Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Flag laws are getting popular here where you can confiscate firearms from people deemed ineligible to have them after the fact.

Illinois just passed such a law.

But in this case back in 2014, the state actually revoked his permission to own a gun, and thus should have forced him to turn it over to police.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Red Flag laws are getting popular here where you can confiscate firearms from people deemed ineligible to have them after the fact.

Illinois just passed such a law.

But in this case back in 2014, the state actually revoked his permission to own a gun, and thus should have forced him to turn it over to police.
Click to expand...

Well clearly it didn't force him enough. Seems like case where registration would help.
 
From this story on CNN, here's the timeline of how he got and kept the gun:

CNN said:
How Martin obtained and kept his gun will be part of the investigation. Ziman revealed this Saturday about the timeline:
• Martin was convicted in 1995 in Mississippi of felony aggravated assault.
• In January 2014, Martin, then living in Aurora, was issued a firearm owner's identification card, or FOID card.
• On March 6, 2014, he applied to buy a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun from a gun dealer in Aurora.
• Five days later, he took possession of the gun, having passed a background check and a five-day waiting period.
• On March 16, 2014, he applied for a concealed-carry permit. During a background check process for this permit, his fingerprints flagged him for the 1995 conviction in Mississippi.
• After his felony conviction was discovered, his application for the concealed-carry permit was rejected and Illinois State Police revoked his FOID card.
State police sent him a letter telling him to voluntarily relinquish the weapon to police, Ziman said.
Click to expand...


Am I naive to think that a felony conviction is exactly what a background check would be looking for? If not that, then what exactly are they checking? Or is a background check just a questionnaire based on the honor system? Seriously, how does it work?
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well clearly it didn't force him enough. Seems like case where registration would help.
Click to expand...

"thus", not "this".

Law enforcement could have made him turn in the firearm, but they did not do so.

With his card revoked, he was illegally in possession, plus he must have lied on the federal form.
 
Last edited:
Only just looked into this Aurora shooting at all, saw a little news blurb with a picture of a 37 year old husband and father of 3 small children who had texted his wife "love you, I've been shot at work" before he died.

Another of those killed was a 22 year old young man who'd just started an internship there and was a college student.

Absolutely tragic.
 
LTC8K6 said:
https://twitter.com/BenBradleyTV/status/1096815539983474688


15 replies 42 retweets 46 likes
Ben Bradley
‏Verified account @BenBradleyTV
2h2 hours ago

After receiving FOID card, shooter applied for concealed carry permit in 2014. That's when his 1995 conviction was discovered & FOID card revoked.
RED FLAG: It does not appear his Smith and Wesson handgun was confiscated. "He was not supposed to be in possession of that firearm"
8 replies 60 retweets 126 likes
Show this thread
Ben Bradley
‏Verified account @BenBradleyTV
2h2 hours ago

Police say Aurora shooter had 6 prior arrests for traffic & domestic violence issues. He also had a 1995 conviction in Mississippi for aggravated assault. Despite that he was issued an Illinois FOID card in 2014 and bought a gun. 1/2
8 replies 114 retweets 140 likes
Show this thread
Ben Bradley
‏Verified account @BenBradleyTV
2h2 hours ago
Click to expand...

See the system works!
 
LTC8K6 said:
Red Flag laws are getting popular here where you can confiscate firearms from people deemed ineligible to have them after the fact.

Illinois just passed such a law.

But in this case back in 2014, the state actually revoked his permission to own a gun, and thus should have forced him to turn it over to police.
Click to expand...

Why turn it over instead of disposing of it in some other legal fashion like selling it?
 
Since this fired worker massacre of 5, there has been another killing of 5 and also a killing of 4. Both of those were domestic.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why turn it over instead of disposing of it in some other legal fashion like selling it?
Click to expand...

Because the only way the police could actually know for a fact that the illegal carrier has been dispossessed of the weapon is by taking it into custody. Otherwise he could "sell it" to a friend who just signs a receipt but doesn't actually take the gun (or gives it back shortly thereafter), or to a family member or roommate or some other person who lives in the same residence who keeps it in a drawer, thereby never meaningfully losing possession of or access to it.
 
Checkmite said:
Because the only way the police could actually know for a fact that the illegal carrier has been dispossessed of the weapon is by taking it into custody. Otherwise he could "sell it" to a friend who just signs a receipt but doesn't actually take the gun (or gives it back shortly thereafter), or to a family member or roommate or some other person who lives in the same residence who keeps it in a drawer, thereby never meaningfully losing possession of or access to it.
Click to expand...

I don't know this sounds like that kind of gun registration that is always being fought against.
 
Today: Mandan, North Dakota.....maybe.

Police have released the names of four dead people, so we definitely have the "mass" part, but they still haven't said whether we have the "shooting" part, because police won't say how they died. It's pretty rare to kill four through any means other than shooting, and there was no swimming pool in the office where they were found, so I really don't know what to make of it.

The secrecy and the things the police are not saying is kind of odd.
 
Meadmaker said:
Today: Mandan, North Dakota.....maybe.

Police have released the names of four dead people, so we definitely have the "mass" part, but they still haven't said whether we have the "shooting" part, because police won't say how they died. It's pretty rare to kill four through any means other than shooting, and there was no swimming pool in the office where they were found, so I really don't know what to make of it.

The secrecy and the things the police are not saying is kind of odd.
Click to expand...

Stealth pool! The latest technology.
 
Meadmaker said:
Today: Mandan, North Dakota.....maybe.

Police have released the names of four dead people, so we definitely have the "mass" part, but they still haven't said whether we have the "shooting" part, because police won't say how they died. It's pretty rare to kill four through any means other than shooting, and there was no swimming pool in the office where they were found, so I really don't know what to make of it.

The secrecy and the things the police are not saying is kind of odd.
Click to expand...


Reporting before the facts is what many media outlets are being criticized for following the Mueller thingy. Tsk tsk! It is weird that police aren't saying what happened. I see no reports from witnesses of shots fired. I agree the odds are good that it's a shooting but we don't know. Fake post ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom