Posted on 11/06/2017 2:22:41 PM PST by Sopater
Devin Kelley, who police say murdered 26 people at a rural Texas church yesterday, seems to have been legally disqualified from owning a gun. It's not clear why he repeatedly passed federal background checks while purchasing firearms, including the Ruger AR-556 rifle he used in the attack, which he bought last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio.
The Air Force says Kelley, an airman who served in logistics readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, was convicted by a court-martial in 2012 of two counts under Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies to assault. The victims were his wife, from whom he was subsequently divorced, and their child. Kelley's punishment was 12 months of confinement, a reduction in rank, and a bad-conduct discharge.
As Christian Britschgi noted this morning, the discharge itself would not have prevented Kelley from legally buying a gun, since it fell short of the "dishonorable conditions" specified by federal law. But the same law prohibits the purchase or possession of a gun by anyone who "has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Kelley's crimes seem to fit the definition of that phrase, which includes "the use or attempted use of physical force" by a spouse or parent of the victim.
The form that Kelley would have filled out while buying guns from Academy or any other federally licensed dealer asks, "Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" Kelley presumably checked "no," but the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which includes the National Criminal Information Check (NCIC) database, should have flagged the court-martial convictions.
According to a 2001 article in The Military Lawyer, "A court-martialed soldier convicted of a reportable offense entered into the NCIC/NICS will be denied the sale of a firearm." A footnote says reportable offenses include cases involving "a dismissal or punitive discharge" or "conviction of an offense that carries a possible sentence of confinement of one year or more."
In a CNN interview, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Kelley had applied for a concealed carry permit but was rejected by the state's Department of Public Safety. "So how was it that he was able to get a gun?" Abbott asked. "By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun. So how did this happen?"
The criteria for a Texas carry permit are stricter than the federal criteria for gun ownership. People who have been convicted of a Class A or B misdemeanor in the previous five years, for instance, are ineligible for a carry permit. But if the state's background check flagged Kelley's military convictions, why didn't the FBI's?
Although mass shooters typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records, it looks like Kelley did. But as with Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of another horrifying assault on a church, the system that is supposed to catch people who are not legally allowed to buy guns failed to do so.
President Obama cited Roof's attack in making the case for "universal background checks," meaning a legal requirement that all gun transfers, not just those involving federally licensed dealers, receive the FBI's approval. Since Roof passed a background check, that argument did not make much sense. The problem was not the absence of a background check but the inadequacy of the background check that was performed. The same thing seems to be true in this case.
Sounds like one more thing the Feds can’t do correctly......
Why is it all gun owner’s fault when the government screws up? (rhetorical question).
***It’s not clear why he repeatedly passed federal background checks ***
Ask why PAT PURDY, released from a California Mental institution for the 7the time, passed California’s background checks and waiting periods before shooting up the Stockton School yard! Calidornia’s assault weapon act was quickly pulled out of being shelved and passed before any opposition could be mounted against it.
Or... Or... If your tin hat is properly adjusted... One could think that maybe, just maybe, the FBI might have wanted him to have those guns.
And we know this HOW exactly?
Why, it was on some guy's blog after all.
Yeah. Making stuff up is good blogging.
How about we give it a day or two?
This isn't Las Vegas.
If people can lie about background checks, they can probably lie with regards to gun ownership under gun control too. My paranoid side says the government let this person pass to give the message that the only way to solve crime is to ban guns outright.
...Since Roof passed a background check, that argument did not make much sense...
Most lunatic liberal arguments are in that same category. They make no sense. They are usually made for control of the individual and most are based on raw emotion.
I worked with a guy who worked on database integration for LE. Let’s just say Hollywood is far ahead of reality when it comes to the “one database to rule them all.”
There are numerous technical and legal challenges in all of these issues. It’s much easier to hack into many systems than it is to gain legal access. States actually tend to be much better (or worse depending on viewpoint) than the Feds in many regards.
Because Obama was worried about keeping guns from veterans who had trouble balancing their check books and not veterans who beat the crap out of their spouses and children get thrown in jail and get an OTH discharge.
Yeah... we know that’s not infallible now, and neither are outright bans.
It’s like the adage about what the most dangerous part of a car is. It’s the nut behind the wheel.
I am a spiritual nut myself, and would certainly caution against sweeping moves based on infrequent incidents. What does this need to do to the overall social balance around laws pertaining to firearms? It might need to do nothing. Churches might stand to get more guards, however. The bouncer is a valid church ministry. Even those, however, being prepared with a mixture of measures, to be able to exercise deadly force (as a secular citizen under the 2nd Amendment) and yet as a Christian seek to forego it if something else to subdue an attack is yet possible. Since Christian faith may call for martyrdom in the attempt to save an enemy, any approach that rules this possibility out will be less than Christian.
According to Gov Abbott (R-Tx) that’s not true ... he was NOT eligible for nor approved to purchase any weapons. He was dishonorably discharged from the USAF after a court martial. IIRC, that’s an automatic disqualification. Shall we not jump right onto whatever story is published>
so the story has changed again. He was dishonorably discharged when I went to bed this morning. He was still barred due to the domestic violence conviction however thanks to the Lautenburg amendment so this remains the fault of the FBI.
At least the guy bought from a brick and mortar store. Imagine what the lame stream media would be saying if he had bought it in a private party transaction?
What about the question that is not asked or answered?
How many times in a year have people who should not own a gun answered this questionnaire and have been rejected. The times where this system worked are never talked about. It would be nice to know. Obviously it did not work in this case but I do wonder.
Not just the Government-the FBI and not just the FBI for that matter. It was James’ Comey’s and Barack Obama’s FBI.
Can a common citizen access FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), or is it only for firearms vendors?.................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.