BREAKING: Police Served Kansas Gunman with Restraining Order 90 Minutes Before He Opened Fire

“Shortly before a gunman fatally shot three people and injured 14 others on Thursday, he had been served with a restraining order that aimed at barring him from contact with someone he had abused,” reports. “The gunman was served with a ‘protection from abuse’ order about 90 minutes before the first shot was fired, Harvey County Sheriff T. Walton said during a news conference Friday. Walton identified the gunman as Cedric Larry Ford, 38, of Newton, Kan. ‘He’s been in my jail a couple of times before,’ Walton said of Ford. The restraining order was served to Ford while he was at work at the factory where he would later open fire, Walton said.” Ford was stopped by a good guy with a gun (a cop). But not soon enough.


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    So… a person with a criminal history managed to get his hands on a rifle… Tell me more about how background checks work so well we need to expand them.

    1. avatar Jay816 says:

      He could had got the gun off the streets where they don’t do paperwork all you need is money.

      1. avatar Smokey Behr says:

        You mean he got it from the “Undocumented Firearms Dealer” on the corner.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      and how “felons” can’t get guns.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Not can’t. Shouldn’t.

    3. avatar ThomasR. says:

      Umm, the other question is did the restraining order, because he was now unable to assault his girl friend, cause him to displace his aggression on his work place? But that doesn’t make any sense, his work place was already a GFZ! There were laws in place to stop him from carrying a gun into work.

      Maybe the laws in place weren’t specific enough. After all, the GFZ sign only has a picture of a pistol, (usually a Beretta) with a circle and slash through it. Maybe if they had put a sign at the door also outlawing carrying an “assault like weapon” into the work place? But then there are all the different types of rifles, like a Garand or an SKS; different pistols, like revolvers, and then there all the different types of shot guns; the door would have so many pictures of rifles, shoguns and pistols, you couldn’t see if the firearm you have was outlawed!

      I know!, Instead of having pictures of different firearms on the door to keep out homicidal maniacs, maybe they should just make a law against murder, then the killing will stop! Call your representatives, I have the solution!!

      1. avatar MeRp says:

        They could put a picture of a bullet wound with the circle/slash thing over it, making it clear that you are not to be wounded by a bullet on that premises. Perhaps that would help too?

  2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Cue the calls for recipients of restraining orders to lose their right to due process.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Restraining orders are idiotic anyway. It’s just a piece of paper that does nothing to actually protect people, just like gun free zones.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        When you have to shoot the guy to survive, it’s nice to have a document which shows that a court agreed that he was dangerous.

        1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

          Good point.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          That should not be necessary when you have Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine, but then again libbies would like to replace those (along with all of our gun rights) with restraining orders.

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Stand your ground and castle doctrine laws only remove one’s legal duty to retreat. They neither enhance nor diminish the underlying legal standard for justifiable use of deadly force. Without first meeting that legal standard, SYG and CD aren’t going to help you.

        4. avatar Blacque Jacque Shellacque says:

          So a restraining order is sorta like bear tags?

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        When the guy illegally shows up at your home or place of business, it’s even nicer to have a readymade cause for arrest so you don’t have to shoot him at all.

        Some abusers show up with murder on their mind, granted. Some others show up, armed, mistakenly thinking that if only she would hear him out this one last time, she’ll come back and they can be happy again. If not, then he’ll murder her.

        For others still, having something definitive and official in their hands like a restraining order can be the final force that convincing them it’s over and time to move on (peacefully).

        It’s these latter two groups, who still have a decision tree before them, which restraining orders can be useful against. I wouldn’t support abolishing them any more than I would endorse relying on them exclusively.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        IMO, restraining orders, once granted, should be delivered to the protected person in the form of a T-shirt with the order printed on it front and back – superimposed over a standard range silhouette target. Maybe then someone might get a glimmer of understanding as to their actual value.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          They should be delivered in the form of handcuffs and a prison sentence, or perhaps a rope. Or not at all.

  3. avatar JohnO_inTX says:

    Knock. Knock. “We are from the government and we are here to help you.”

  4. avatar James69 says:

    Well a few things… Serve a PFA to a subject on the job? What lazy ass cop did this? “He’s been in my jail before”?? Really? you don’t say. Lawsuit’s on the way, this will get interesting real quick.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Nope. Police have no duty to protect. Immune from prosecution. And only payout when shooting African Mericans. Cause only their lives matter. Even when they’re taking lives with “assault” rifles.

      1. avatar JustAMan says:

        They do not only “pay out when shooting African Mericans.” It’s this rhetoric that causes the the anti gunners to be in more against us.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          What are they going to do? Crank it up to super DUPER hate us? Sheesh.

          You have a Dem presidential candidate who was hammered for declaring that “all lives matter” when asked whether black lives matter. The other two candidates promptly fell into line and repeated the chant that black lives matter.

          These people aren’t fair-minded or even rational. Quit trying to appease them.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Getting him at work is a lot safer than at home. At home you have no idea what he might have stashed around, to say nothing of the fact that he doesn’t have to even open the door.

      The person at fault here is the one that shot people.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:


      Typically the faster you can serve a restraining / protective order the better. People spend the majority of their lives at work or at home. This dirtbag was served at the former. It’s also more predictable to find someone at work – usually a simple task of calling a boss or receptionist. If a person left home to run errands, they are much more difficult to find. (procided you don’t have the cell phone pinged, or other surveillance, which is a different matter entirely).

  5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, the law enforcement system prohibitions, checks, and orders didn’t stop him, but a citizen acting autonomously did. Un-possible.

    1. avatar Ben B says:

      Article said it was a cop that stopped him.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        A cop is a citizen.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I don’t think he was challenging that cops are citizens. I think by “cop” he was challenging the autonomous part, since the cop was on duty and responding to a call within his official capacity.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          Of course cops are citizens, but the citizen o this case was paid by taxpayer dollars, wearing a uniform, and working for the government. Most outside of TTAG will see that a lot differently than we do.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “Article said it was a cop.”

        Fair enough. I skimmed the summary.

        So, from a guns among us perspective, if the BG was stopped when he was shot, I wonder how many people wouldn’t have died before the cop got there, if citizens were more able to carry arms?

        Unlike one of our energetic trolls (Where’s he been lately?), I have an issue with deciding some folks can get killed because they’re not permitted to protect themselves, when they would choose otherwise if allowed to. I have a bigger issue with someone else deciding who’s judgment to override, and who not. I don’t even want me making that decision for other people.

        I do prefer the notion of cops as agents of the citizens, to look out for us vs. impose on us.

  6. avatar Lawyer says:

    I spent 45 years as a cop, lawyer and prosecutor. Any time you serve a PO you should notify everybody at risk so they can lock thir doors and arm thenselves. I have seen entire families murdered after papers were served. The guys are powder kegs for about the first 3-4 days. Just common sense.

  7. avatar Mortdecai says:

    I have been watching the news all morning. No breaking story on Fox or CNN. The only mention is on the crawl on Fox. What the he’ll is this??? Just because it was a black felon shooter, the left is just going to let this pass? They were calling for gun confiscation when the pathetic loser in Michigan opened fire. Of course he was white.

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      CNN is downplaying it because the dude is a Democrat…..

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Mortdecai gets it.

  8. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Soon, citing these murders, California state representives will, in a collective writing orgy, pen more bills to ram through the legislature specifically to deny due process and infringe on law abiding citizens.

    Mommy groups known to SWAT legal gun owners will file restraining orders so the state will confiscate your armaments.

    1. avatar california richard says:

      Tyrants doing what tyrants do when when power starts to slip through their fingers.

    2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      To which California gun owners need to decide if they have the will to use their guns. Otherwise their bluff is being called.

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        We don’t need a gun, only a pen to send them to the unemployment line.

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

    some guy in the comments section at NBC said “3 people got NRA’d.”

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Which is odd, since I never remember the NRA advocating a restricted Felon with a restraining order to take a firearm and kill multiple people with it.

  10. avatar Mikele says:

    In Massachusetts if you are the recipient of a restraining order the Police serving it ask for your Firearms license and any weapons you own. Your license is suspended for the duration of the restraining order and you obviously cannot have own any weapons without a license in MA. As soon as the judge lifts the order or it runs out you may pick up your guns and license at your local PD.
    MA sucks ass. ?? but in the Kansas case I wonder if it would have made a difference. Looks like the AK was illegal mabey? So Cops wouldn’t have known?

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      “Looks like the AK was illegal mabey?”

      Felon – prohibited person, it was illegal.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        You’d think the girlfriend might have passed on that he was illegally armed when she applied for the restraining order.

        1. avatar brian says:

          She bought the guns for him. She couldn’t tell them without implicating herself.

    2. avatar AJ187 says:

      Yeah, cause homicidal maniacs are so eager to give up their weapons on verbal request by the cops.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Next, in response to this tragedy, every restraining order will come with a bundled search warrant!

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      Even in MA, if you were a felon, you wouldn’t have a license, your weapons wouldn’t be registered, and I highly doubt you’re going to admit to owning them when the police ask.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        Yea but there was that GFZ sign anyway. I mean WTH?

        (oblig; sarcasm)

  11. avatar John L. says:

    So, wow, a piece of paper didn’t provide any real protection against a bad guy with a gun

    But then, just looking at the targets from my last range trip would have told you just how well paper works as a ballistic shield.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I doubt that his place of employment or the people he shot were the subject of the TRO, unless his ex-partner worked there. So, in the long run, since he was shot dead at that location and didn’t get to her the TRO did in fact protect her. But NOT the 17 other people.

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        So what we have is a run amuck state apparatus and a bunch of dead third parties, just so some dumb broad can feel “protected”, instead of bothering to be a bit more careful in selecting who she presents for. Sounds about right for Dystopia.

  12. avatar Donimater says:

    The news coverage of this tragedy borders on the irrational. On one had, FOX reports that there was no indication that he’d go postal. On the other hand, they observe that he was a domestic batterer and a convicted felon with a long history of incarceration.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    So a felon with a restraining order shot a bunch of people in a gun free zone? If it wasn’t so tragic, this would be a Monty Python episode.

  14. avatar Don says:

    How does “an order” prevent someone from contacting someone they’ve abused? Sounds like you are relying on the crazy person to be reasonable and choose to follow that order. The only laws that must be followed are those of physics.

  15. avatar Sian says:

    Prohibited person, Gun Free Zone, disarmed citizens had to be rescued by a good guy with a gun.

    How many times does this have to repeat until they figure out what’s right in front of their faces?

    1. avatar Don says:

      And a guy who the police witnessed committing a felony that they didn’t cuff and jail. Much earlier police showed up to his residence to retrieve guns he was possessing that “belonged” to his ex girlfriend. She later gave them back to him because he threatened her. I guess she didn’t know how to use these guns she bought while they were together… They failed to arrest a person actively committing a felony with guns, and later he killed people with the same guns.

  16. avatar Ebby123 says:

    “She finally got the nerve to file for divorce,
    she let the law take it from there.
    But Earl walked right through that restraining order,
    and put her in intensive care.”

    Somethings never change…

  17. avatar Libertarian says:

    Another example thats show thats “no gun zone” sigs should be ignored from the lawfull and only limited you to ccw only carry ore generaly concealed for the rarity of constitutional carry states as kansas

  18. avatar Nyglockowner says:

    Convicted felon with guns, proudly displaying them in Facebook photos.

  19. avatar glenux says:

    I have never seen a Restraining Order that could stop a bullet.

  20. avatar Don says:

    And his ex girlfriend bought the guns and let him have access to them even though she knew he was a felon. Then when they broke up he kept the guns and she had to go with police back to retrieve them from him. It’s a felony for a felon to possess firearms. He was possessing firearms. He should have been arrested and put in jail on the spot. She could have been put in jail for straw buying them for him. Both felons were left on the streets. Police negligence!

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      That’s interesting, from the linked;

      “She told authorities that she went to the home the following month with police officers to get the guns, but said she returned them to Ford after he threatened her.”

      If that’s true, why didn’t the po-po arrest the guy at that time, he was a felon and had a firearm.

  21. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Yes Don. Major straw purchase. Whadda’ U bet she sees NO prison time?

  22. avatar OneGuySays says:

    A restraining order should be accompanied by an automatic house arrest. Then, any attempt at a “jail break” would be cause for shooting the idiot. Let the wife-beaters learn the cost of their bullying.

  23. avatar Paul says:

    Where I work most of the employees are women and a good half of them are or have been in legal battles with ex husbands or boyfriends. Most of the women are on paych meds which does not exactly scream stable either. I got a CC permit because i am genuinely concerned that one of these guys will come after the woman and the rest of us will be caught in the hail of bullets. I also have to fire people and prefer being discreetly armed at those times. Workplace violence is getting worse and signs will not stop it.

  24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Oh, look: the laws already in place didn’t work, yet again:

    Sarah Hopkins, of Newton, Kan., was accused in federal court of knowingly transferring a firearm to a convicted felon, according to Fox4KC.

    A criminal complaint says Hopkins gave two weapons to Cedric Ford who was shot dead by a Hesston Police Chief Doug Schroeder during Thursday shootings at Excel Industries in Hesston, the station reported.

    It’s almost as if laws don’t hinder violent criminals…

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