could? he damn well better!The police specifically told him that he could not return the weapons to his son, and he said he understood and agreed.
Here we go again, another person who was tagged by authorities that should not have had weapons.
***The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said that it did not appear that Reinking or his father violated any state firearms laws before the deadly shooting.
Proving once again that no matter what gun control laws you enact, someone will break them.
Shouldn’t the applicable police chief in Broward be similarly charged because he didn’t take steps to keep guns out of the hands of the Parkview shooter?
Even if the father isn’t charged, because there isn’t any law he violated:
1) That was a DAMNED irresponsible thing to do. On a moral level, he is just about as responsible for those 4 deaths as his batshit crazy son.
2) He’ll be facing litigation for a long time to come. He probably ought to just declare bankruptcy right now, because he’s not going to have anything left...if the cases don’t go against him, the legal bills will do the trick. Oh, and he’ll deserve all of this, the @sshole.
He should.
This kid was a nut job from the beginning. The police reports filed on him state he walked out of his apartment wearing a pink dress carrying his AR-15 yelling at his neighbors. He went to the public pool in a ping women’s housecoat then swam in his underwear before exposing himself to the lifeguards. But in the liberal mind subtract the AR-15 and there would be nothing wrong with this behavior. That is why we have a mental illness crisis today!!!
“The individual also must certify they have transferred all firearms they own or that are in their custody to another person with a valid FOID card, according to the sheriff’s office.”
That doesn’t indicate that the individual doesn’t still own the firearms.
As a general matter, if one has custody of something someone else owns because that someone else can not have possession under the circumstances, by what right does one keep custody if circumstances change so that the owner can regain possession?
The father may have believed or known the son was nuts, but did he have a legal right to retain custody of the firearms once he or the son moved out of Illinois?
In a different situation, if the son was in the Navy and the father had custody of the son’s firearms because the son couldn’t possess them aboard ship, could the father legally retain custody of what the son owned upon the son’s discharge because the father believed the son to be unfit after his service?
His father should face charges for giving guns back to his son after promising not to. He should spend some jail time. After all, 4 people lost their lives because of what he did.
The Jack Sawyer case offers some evidence of the difficulties in preventing violence by a determined individual.
could? he damn well better!