Discussion: Florida Suspect's Red Flags Weren't Enough To Stop Gun Buy

TPM Article Topics
21

Did I have the wrong idea? I thought that he was reported and the FBI did not follow through.

22

Excellent question, but since they say they should have followed up, that implies that there was something they feel they could have done per FBI protocol. Maybe they generally pass tips like that to local law enforcement, or maybe they do background checks of federal databases that local law enforcement officers don’t have access to. This is purely conjecture on my part, and it’s likely that nothing would have shown up in a fed db, but that doesn’t mean an agent shouldn’t have checked (or followed up the tip in some way).

However, I see no reason that the FBI should take ALL the heat with no responsibility being born by local law enforcement, the guy who sold the kid the gun or the lawmakers who put their big rightwing stamp of approval on that. I sure as hell would like to hear Rick Scott explain how the FBI director deserves enough blame to resign while considering himself to be totally blameless.

This, of course, is against the backdrop of people like Scott saying that everyone in DC is out of touch and can’t be trusted to handle anything. Interesting how quickly “Stay out of our business” turns into “You let this happen by not paying enough attention.”

1 Like
23

OT, but uh-oh!

Marines invade Grayling to battle Michigan winter

Their mission for the training exercise: Test offensive, defensive and maneuver capabilities of the reservists in a cold-weather environment.

Um, like North Korea?

24

It’s my understanding from listening to Emma Gonzales, survivor and activist, speak, everybody knew this kid was a problem and possibly violent. The school knew, the kids knew, the local police knew - they’d been at his house over 20 times.

But we don’t arrest people for something they might do. So the FBI really wasn’t derelict here, although they didn’t spread information I guess, it didn’t matter since local cops already knew.

We don’t live in the Minority Report. It doesn’t matter what anyone knows before this happens - you cannot keep someone from leaving their house if they haven’t done anything and you can’t just arrest them because of something you think they might do.

3 Likes
25

@trnc

They’re saying that because “not our jurisdiction” would be a much bigger PR disaster than “we are looking into what happened.”

It was certainly their responsibility to pass it on to local law enforcement. But, beyond that, unless he threatened to harm people on the Internet, there was no basis for the FBI to get involved. They’re not the National Police. They can only investigate federal crimes. And if they start investigating young adults who express the kind of bile you see conservatives posting on Twitter and FB 24/7 for legally buying guns, how do you think that plays out in Foxworld?

(Although, maybe if they’d done it and generated the conservative outrage and turned the kid into a national conservative icon of freedom, all the attention might have changed his trajectory. And imagine the derision and scoffing and libtarding we’d have received if we’d defended the Feds’ Gestapo tactics by saying “would you be saying that if he stormed into a school and murdered 17 people?”).

And the conservative ballwashers playing up this “SQUIRREL!!!” shit on Fox know that full well. Know both that the FBI has no jurisdiction and that the FBI can’t just say that because people like them would savage them for it.

6 Likes
26

Yeah, it’s the Democrats who are the problem here. Obviously.

But then, given that damn near 100% of your comments are one or two line attacks on Democrats, of course it’s their fault.

3 Likes
27

The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm has said such laws allow courts to remove Second Amendment rights “based on third-party allegations and evidentiary standards” that are lower than what’s required in criminal proceedings.

The NRA in its infinite arrogance, is demanding an evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt for a seizure of firearms under Red Flag laws. I am pretty certain that every other injunctive type of protective measure, just like Federal Criminal Sentencing Proceedings and Forfeiture determinations, are based on preponderance of the evidence, and allowing hearsay evidence so that neighbors and family members do not have to be exposed. The NRA is demanding the highest standard of proof to avoid seizure of weapons from a demonstrably disturbed person. Along with their censorship of scientific research and their payment of millions of dollars to our elected officials. .

3 Likes
28

Wow - not only did Trump roll back Obama’s order making it more difficult for someone who had been treated for mental issues to buy assault weapons, the NRA itself is standing in the way of law enforcement’s ability to address problems.

Those motherfuckers are just straight evil.

4 Likes
29

Republican Gov. Rick Scott said he will work to make sure people with mental illnesses don’t have access to guns but offered no specifics.

Translation: Just bullsh*tting you. No way I will cross my paymaster’s at the NRA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/florida/comments/7xyyr4/gov_rick_scott_holds_an_a_rating_from_the_nra/?st=jdtbzde8&sh=be955cc2

3 Likes
30

I think Republicans and the NRA have been caught a little flatfooted by the reaction to this judging by their weak and tired and easiliy corrected talking points evident in the shows today.
Maybe this time will be (a little) different.

2 Likes
31

OT: Would you know a FARA expert who could opine on whether the NRA should register under FARA given their involvement with the Russians?

32

That same day:

Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

Not long after that day:

Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

July 28, 1967:
Governor Reagan signs the Mulford Act, which repealed a law allowing open carry in California.

My, that was fast.

3 Likes
33

Um, Clinton, a Democrat, stood up for the assault weapons ban and got it passed into law. But I can understand why you get so snippy at a straight question about an assault weapons ban. You’re embarrassed, as you should be.

34

The NRA represents gun manufacturers. It’s all about selling guns, they don’t care to whom.

4 Likes
35

Maybe because I listen and read the damn news and knew about this:

And this:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

And, because before I got “snippy” I did, in fact look at your comment history and found that 90% of your comments do, in fact, consist of one or two lines bashing the Democrats.

4 Likes
36

So you would rather attack the people who tried rather than the folks who stood in the way. The Republicans are a disgrace and so is Putin for supporting the NRA.

1 Like
37

Republican Gov. Rick Scott said he will work to make sure people with mental illnesses don’t have access to guns but offered no specifics.

Good luck, Governor. You will need to ask the NRA to lend its FL state legislature to you for a while.

Without new legislation to undo previous NRA-favored laws, Florida doesn’t have the means to achieve the goal Scott mentioned.

Florida can’t rely on the Feds to help them, because Florida allows private sales of firearms with no run through the Federal check. That also means that Florida currently can’t stop or detect sales to felons, suspected terrorists, those convicted of domestic violence, those under restraining orders, and so on.

Florida has further blinded itself by making it a felony “to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.” So, if a 16-year old high schooler mutters shooting threats while leaving school one day, there’s no way for the state to quickly check to see if it should presume that there are already firearms in the child’s household.

1 Like
38

Another to add to the list of Ivans.

39

Obviously you don’t own a gun so banning all high capacity rifles won’t affect you one little bit. Let the other guy solve your problem Let the crazies wander around crazy. If you have to deal with them, it might cost you some money.

There are people on this board who want to remove “scary” looking “assault rifles” but allow the public to buy rifles that function identically because they have wooden stocks. The level of ignorance on this issue is stunning.

We need to stop 18 year old kids from owning or possessing high capacity firearms. We need strong red flag laws. We need to limit magazine size which effectively gets at the real problem. Mostly we need to change our community mental health laws. An “assault weapons” ban isn’t going to stop some disaffected kid from driving a car into a crowd.

Instead of a typical “either/or” response to this problem, why don’t we try “all of the above.”

1 Like
40

That’s my governor. All about shifting responsibility all the time.