How as Loughner able to even buy a gun in November given the bizarre behavior and run-ins with the

[MgtPA]

local police throughout 2010. Shouldn't the background checks have picked up on that?

[slackmaster]

1. Here is a piece of the US Code section that specifies who is not allowed to buy guns

This is a piece of Section 922. Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph (d) is the part you are interested in. Mentally ill people have the right to own a gun. You have to be adjudicated by a court of law as mentally defective, or committed to an institution, to have that right curtailed. Behaving bizarrely or having run-ins with police are not sufficient under the law to make a person ineligible to buy a gun.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));

(6) who <2> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

[MgtPA]

5. Thanks very much!

[DrDan]

2. GOOOOOOOD question

[dmallind]

9. Already answered in post 1 - which of these did he contravene?

Somebody acting weird can't be used as a criterion. Unless he's convicted or adjudicated insane whose word shoukd decide?

[DrDan]

17. my reply was from a broader pov - one that questions why we are not

more effective in screening out people like this in gun purchases. And one that questions whether expanded magazines should be available as easily as they currently are.

[dmallind]

20. Oh that's easy.

Underfunded mental health options for the poor.

Stigma of being mentally ill that means you are less likely to be hired etc in the future, that in turn disincentivizes people who HAVE options from seeking help.

Un(der) funded record keeping that means some states don't even update databases on people who have been adjudicated/committed.

And yes, magazine capacity is pretty much irrelevant. People can bring multiple guns, reload quickly, etc. If someone wants to commit mass shootings they will. I can't recall another mass shooting that used them, and we have no clue whether it was round 5 or 20 that killed/injured anyone. There is even much debate over whether the shooter in this one hi-cap case was in need of reloading due to capacity (as opposed to a jam).

[DrDan]

21. gunners are certainly defensive these days - not unlike our friend, the ex-Gov of Alaska

[dmallind]

22. uhh? nt

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Easily.

[kestrel91316]

4. Maybe people in AZ selling guns and ammo don't like any of the regulations

and skirt them when they can?? Maybe he bought them from a private party to get around the laws??

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

6. US Code § 922 applies to everyone, not just licensed gun dealers

Read it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

[kestrel91316]

10. Yeah, fine, words on paper. I guarantee you that plenty of folks buy and sell

firearms in violation of the law because they DON'T LIKE THE LAW. Many of them right in AZ.

[slackmaster]

11. I don't know anyone who would knowingly provide a gun to a convicted felon, or any other prohibited

...person. (I personally have never sold a firearm to anyone, ever.)

One weakness in the system is that the National Instant Check System (NICS) can be used only by licensed gun dealers. I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics), which allows me to acquire and dispose of C&R firearms for my collection through interstate commerce, and I can't use NICS either.

There should be a way for C&R licensees and unlicensed people to use NICS to check the status of a buyer. There would have to be safeguards to prevent it from being misused, but that would not be difficult to engineer.

[atreides1]

12. The puchase was made at a gun shop

At least the gun was....not sure if he purchased the ammo at the same time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. He bought the ammo at the second wall mart

the first refused since he was acting strange.

For the record... my husband needed to buy a significant amount of ammo... and the Wally mart questioned it until he showed them proper ID. At lesat the local wally mart does train it's employees to question things like that more than a box of ammo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Because he was NOT indicted of a felony

Nor entered into any state mental health registry.

That is why no back ground popped him out.

This makes people uncomfortable but yes if I have a traffic ticket in my record, I can buy a gun... misdemeanor. (The level of contact with law enforcement)... if I rob a bank... that is a felony.

Yes, he literally slipped through cracks. And you must ask how many people do?

[ManiacJoe]

16. One of the downsides to plea bargins.

His would-be felonies were lowered to misdemeanors.

[X_Digger]

8. Having never actually been in a legal position that he didn't get out of..

Charges dismissed / deferred adjudication / plea deals meant that his legal record never rose to the level to disqualify him under one section of law.

Not having been involuntarily committed / ruled a danger to himself or others / etc, his apparent mental instability didn't rise to the level to prevent his purchase under another section of law.


It's a tricky balancing act- how do you balance our right to due process, while at the same time preventing those obviously dangerous from acquiring the means to cause danger.

Most often, those with mental illness are not a danger to themselves or others- they're more likely to be the victim of a crime than commit one- by a huge margin.

Again, a tricky balance.

[DevonRex]

13. 1. Not an adjudicated mentally ill person. 2. Not a felon. Easy questions to answer. nt

[damntexdem]

14. Several easy answers:

1) he was in Arizona;
2) he was in the U.S.;
3) although gun sales are federally prohibited to those adjudged to be dangerously mentally ill, Loughner had not been so adjudged; and
4) even had he been so adjudged, so that the prohibition had been in effect, the data systems are inadequate to report such information to gun sellers, particularly in states like Arizona.

[Taitertots]

18. Because we don't have universal single payer health care

Which means that people who everyone knows are dangerously insane have no option for treatment.

[jdlh8894]

19. Please explain?n/t