar to what you proposed. I think you would agree that Canada has fairly strict gun laws. We abandoned that long gun registry because it cost 2 billion dollars and didn’t actually, you know, work. It certainly didn’t stop the usual crime we see of gangsters shooting each other. That was an awful lot of money that could have been spent on proper policing or on basic things like clean water for northern reserves.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      No, james. Those at fault here are the ones that wish to create victims by making it difficult or impossible for honest folk to defend themselves.

      Constitutional carry is a step in the right direction to stop this kind of nonsense from happening. People have to be allowed the means to defend themselves until the police show up to take the reports.

    4. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      “…every gun has to have a registered owner, direct out of the factory, just like cars and trucks do.”

      Where on earth did you ever get a wacky idea like that? No car or truck in this country is registered to an owner straight from the factory, dude… There are things called car dealers, who usually hold those vehicles for weeks or months (sometimes over a year) before selling them. They are not registered as soon as they’re produced, as you claim.

      At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you sounded like merely a somewhat reasonable but severely uninformed FUDD… but now you’re beginning to appear as more of a troll, or more likely a paid shill.

      Just so you know, we can sense that shit a mile away by it’s distinct odor…

  28. avatar AlanInFL says:

    My logic about the antis on gun control. They want more blood shed and criminals to be armed more than we lawful citizens. So more fucked up laws can penalizes us and control us.

    1. avatar ColdNorth says:

      ” We do not live by rule of law, because no one can possibly go a day without breaking one or another of the goofy laws that have been imposed on us over the years. No one even knows all the laws that apply to almost anything we do now. We live in a time of selective enforcement of law.” – Jerry Pournelle

  29. avatar DerryM says:

    I do not see any reason to think this guy acquired the rifle and handguns in some time proximity close to his attack of yesterday. It seems more reasonable to think he possessed the firearms well before he got into the issues resulting in his legal situation for which he was out on bail. So, in all probability he owned the firearms from a time he acquired them legally, maybe several years before he committed yesterday’s attack.
    Neal’s Family has just been quoted as saying they “had been trying [without success] to get him help for years before he hurt someone” on KTLA Los Angeles TV news just as I am writing this. It is well documented that a mentally unstable person with no actual criminal record can purchase firearms legally, even in gun hating California. Beyond that it is also well established that black market firearms can be purchased readily by anyone willing to take the risk of making such a purchase. It might be likely the local authorities did not know he possessed firearms. That seems to be a stretch since his neighbors had been complaining about him to the local authorities, who could well have seized the firearms before yesterday, but possibly chose not to(?).
    So, once again, this matter comes down not to how the perpetrator acquired the firearms used, but to why he did not/could not get treatment for his, apparently, violent unstable mental condition. Same tired old story.

  30. avatar john_h says:

    Once again the failure of background checks and restrai ing orders to prevent crime. If someone has broken one law and committed a crime why in hl should we think they will respect any other law???

  31. avatar GoD says:

    Come on liberals write 22k more illegal gun laws that criminals ignore morons!

    Those laws are really saving the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!

  32. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Despite the fact that all of that made his possession of firearms a legal impossibility,…”

    “…all of that…” seems to somehow equate with conviction? Doing a word search on form 4473, I cannot find the word “arrested”, or “on trial”. I did find “convicted”. What I am left with is “…all of that….” comes down to a restraining order.

    Did I miss something?

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Yes. Question 11(b): Are you under indictment or information in any court of a felony etc, etc.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Yep, I did not look for indictment. After I did, things fell into place.

        Thanx

  33. I WILL ASSUME THE JUDGE IS PROBABLY A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT WHO RELEASED THIS SCUMBAG ON BAIL. THE SAME LIBERAL TYPE WHO SCREAMS ABOUT GUN CONTROL BUT LETS AN ATTEMPTED MURDERER OUT ON BAIL BECAUS IT MAY INFRINGE ON HIS RIGHTS TO KEEP HIM INCARCERATED. EVERYONE SHOULD BE ISSUED A GUN WHEN THEY TURN 21

  34. avatar Matt says:

    He’s dead and gone now but the ones in office are still on the lose and still just as dangerous, if not more, given their overall extending reach. Much more so than any bullet, knife or fist can travel.
    Keep fighting and bickering among yourself and that keeps your focus off where the true problem lies.

  35. avatar DerryM says:

    According to this article in Western Journalism, the two rifles were “homemade” and the two handguns were registered to “someone else”:

    https://www.westernjournal.com/california-gunman-killed-4-not-supposed-gun/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2017-11-16&utm_campaign=manualpost

    So, his acquisition/possession of the firearms was both illegal and unregistered to him.

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