Friend of Dayton Shooter Arrested for Illegal Possession of a Firearm, Lying on 4473

Ethan Kollie dayton shooter's friend

Courtesy Montgomery County Jail

An Ohio man has been arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance and making false statements or representations.

Ethan Kollie, 24, of Kettering, was arrested Friday night in Beavercreek on suspicion of a firearms violation unrelated to the Oregon District shooting, according to Montgomery County Jail records and an unsealed complaint signed by a federal agent.

Kollie reportedly bought body armor, AR-15 parts and a 100-round drum magazine for the Dayton shooter and kept them at his home to hide them from the shooter’s parents. As the shooter was legally able to purchase the items himself, Kollie hasn’t been charged with making a straw purchase.

However, when he purchased the AR-15 pistol used in the shooting, he lied on the form 4473 he signed at the time.

The agent’s complaint said that Kollie had checked “no” on the ATF form that must be completed to purchase a firearm from a local dealer.

“Kollie stated that he answered ‘no’ to the question regarding drug use,” the complaint says. “When asked why he lied, Kollie stated he knew that if he told the truth about his drug use, he would not be allowed to purchase a firearm, so he lied and answered ‘no.”

US Attorney Benjamin Glassman said in a news conference that there’s no indication that Kollie knew of the shooter’s plan or participated in any way.

comments

  1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

    Following.
    Did they claim he bought the weapon or parts? Confused

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      VIEJO ,it states he bought both.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Previous published reports said the shooter aquired the weapon legally. If this person bought the weapon for the killer why not charge him for the straw man purchase not this rinky dink charge?

        1. avatar StLPro2A says:

          Not a straw purchase, as stated in report, as the shooter was legally able to purchase himself.

        2. avatar TFred says:

          A straw purchase has nothing to do with whether the other person may legally complete the purchase.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

          I think there is something wrong with the details recounted here.

        3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          @TFred, incorrect, and that case is a sham. It is not a straw purchase if the intended user can legally possess the firearm. Otherwise it is impossible to buy a firearm as a gift, prize, or rental.

        4. avatar JR Pollock says:

          The Abramski case was the reason the 4 Conservative Justices started swatting away 2A cases. Alito, Scalia, Roberts & Thomas all voted that Abramski hadn’t engaged in a straw purchase, and Kennedy sided with the liberals. As a result, we now have bad case law, with SCOTUS seal of approval.

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      The lower receiver could be described as a “part”.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        The lower receiver is considered the firearm, by federal law…

  2. avatar Forrest says:

    “I did not lie, I hadn’t started smoking pot when I bought that item, prove I’m lying.”

    One sentence could have avoided all of this.

    Or “No, I won’t buy you guns and help you hide them from your parents.”

    Either one would have saved him a lot of trouble. Neither one would have likely stopped the shooting, but he could have avoided charges at least.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Either that, or have the shooter purchase his own gear in his own name (the parents won’t find out) and then store them for him. Again, no legal issue arises.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Ok… Let’s take a quick hair sample. Fun thing, hair, it’s basically a record of your body toxicity for years (in the case of head hair). Most body hair retains a 5-6 month record.

      1. avatar George "I only have 7 AR-15's" from Alaska says:

        Agreed… or a body fat sample. Hair and body fat samples are what agencies that really want to know what their applicants have been up to. You can just drink carrot juice with bleach or whatever the f people do to try and clean their systems and get rid of hair or body fat evidence.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “body fat samples”

          o.O

          Many substances accumulate in fat, but I do not think this type of sample could be taken.

      2. avatar Hydguy says:

        Funny to see how fast supposed ‘gun rights people’ will roll over.

        So will you happily turn over genetic material to partake in your ‘rights’?

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          The discussion is about this kid’s possible prosecution, not directly about gun rights. If they get a warrant they most certainly can take and test his hair.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        Taking a hair or urine sample without consent, warrant or not, is a violation of your fifth amendment right to freedom from self incrimination.

        You are quite literally being forced to give evidence against yourself, a clear violation of the fifth amendment.

        No matter what your position is on gun control, we all need to assert our fifth amendment rights. Some would say it’s always been this way but just because the violation is long-standing, in no way justifies the abuse.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Dude you come on here talking shit about the 2nd every time some nutjob is portrayed by the media’s narrative, now you wanna talk about other rights being infringed? People like you are so confused. You can’t have it both ways.You either support the entirety of those amendments and their purpose, or you don’t. Just let it be known, that without civilian gun ownership, all of your rights are in jeopardy.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          No, I don’t talk shit about the 2A, we have a difference of opinion on the interpretation.

          This is America, if my viewpoint differs from yours, that’s just the nature of a free society. People get their knickers in a wad far too easily these days, rather than attempting to have a discussion and persuade, they’d rather cuss and bully.

          My model of American values is Gary Cooper in Sergeant York or high noon, or Jimmy Stewart as the six shooter.

          Unfortunately, most young male Americans’ model is more Rambo or Hulk Hogan.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          You can interpret the 2A how ever you see fit. Most people that don’t see it as a right for the individual to own and bare arms want to tell people that do that they can’t own and bare arms. How is that freedom or America? How would those people like it if people that want to own or bare arms told them they had to own and bare arms. Their right to think for themselves and refuse are completely removed they must own and bare arms or be jailed because of it. Do you think they would like that or do you think they would be more triggered usual?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sorry kiddo, you don’t need to take a hair sample directly from the suspect. Just go through his laundry hamper and you’ll get all the evidence you’ll need.

          Though I do find it hillarious that a commie is pretending that he cares about individual rights. But I suppose that anything is ok so long as it allows you to get so stoned you forget that your heroes murdered a quarter billion people.

      4. avatar Big Bill says:

        Personal opinion (not to be confused as speaking with any authority at all – which matches the vast majority of posts here):
        Given the very small number of prosecutions for lying on the 4473 (and that is a fact), I seriously doubt the Feds will go to the expense and trouble to take and process a hair sample in this case. Especially since they (at least in this case) have an admission of wrongdoing.

  3. avatar Wiregrass says:

    What about question 11. a) ? He had to have lied on that one too. Why doesn’t that get him charged with being a straw purchaser?

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Maybe technically, they’re not pushing that one because the ultimate recipient wasn’t prohibited at the time.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          But the SCOTUS upheld his previous conviction; as clearly noted on the page you linked: “Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit against Abramski.”
          I also read a few articles about the case before it his the SC, and they all either found him guilty or ended with guilty pleas.
          From what I read, even if both parties (the original buyer who filled out the 4473, and the ultimate buyer) are legally allowed to buy guns, the question is quite clear, and Abramski lied on the form, a federal offense. This is, from what I read, the opinion of the Supreme Court, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
          Unless, of course, the articles I read (including the Wikipedia link) somehow said something other than what I quoted above.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I know. Again, “they’re not pushing that one”.

  4. avatar Truckman says:

    this goes to show you we have enough laws on gun control they are just not enforced just like a felon trying to buy a firearm at a shop and is turned down he is supposed to be contacted by ATF or somebody to find out why they were trying to buy a gun and most likely they lied on form about being a felon but never heard of a follow up visit why not its the law and there are other laws that need to be enforced instead of making more

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      In Pennsylvania since 2014 state police have been charging everyone who is denied a purchase and doesn’t send in the appeal form. Most of them have miner infractions long ago or miscoded medical evaluations. The state police have also improperly interpreted the laws on medical evaluations for decades and having been treating a voluntary overnight evaluation as an involuntary commitment. Thank God we have good attorneys beginning to roll this back. But if you got busted for DUI, or got caught with a little pot as a teenager, or told your mommy that you hate her when you were a teen and spent the night in a hospital for it then you may get a surprise when you try to buy a gun years later after having gotten your shit together and turned into a normal decent person.

      1. avatar paul says:

        You bump your head in a bicycle accident, the hospital keeps you the night for observation and now they want to take your gun rights? How long does someone have to abstain from pot to answer he doesn’t use illegal narcotics? 1 year – 5 years – 10 – 20???? does anyone know?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          He was referring to a mental evaluation hold, not just any hospitalization. This is not an “admission” within the meaning of the federal law, and therefore is not disqualifying. If it turns into an involuntary admission, then you are screwed for life. So if they ask you if you will consent to an admission, say yes if you want to keep your gun rights intact. Isn’t it Schumer the Scheming Schmuck we have to thank for that law?

      2. avatar Alan says:

        The PA State Police, aka Coal and Iron Cops, have been playing fast and loose with the law for many years. They once denied a handgun purchase of mine, all the while I held a state Concealed Carry Permit. I immediately appealed their purchase rejection. After about 3 months, I recieved a Reversal of Denial, but I was never able to discover what their problem had been, and I did inquire. So much for The Boys In Blue.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Because making new laws gives the appearance of “doing something”.

      Enforcing existing laws raises the question of why this wasn’t done before.

      1. avatar Dennis says:

        BINGO!!!!!!

  5. avatar J.D. Fowlerton says:

    I’m wondering if this guy bought the weapon because the shooter thought he may be flagged and have the sell rejected or something if he tried to purchase it himself.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      You raise another good point; what good are Red Flag laws when you have straw purchases & off-site storage arrangements with confederates like this?

      All it’s good for is incentivizing people to store their guns remotely (ie with poorer security), even after Heller clearly stipulated that nothing is to infringe on the right to keep weapons in the home.

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Hey now, don’t be hating on the confederates. We haven’t shot any damn yankees in a long long time. And we have better uses for a bar full of drunk ladies late at night. Some of us are stuck behind enemy lines, but we stopped fighting a while back. 😉

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Your cause was slavery. You lost. Get over it. If you wanna talk about fighting government and such, cool.. but everytime I see a confederate flag it’s by some hillbilly and it’s race related hatred. Get over it dude. Find another way to establish your distrust in the government and stop riding your cousin johnny’s dick.

  6. avatar Gregory Peter DuPont says:

    I would argue that we actually have TOO MANY laws on the books beyond” convicted of violent felony/ies, currently in prison/on parole/probation/under indictment

  7. avatar No One Special says:

    Does this mean that everyone on prescription narcotics has to answer yes to the same question? Seems pretty relevant to me. I’ve seen people do some seriously stupid shit taking the crap doctors call safe and get hurt doing it. Maybe that’s only because pharmaceutical companies and doctors make money off of that crap. It does make me wonder though how many gun owners right now would be breaking the law if prescription drugs were classified under the same criteria. How about alcohol it is classified as a drug too. If you drink shouldn’t you have to answer yes to the same question? Jeezlus talk about mincing words and setting the rules in opposition.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Nope… Prescription narcotics are lawful. The question specifies UNLAWFUL.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        There’s still no difference on the impairment delivered. That’s just more double talk and doesn’t directly answer the question. The answer is yes all of the above should be included or none at all. Goes to show the stupidity and invalidity of the question as a whole.

      2. avatar No One Special says:

        Oh and the question specifically asked are you an unlawful user? If you take prescription drugs and drive you are an unlawful user. If you drink and drive or drink and have on your person a firearm you are an unlawful user. If you take someone else’s prescription medication even if you don’t pay for it you are an unlawful user. There are instances that make even the legal, illegal. Which also goes to show more double talk and invalidity.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          No, it’s a clear difference. If you’re taking the drugs your doctor gave you as the doctor told you. You are not an unlawful user. Full stop. This is not rocket science.

          No dope-head. You being unable to get stoned out of your gourd without legal repercussions is not a form of oppression.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Wrong jackass on many levels. I’ve never done an illegal drug in my life. I also am anti drug pharmaceutical or otherwise unless it is absolutely needed. Most cases I doubt that they are. That still doesn’t make the question any less invalid. You’re assumption makes you a bigger jackass than the double talk you are spewing. Try again or just plain stop.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          I also said if you are taking prescription narcotics and driving it is illegal. Not just taking them as prescribed because the doctor said it was ok. That is driving under the influence. Same with drinking alcohol and having a firearm on your person. Try reading what is actually there not what you want it to say. Oh and yes people take prescription narcotics and other mind altering prescription medications all the time and drive. Which would make them an unlawful user. Yes I know that didn’t say what you think it says but try slowing down a little and maybe you can read it.

          No matter how much you want it to be different so you can keep milking the local pharmacy for your addiction, it’s not. It’s the same damn thing.

        4. avatar No One Special says:

          Oh wait I almost forgot. You were the one saying alcohol and tobacco was good enough for a family member to deal with health problems it was good enough for you. News flash! Medically speaking both make most medical problems worse. You are definitely one of those thinks it’s only ok if it not being ok directly effects you. That’s not how freedom works.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          I hate to be the one to break this to you libertardian. But humans literally evolved to process alcohol. As for tobacco… the health effects of cold smoke (cigars, pipes, etc) tobacco are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the CDC has a study that showed no measurable health effects on people who smoke two cigars per day.

        6. avatar No One Special says:

          You’re full of all kinds of assumptions aren’t you jackass? I’m a Republican across the board without fail. Although we have already had this discussion. How many times are you going to call me a libtardian and I have to tell you time and again that I’m strictly Republican? Unlike you that votes for whatever party that suits your wishy washy ideals at the time. You should really lay off the sauce and drugs or stay off the internet. You clearly can’t remember what you say from one discussion to the next. You and the Uncle sitting in the basement getting drunk token it up self medicating on the pharmaceuticals blowing each other? Nevermind don’t answer that. What you do with family behind closed doors is your business. It is interesting that you talk this bullshit though and I’m a prime example that proves you wrong. I don’t use tobacco at all anymore and drink very very little and my overall health has improved. It’s about making healthy lifestyle choices and eliminating toxins not taking more in. Drinking in moderation (no more than 2 drinks a day for a HEALTHY male or one for a HEALTHY female) is considered to be acceptable. If you are unhealthy already save for only a few conditions drinking isn’t going to help and tobacco definitely isn’t as both cause inflammation which exacerbates existing chronic health problems. Now I’m not saying you can’t do what you want. In fact just the opposite. Drink and smoke it up. Hell take every drug your doctor gives you in fact. After you are done killing yourself with all the crap you put into your body that will leave more oxygen for the rest of us.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Geez a FB friend/ old schoolmate of of mine was whining online about getting a marijuana card. “I won’t be able to buy a gun” he complained. In ILLinois he can be raided and lose his FOID AND his many guns. All because he had a heart attack & has severe angina. Did this doofus have drug conviction’s or what? He wasn’t even charged with a straw purchase!?! Big BROTHER is at work…

  9. avatar Dennis says:

    So the ATF is gonna make big show of claiming the laws do work or don’t work? We all know they work when they’re enforced, guess I’m not sure what the point is!

  10. avatar barnbwt says:

    “As the shooter was legally able to purchase the items himself, Kollie hasn’t been charged with making a straw purchase.”

    Wut? We had a SCOTUS case on this exact issue a couple of years back (cop bought his brother a Glock with his discount; it was considered a straw purchase even though both were allowed to possess, and even though the gun transferred across state lines via FFL as required). That is definitely not how straw purchase laws work. Maybe it should, since the purpose is to prevent people who can’t legally possess guns from paying people to buy for them, and not simply to make purchasing guns more onerous, but that’s now how the enforcement stands.

    What are Kollie’s political affiliations? Between this ‘defender of Antifa’ shooter, his batshit crazy “girlfriend” hiding his ‘manifesto’ from the authorities, and now this guy who bought weapons on his behalf for the shooting, it looks pretty clear that this was a leftist terrorism cell.

    1. avatar Dennis says:

      Didnt think there was any question about their affiliation or intent! Of course they were Dimocrat sympathizers so the rules change, correct?

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      -The pair of tranny freaks that shot up the STEM school in Colorado would be another such cell
      -As likely is the circle of close friends of that longtime antifa-geezer who tried to blow up the ICE facility with a rifle & propane cannister (there was a large, broad outpouring of support & sympathy for his ‘martyrdom’)
      -I’d be interested to see another such examination of the associates of the loser drunk that shot up the Republican baseball game & nearly took out a significant chunk of our elected government single-handedly; we know he visited Bernie Sanders’ office in the hours before, and had attended leftist protests

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      Nope, this guy was conservative pro gun all the way, both of them were gun worshipers.

      “Kollie’s tweets dealt with other commentary at times; he wrote, “Nothing like white liberals telling black people how to act and think. They’re not racist, though.” He directed a tweet toward Shannon Watts, of the anti gun violence group Moms Demand, copying the NRA: “Stop trying to strip people of their rights. We won’t stand for it.”

    4. avatar Chuckers says:

      I guess if your a Warren supporter and you want to give her more ammo to take guns away from people you go conduct a mass shooting. You think?

    5. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Do you remember the case name?

      Would like to read about it.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Don’t lie!!
    Even they can’t get you for another crime, lying is .

  12. avatar MB says:

    Since the shooter is dead, they need someone to charge for the crime, this clown provided that opportunity. Who knows, the shooter ( I won’t use his name ) probably was a part of a bigger conspiracy anyway. He failed his mission, so he was executed, or he succeeded in his mission, and was executed …. Sounds about as logical as all the other reasons a$$holes shoot innocent people they don’t know along with their relatives.

  13. avatar hippogiant says:

    Ethan Kollie is not charged with buying the weapon (most likely the Anderson stripped lower) used by the gunman Connor Betts in the Dayton shooting. Otherwise, he could be charged with straw purchase. In fact, Betts passed the background check and bought the weapon (lower) himself.
    Kollie merely bought/received body armor, magazine/drum, upper, building kits, etc. for Betts. This by itself didn’t break any law, if he didn’t know beforehand what Betts was up to.
    Kollie is charged with lying on 4473 for being a drug user when he bought his OWN gun. It’s totally unrelated to the shooting or Betts, legally.

    1. avatar Ridgy says:

      Wow thanks for most coherent and nuanced comment on this article yet.

  14. avatar Enuf says:

    Form 4473 Question 11.a.
    “a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)”

    There is a detailed explanation on page four. Reading it I see this as a Straw Purchase.
    1. Not buying for himself.
    2. Not buying as a gift.
    3. Buying with money supplied by the intended owner.

    The only thing not in there is he made the buy without a profit motive for himself. I do not see that as enough to let him walk on a charge of being strawman buyer.

    The drug use part of it is worse. He revealed under questioning that he and the shooter used pot everyday along with frequently taking acid. He revealed that he grows psycjadelic mushrooms at home.

    So back this up a moment. The killer was in fact a prohibited possessor and the buyer knew it. He was prohibited for being a regular user of controlled drugs, that’s question 11.e. When the buyer lied about his drug use, knowing full well he was also lying about the final owner’s illegal drug use. They’d been frineds for 10 years, og course he knew that neither of them could legally own a firearm.

    The sale was illegal and Strawman on multiple grounds.

    1. avatar Alan says:

      The plot seems to be getting or has gotten a bit thick, what with additional data, not originally noted, or was it merely unmentioned in earlier reporting.

      1. avatar Enuf says:

        I accept going into it that the news media is generaly ignorant of firearms and of AR’s especially. They are mixed up abou the word “pistol”. They say he bought a pistol not used in the attack plus some AR parts. reports do not identify the AR parts.

        My guess, and it’s just a guess at this moment, is the guy bought a lower receiver to build an “AR Pistol”, which I see as a short barreled rifle but the ATF does not so ….

        So it looks like the news hounds are mixed up on the pistol versus “pistol lower”. Or it couldbe there was a separate actual pistol purchase.

        In either case both the shooter and his friend were prohibited for illegal long term drug use of pot, acid, psychadelic mushrooms. This was both a straw purchase and fraud under the drug prohibition.

    2. avatar TFred says:

      “The sale was illegal and Strawman on multiple grounds.”

      The article is poorly written. Your conclusion is incorrect, for one very simple reason: Kollie did not buy a firearm for the murderer. He bought body armor, firearm *parts*, and a drum. None of these items required the use of the Form 4473.

      Kollie was charged with lying on HIS OWN Form 4473 for another purchase.

  15. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Am I going to have to pay for the polygraph test or does the Gunm Shop? Moving along, moving along

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Am I going to have to pay for the polygraph test or does the Gunm Shop?”

      Only on Tuesdays, after dark…

      1. avatar " keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

        Keep yur paws off my straw purchase seller guy, bean gracias.

  16. avatar Alan says:

    A “friend” lied on some forms, not the shooter, right? So let’s see if the Feds prosecute him for such “crime” as he might be guilty of.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    This could branch into a bigger story. The friend, Kollie, was a regular user of marijuana. He is being charged with possessing a firearm while being a user of a controlled substance. This is a federal crime, and is just as much a crime in a state that has legalized the recreational use of marijuana as any other state that has not.

    This is not a new thing, but being attached – even casually – to a mass shooting is going to push it to the front of the spotlight.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Democrats don’t want to make cannabis a crime. They don’t want to anger their voters.

      Joe Rogan openly smokes on his podcast. He owns guns and hunts with them. I haven’t heard him getting in trouble. Although, he is now hunting with bows over guns. Not sure if he still has the guns. Either way, he was an open drug user with guns and so are his friends.

      I’m not saying they should get in trouble and have their rights taken from them. I am just putting it out. Some people can smoke in front of millions of people and still own guns. It’s all about who is given the privilege of not being thrown in a cage for doing so.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        I personally think it should only be a crime if they are hurting someone other than themselves. I don’t like drugs of any kind but I also believe in the survival of the fittest. Legalize it all and let the natural order of things sort it out. Most people that are truly drug users don’t generally last long for many reasons. Given that they are leaving more oxygen for me in the long run.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    They can block your purchase and tell you nothing. Turn around and approve it 10 minutes later. Or next week, even though the three day rule is a thing.. look for denial to be more frequent and for unclear reasons.

  19. avatar Chief Censor says:

    By the way, most of you guys on this website are have likely used illegal drugs or misused legal/illegal prescription drugs. I know there are many people that lie on their form about previous drug use to buy guns. I am one of the few who haven’t done an illegal drug or have drunk alcohol in my life. George Bush was a druggie yet he has guns. There are many people out there that are technically breaking the law to buy a gun from a FFL. Even you Christians.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      lots of inconsistencies…looks like their “pickin’ and choosin'”…..

    2. avatar former water walker says:

      Aren’t you a special troll😄😊😏! Practically perfect in every way-never ever did anything bad. That’s a lie…

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Whether the bit about him/her personally is a lie or not doesn’t make the other stuff any less true. I’ve taken my prescription pain medication and drove in the past because I had a follow up doctors appointment for a broken leg and no other way to get there. That was illegal and just because I didn’t get caught doesn’t make it any less illegal. Yet when things that don’t affect some or doesn’t land them in the hot seat they want to get up on their soapbox to mount their high horse and start going on like they have never done anything wrong themselves.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        I was raised in a conservative area. Drug use was considered to be for losers. Your parents would smack you if you hung out with losers like that. Alcohol was considered a drug. People were more into natural medicines over popping pills made by big pharma. Smoking cannabis was illegal.

        The older generations came from a culture where cannabis smokers would get in major trouble and drug dealers were severely punished. Some of the foreign nationals that come to visit America can’t smoke cannabis because there is a law that says it’s illegal for them although it’s legal in the country they visit. If their government thinks they smoked in America, the government will take hair samples to test to see if they broke the law, it doesn’t matter if they simply hung around people who did it. They also can’t gamble in Vegas because their country has a law that says their citizens can’t gamble at all.

        I grew up around those types of conservatives. Very culturally strict people. A lot of kids were all about their studies and owning their own business one day. They didn’t want to get beaten or disowned for drug use.

        There was only 1-2 homeless druggies in the neighborhood, they were black. Most kids that weren’t from a conservative family smoked cannabis and drank. There wasn’t a major drug selling life style in that city. So there wasn’t much peer pressure or partying.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          So you didn’t grow up during the mid-60s to 1970’s I take it.

  20. avatar Dude says:

    Trump made him do it.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      I always wonder why these idiots make these events political, every time. They question what side the shooter was on. In fact, most times it seems they place them on a side. What happens when a crazy person commits a crime that has no affiliation or trail of clues? Just seems childish and hypocritical. Even if the guy came out and said “Im a conservative” but has no history to support it, who the fuck cares. You do dumb shit, the only thing you are in my eyes is a dumbass. I don’t care what you are trying to prove by killing people.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Agreed! I see about 50 people a day atleast that do dumb shit but they aren’t being jailed because of it. Some end up in the emergency room but they are sent home later more times than not.

        1. avatar Hush says:

          What ever happened to, Bad is bad and Wrong is wrong—–you do either and you’re gone?

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Good question and I agree but I don’t agree with setting the rules in opposition. Either it is bad and wrong for everyone in every situation or it isn’t at all. It either all matters or none of it matters.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        Agree. There is an instant effort to paint any criminal that’s big in the news of the moment as being of a hated political party. Mass killers typically are no such thing in their heads are partisan party politics. Some of them are even all mixed up, could fit any party or faction depending on which parts of their rants you choose to ignore or emphasize.

        There are exceptions of course, just far fewer than certain partisans want to accept.

  21. avatar Dan says:

    This moron just told on himself. Stay quiet and ask for a lawyer.

  22. avatar Ann Ponyer says:

    Thanks to my law, no mainstream media outlet shows his mugshot. For that matter, the shooter was motivated… we’ll never know what by.

  23. avatar enuf says:

    Couple of things:

    When either the news media or the authorities say a bad guy acquired his weapon legally, this does not mean he did so legally. It means he followed the legal process and that process had no data in it to say no.

    This shooter and his friend both purchased firearms illegally by defrauding the legal process. Both were long term illegal drug users of pot, acid and psychedelic mushrooms which the friend confessed to growing. They used drugs together from their teens, the friend believed he was a prohibited buyer because of his drug habit so he had to also know his friend (the shooter) was equally prohibited.

    This makes any purchase requiring a form 4473 an illegal one, no matter which item purchased went to the friend or the shooter.

    Because the friend bought stuff requiring a 4473 that was going to someone he knew to be in violation of the drug prohibition, it is also a straw purchase.

    The surviving friend should be prosecuted on both counts.

    And we Second Amendment supporters should be pressing the point that both the shooter and his friend violated existing law on at least two counts. The guns were not obtained lawfully, it is false to say they way.

    The final point being that, once again, criminals are not impeded by laws, they are not impressed by laws, they truly do not give a rat’s ass about society’s laws.

  24. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    Contrary to what the media presents, the “Dayton Shooter” did NOT acquire his arms for the Dayton Shooting legally. The most obvious problems are the “Straw” purchases and the history of habitual drug use. Federal feloies for both the purchaser and the recipient. Secondly, and I know the left will have a harder time accepting this, by the admission of the Dayton Shooter’s Straw Man, both were heavy drug users, marijuana and other drugs. The shooter is dead and who knows what toxicology will show, but we have eyewitness testimony. Even marijuana use is a disqualifying factor in even the less stringent background check. Explicit violation of question 11e (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      Why does the edit button keep disappearing?? “feloies” should be felonies!! ARRGGHH!!!!

  25. avatar don't talk to the police says:

    Easy way to avoid charges. Don’t talk to the police. Especially federal agents because lying to them is a federal crime. Bonus Points: Don’t do drugs. There is a reason they call it dope.

  26. avatar jram01 says:

    GEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ;

    Just look at the damn 4473 Form. There’s virtually no consequences in filling out this Form. It’s just not strict enough to prove. A lot of individuals who are subject to these questions are probably right in the midst of these questions viz., e, f, h. How do you to determine who they apply to without known evidence. This matter is never ending.

    Do not know if there really is an answer to this issue and by reviewing the above comments, looks like we’re just spinning our wheels.

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