Gun Used in Lafayette Louisiana Shooting was Purchased Legally, Killer "Methodical"
Source: ABC News
The gun that was used to kill two people and wound nine others in the horrific movie theater shooting in Louisiana was purchased legally in Alabama, police said Friday.
Gov. Bobby Jindal said that John Houser, who died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound amid the carnage, methodically opened fire at the Grand 16 Theater in Lafayette Thursday night.
"He took his time, methodically choosing his victims," Jindal said, according to the Associated Press.
"That was a horrific scene in there -- the blood on the floor, discarded snacks in the seats, the smell," State Police Col. Michael Edmonson said, according to the AP.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-lafayette-louisiana-shooting-purchased-legally-killer-methodical/story?id=32674719
The fact that this gun was purchased legally shows that we need better gun control laws.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)an alternative planet - one where folks don't worship their death tools to make up for personal inadequacies.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)From: http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/07/rusty-houser-wife-john-russell-houser-mentally-committed
A judge approved the order at the time and Houser was taken to a hospital in Columbus, Georgia.
If the above is true his possession of a firearm would be illegal under federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
...
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
He apparently purchased the gun in 2014 (see http://www.wnem.com/story/29624385/police-theater-shooter-bought-gun-at-alabama-pawn-shop ) which is after his apparent 2008 involuntary commitment and so his purchase would violate federal law.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)was legal, then that obviously is their interpretation of the law and how they're going to enforce it.
spooky3
(34,427 posts)"loopholes" that allowed this to be considered legal in this particular case--if Houser was taken to a (non-mental institution) hospital.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)with "adjudications" made in different states.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)spooky3
(34,427 posts)staying qualifies? If it does, are you saying that the police are incorrect about the legality of the gun purchase, and does pnwmom now agree?
And why does the linked article state that family members "tried" to have him involuntarily committed, rather than they DID have him involuntarily committed?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I suspect when the Police say "the purchase was legal" they are referring to the law in the state
where he bought it, Alabama, as Alabama apparently has no law specifically prohibiting a gun
purchase by someone who has been involuntarily committed at some point. It would be like
when people on DU say you can legally buy marijuana in a certain state now - you can't really
as marijuana possession is still illegal under Federal law. Note that he should have been refused
purchase under the background check system, but all states haven't been reporting all mental health
commitments to the Federal check system - this issue has come up before.
Of course all this hinges on the report that he has been "involuntarily committed", if that isn't the case
the gun purchase wouldn't have been illegal under Federal law. I thought the line following the 'tried':
to himself and others, they said in court documents.
A judge approved the order at the time and Houser was taken to a hospital in Columbus, Georgia.
strongly implied a judge did commit him.
I found this ABC News article, that specifically says he was "involuntarily committed":
Lafayette Louisiana Theater Gunman Threatened His Family, Was Involuntarily Committed, Documents Say
http://abcnews.go.com/US/lafayette-louisiana-theater-gunman-threatened-family-involuntarily-committed/story?id=32660209
spooky3
(34,427 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)until he had proven that he completed his treatment. Same applies here.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)That's what I'm hearing.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)...and even then the medical records are often not in the databases.
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Especially #8, given the court's recent rulings affirming the right to conceal-carry laws that forced cities like Chicago to revoke their blanket ban on CCW.
Also, #5 would be a dream come true for the NRA, because all they'd have to do is bundle a membership with gun insurance services and boom, they'd have more members (and cash flow) than they'd know what to do with. It would also be a regressive law, making legal gun ownership only for those with the money to afford such coverage, while the poor see a defacto ban.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)First, the current court is an aberration. Read "The Second Amendment: A Biography" (description below). Five other SC's have regulated guns, and this conservative court has lots to answer for (Citizens, Florida elections, etc.) that is nuts.
Next, states would regulate insurance. The NRA would have to compete with all the homeowner companies etc. The insurance would collect DATA on what makes guns safe - which is missing now.
If you can afford guns and bullets, you can afford a license that is a small percent of your costs. It's also expensive to kill thousands of people a year. If your state feels it's important to have progressive costs, they can subsidize the license costs to people on low incomes.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-A-Biography/dp/1476747458
Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.
At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldmans book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult menwho were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970spart of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of originalism, Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)And that law has forced major cities like Chicago and DC to radically change their gun control policies already.
Also, what would prevent the NRA from competing with homeowner companies? I imagine a lot of homeowner companies would be VERY hesitant to offer gun insurance. Some homeowner policies already exempt guns from replacement costs in the event of a theft or fire. Hell, some insurance companies won't even cover you for a professionally-installed woodburning stove in your house (we had personal experience with that). And the NRA has a lot of money and clout among the hardcore gun nuts to get their foot in the door.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)They are not consistent. Even Scalia has admitted legal regulations are possible. A license is a variation of a carry permit. It doesn't say anything about what guns are illegal, nor requires every clerk at Walmart to have access to a POS database. You get cleared from the state, get a license, show the license to possess or use guns. Your state could have different classes of licenses for regular folks, security guards, etc., but that's a state function. The idea is to keep dangerous people from easy access to guns. Is there any better way than a license?
Just like any insurance, there would be 50 state versions of regulations with some similarities. States like NY would different in rates, regulations, and requirements from North Dakota.
The insurance would do a few things:
-Collect data.
-Require application information that might catch unsafe people that background checks missed.
-Cost more for "unsafe" situations (children in the home, untrained users, etc.).
Just like AARP or AAA, the NRA could be in the insurance business if they wished. They'd have to meet whatever state regs they faced in the states where they sold. Companies would jump in when they saw a market.
There may be short term policies (like if I didn't own a gun, but wanted to rent one at a shooting range - just like renting a car or scuba equipment). Insurance for a day. I'm sure there would be lots of variations.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)It sounds like existing laws SHOULD have kept guns out of his hands, given his lengthy record for domestic abuse and mental illness, and did prevent him from getting a concealed-carry permit, but somehow those weren't caught during his federal background check.
Better communication between state and federal databases, perhaps?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)...who caused this killing come up with a 'solution.'
300 million+ guns out there. Can't gun culture go without buying more for a while?
Or are a small group too 'addicted.'
NickB79
(19,233 posts)While we're at it, I'd like a unicorn for my daughter.
Rainbow striped, please.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I think that's a huge issue and one that even the NRA has historically supported. Hell of a lot easier to get passed than an AWB, at least.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)controlled at the Federal Level just like shoulder-fired tank missled are controlled.. Register, license, title and insure !
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)as being committed to a "mental institution" under the terms of that law. Maybe the law should be revised to make that clear.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)We have good reporting here and I have seen how fast a domestic abuser gets denied by the FBI. Often within days. I've done the background checks. I knew the people who should have been denied and they were.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)The Lautenberg Act, for example, prevents domestic abuser from owning guns even if it's only a misdemeanor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)NickB79
(19,233 posts)It's a good law.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Post. Everyone acts legally till they don't.
christx30
(6,241 posts)"Anyone with a penis is a potential rapist. So we should just castrate everyone to prevent rape."
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Because I didn't mention any solution whatsoever.
Funny you should go there right away.
Also you must really hate guns and gun owners, since you compared them to rape and rapists.
christx30
(6,241 posts)There are people that want to ban all sales of guns because of crime and crazies out there. "Everyone is a legal gun owner until they're not."
I was responding to that post. I'm not wanting to ban all guns. They are tools. In the right hands they are useful and can save lives.
I'm not equating gun owners with rapists. I'm saying that to ban all guns because of the actions of criminals and crazies is the equivalent of banning all genitalia because of rapists.
More and better background checks can mitigate damage caused by the assholes. Better enforcement of laws. Better mental health care can help.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)A Hi-Point .40 cal. semi-auto goes for around $160 to $230---way less expensive than most other such handguns, which are in the $550-$750 range.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)when the F--kup is on their end.
Novara
(5,838 posts)Pretty much the only rule on guns is: any asshole who wants one can get one.
Vinca
(50,253 posts)It's apparent we need to revamp the method used for background checks.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)combined with his "methodical" targeting of women victims leaves me with no doubt this was a hate crime.