'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[Cyber Liberty]

I was referring to the law you referenced in your post #552.   The one where the Air Force was supposed to transmit data regarding Kelley's history of domestic violence, and if he were in the database, the gun store wouldn't have sold him the gun he used to murder 26 people.

Ah.  I misunderstood.  When you wrote "get comfortable with" I thought you meant a new law.  I'm perfectly comfortable with the existing law that makes it illegal for a felon to buy a gun, but I do think an ex-con should be able to purge that conviction after a certain number of years (like 10-15).

[thackney]

Ah.  I misunderstood.  When you wrote "get comfortable with" I thought you meant a new law.  I'm perfectly comfortable with the existing law that makes it illegal for a felon to buy a gun, but I do think an ex-con should be able to purge that conviction after a certain number of years (like 10-15).

In Texas, 5 years after their sentence is complete, the felon may possess a firearm at their residence.

Sec. 46.04
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Jazzhead

"they are going to have to get comfortable with limited, efficacious measures that keep bad guys from legally purchasing guns."

That is now, and forever has been, Orwellian Newspeak.

Reasonable gun control is nothing more than a 20 lb sledgehammer driving the camel's nose further under the tent.

[Cyber Liberty]

In Texas, 5 years after their sentence is complete, the felon may possess a firearm at their residence.

Sec. 46.04
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Not going to sift through that document...in the home is one thing, but outside of the home?  One's natural right to self-defense is not terminated by stepping through a door.

[thackney]

Not going to sift through that document...in the home is one thing, but outside of the home?  One's natural right to self-defense is not terminated by stepping through a door.

It is when it is the result of due process of a felony conviction.  The rights of the people remains, the rights of the criminal, after conviction, can be limited.

[edpc]

Not going to sift through that document...in the home is one thing, but outside of the home?  One's natural right to self-defense is not terminated by stepping through a door.

You also have to consider the founders weren’t considering the RKBA of felons, as many of those crimes got you a trip to the gallows in those days.

[thackney]

Not going to sift through that document...

Relevant section is short:

Sec. 46.04.  UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.  (a)  A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1)  after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later;  or
(2)  after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is when it is the result of due process of a felony conviction.  The rights of the people remains, the rights of the criminal, after conviction, can be limited.

I understand that, it's pretty much the rule everywhere in the country.  I did not know firearm ownership in TX is legal for felons.  Voting rights are pretty much the same.  I have a friend in NV who had a felony conviction from 25 years ago, and he got his voting rights restored after petitioning the court, I was wondering about the right to carry a firearm....

[Cyber Liberty]

Relevant section is short:

Sec. 46.04.  UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.  (a)  A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:
(1)  after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later;  or
(2)  after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Thanks!  Interesting it addresses the possession, but not the acquisition of a firearm.

[thackney]

Thanks!  Interesting it addresses the possession, but not the acquisition of a firearm.

Yep, you are going to need a buddy willing to come to your house to sell it to you.  Or a gift.  No strawman sales to stay legal...

[musiclady]

Why?   Because the Feds screwed up.

Rhetorical question, I guess.

Of COURSE it's because the Feds screwed up.  They pretty much always do when it matters.   

[Hoodat]

Then prosecute them.   But even in the absence of prosecution,  they were denied the ability to purchase a firearm.

@Jazzhead @Bigun @Sanguine

Jazzhead,

Two things to point out here.  First of all, in regard to the 80,000 new felonies committed (that they know of), have you ever considered why the number is so high?  Think about that.  On any given day, 200 convicted felons got caught committing felonies by lying on their forms.  So why do so many felons risk getting caught with the potential of getting sent away for another five years?  Because even when caught, there is no risk of going to jail.

In 2014, the federal government prosecuted less than 0.2% of these cases.  If they were vigilant in upholding the law, then there sure wouldn't be 80,000 people trying.

The second point is the number you don't give.  Sure, you pat yourself on the back for the 80,000 number - a number inflated solely by your failure to act.  But you ignore the number not given - the number of convicted felons who committed a second felony by lying on the form, yet were still allowed to purchase a gun.

Because if I can't trust Big Brother to take felons off the street, then how can I trust them to keep them from buying guns?

[musiclady]

@Jazzhead   just did.

That doesn't negate my point.   Posters on this board do not support "more laws" against gun ownership. 

They just don't....... so you are preaching to the choir.

Laws are only followed when they are just. Criminalizing good men in order to catch a few criminal idiots is the wrong thing to do.

I can go to the most gun-control infested cities you might mention and buy anything I want. I dare say I can do the very same in Britain or Germany. It isn't THIS country. It is anywhere. 

You could shut off gun manufacturing entirely and cause all guns to be illegal, and all you will do is cause Mexico and points south to begin a booming business in illegal trade. running guns in just like they do drugs and whores.

You may as well ban steak knives and screwdrivers.

Who, in heaven's name has suggested "criminalizing good men??"  Why don't you respond to what I'm saying and not go off on a tangent?

This guy was NOT a "good man."

And I repeat........ I am NOT in favor of gun control.

Your argument that I am is ridiculous.  As is the "steak and screw driver" silliness.

Argue the point I'm making.  I AGREE with you on the basics.  Just not on your not caring that this guy should never have been permitted to buy weapons with his military, criminal and psychological history.

Now, unless you are going to stick to what I've said, I've got to end this because you're starting to make me angry with your implications that I'm arguing what I'm not, and this is not the thread for it.

[Hoodat]

Those who support the Second Amendment hurt their cause by taking extremist positions at odds with common sense.

And those who don't support the Constitution risk the very tyranny they embrace being one day turned against them.

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead @Bigun @Sanguine

Jazzhead,

Two things to point out here.  First of all, in regard to the 80,000 new felonies committed (that they know of), have you ever considered why the number is so high?  Think about that.  On any given day, 200 convicted felons got caught committing felonies by lying on their forms.  So why do so many felons risk getting caught with the potential of getting sent away for another five years?  Because even when caught, there is no risk of going to jail.

In 2014, the federal government prosecuted less than 0.2% of these cases.  If they were vigilant in upholding the law, then there sure wouldn't be 80,000 people trying.

The second point is the number you don't give.  Sure, you pat yourself on the back for the 80,000 number - a number inflated solely by your failure to act.  But you ignore the number not given - the number of convicted felons who committed a second felony by lying on the form, yet were still allowed to purchase a gun.

Because if I can't trust Big Brother to take felons off the street, then how can I trust them to keep them from buying guns?

Good points, Hoodat.

[Hoodat]

The problem here is that this monster DID buy his weapons legally.

Au contraire.

Form 4473

The perpetrator lied on 11 c, f, and g.

11c - convicted of a crime where he should have served 5 years.
11f - committed to a mental institution
11g - discharged from military under dishonorable condition (discharged by court-martial)

Each infraction constitutes a felony.  However, he probably knew that the federal government routinely fails to prosecute.

[Jazzhead]

And those who don't support the Constitution risk the very tyranny they embrace being one day turned against them.

Suggesting that those who favor laws that reasonably restrict the right of felons and domestic abusers to legally purchase firearms "don't support the Constitution" is exactly the sort of extremism that hurts the pro-RKBA cause. 

[Hoodat]

Suggesting that those who favor laws that reasonably restrict the right of felons and domestic abusers to legally purchase firearms "don't support the Constitution" is exactly the sort of extremism that hurts the pro-RKBA cause.

I was thinking more along the lines of those who favor allowing black-robed tyrants to create their own 'laws' [sic] outside the confines of the Constitution.  I have no problem prohibiting felons, domestic abusers, or anyone convicted of any violent crime from purchasing, much less owning, a firearm.

Of course none of that has any bearing on my support for Amendment II, I, X, or any other part of the Constitution.  Live by the rules, enjoy the benefits.  Break the rules, lose the benefits.

So for the record, I am not hurting my cause by supporting the Second Amendment, although I find it quite telling that you would call someone out for supporting the Constitution of the United States of America.  What once were vices are now habits.

[Suppressed]

You will NEVER prevent such a man. NEVER.
What you will do is prevent people who might otherwise have protected you.

Actually, it does prevent many crimes.  Several studies have shown that criminals are hampered by restrictions, with many deciding against possession or not having the means to obtain a weapon.

The funny thing is, these studies are often brought up by gun-control opponents, who use them to show that we don't need more controls as the existing ones work well.  Now you're shooting the idea down.

[roamer_1]

Actually, it does prevent many crimes.  Several studies have shown that criminals are hampered by restrictions, with many deciding against possession or not having the means to obtain a weapon.

The funny thing is, these studies are often brought up by gun-control opponents, who use them to show that we don't need more controls as the existing ones work well.  Now you're shooting the idea down.

Sorry, but I don't believe a moment of it - Likely opportunist criminals telling them what they want to hear fr an expected reward. It is SO simple to buy second hand, and even more simple to commit a burglary, that the reference you make can only be baloney.

[Hoodat]

Maybe if murder were against the law, these senseless killings would stop.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Limited, Efficacious Gun Control?

Military's Known About Crime Reporting Lapses To FBI For 2 Decades

dailycaller

[excerpt]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/08/militarys-known-about-crime-reporting-lapses-to-fbi-for-two-decades/

The Pentagon has known for nearly 20 years about major reporting lapses to the FBI of criminals within the U.S. military, The Associated Press reports.

The AP discovered a 1997 report that detailed massive fingerprint reporting lapses of military criminals with the U.S. Navy and the Navy failed to report 94 percent of cases. “The lack of reporting to the FBI criminal history files prevents civilian law enforcement agencies from having significant information on military offenders,” the report warned 20 years ago.

Military criminal reporting to the FBI has come under renewed scrutiny after former U.S. Air Force enlisted criminal Devin Kelley killed 26 people in a Sutherland Springs, Texas, church Sunday. Kelley, 26, was convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault under court martial in 2012, under U.S. law this should have barred him from ever purchasing a firearm.


Want a system? For Background checks?

GIGO: Garbage In = Garbage Out

[austingirl]

Maybe if murder were against the law, these senseless killings would stop.

Yes. Don't blame an inanimate object, blame the "human" holding it.

[Sanguine]

Yes. Don't blame an inanimate object, blame the "human" holding it.

@austingirl, I just watched this video of Johnny Langendorf.  I had seen him interviewed before and thought, well, he's a little funny looking, but he speaks OK.  This is a better interview, and may just restore a bit of faith in humanity.  Well worth watching all the way through. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9xyY0wbcKo
 

[NavyCanDo]

Some thoughts on the " Good guy with a gun" Stephen Willeford who put two bullets into the shooter. Thank God for him. Who knows how many more may have died. Maybe he was planning on hiting another church, or maybe police hurt in a shootout, who knows.   But a lesson to be had here. Once his gun safe was open he had to grab a box  of bullets and load the empty magazine to his AR-15. How many people were killed with the pop pop pop sound he said he was hearing as he loaded the magazine? I' sure that thought was rolling in his head as well, for what must have seemed like an eternity.   
A gun in a safe is perfectly fine, essecially if you have kids, but have it ready to rock as soon as the safe is open.  Empty magazines make no sense.