Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,973 posts)
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:20 PM Jul 2015

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.
41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gun Used in Lafayette Louisiana Shooting was Purchased Legally, Killer "Methodical" (Original Post) pnwmom Jul 2015 OP
What we need is Plucketeer Jul 2015 #1
It appears not to have been a legal purchase. PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #2
The police say it was legal, and they know the specifics of his case. If the police think it pnwmom Jul 2015 #8
Yes--and a hospital is not the same as a "mental institution", which may be one of the spooky3 Jul 2015 #11
That would be a huge loophole, if that's the case. There also appears to be a problem pnwmom Jul 2015 #12
Hospitals qualify under the definition of "Mental Institution"... PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #14
Thanks! pnwmom Jul 2015 #17
That suggests that CERTAIN hospitals qualify. But do we know if the one where Houser was spooky3 Jul 2015 #18
I think that definition would cover anywhere someone would likely be involuntarily committed. PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #20
Thanks! spooky3 Jul 2015 #36
I had a friend who couldn't pass a background check Mnpaul Jul 2015 #21
Perhaps the local Police are not up on Federal law. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #16
Damn. I guess we should tighten gun restrictions as to make them insurmountable. onehandle Jul 2015 #25
He likely was evaluated, but not judged a "mental defective" Sancho Jul 2015 #32
Several of your suggested law changes would violate recent USSC rulings NickB79 Jul 2015 #37
Check other discussions... Sancho Jul 2015 #39
Aberration or no, it's the law until overturned NickB79 Jul 2015 #40
Recently the SC upheld gun controls in California... Sancho Jul 2015 #41
What do you suggest? NickB79 Jul 2015 #3
How about a moratorium on all gun sales until the NRA and SCOTUS... onehandle Jul 2015 #6
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing real, enforcible actions here, not fantasy NickB79 Jul 2015 #29
Just like Charleston, VT, Tucson... bobclark86 Jul 2015 #9
All guns should be,, Cryptoad Jul 2015 #10
As another posted pointed out, being committed to a psych ward in a hospital might not be the same pnwmom Jul 2015 #13
Good suggestion. NT NickB79 Jul 2015 #30
Your last statement nails it Mnpaul Jul 2015 #22
do states even have laws where domestic abusers and mentally ill persons are banned from guns? Sunlei Jul 2015 #26
Federal law applies even if states don't have such statutes NickB79 Jul 2015 #28
good, that Federal law bans all domestic abusers from 'owning' a gun? Sunlei Jul 2015 #31
If they were convicted, yes NickB79 Jul 2015 #33
"The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban" PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #34
Legal gun owners are legal up until the moment they aren't. nt onehandle Jul 2015 #4
Brilliant TeddyR Jul 2015 #7
That's like saying christx30 Jul 2015 #23
Are you saying that we should ban all guns? onehandle Jul 2015 #24
I think you got my meaning wrong. christx30 Jul 2015 #27
And to top it off, that gun was comparatively CHEAP. Paladin Jul 2015 #5
Alabama will try to blame the FEDS... Historic NY Jul 2015 #15
How many times have we heard "legally purchased gun" in these massacres? Novara Jul 2015 #19
I don't see how it could have been legal given he'd been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Vinca Jul 2015 #35
This was a hate crime against women. His history of anti-woman screeds and rants riderinthestorm Jul 2015 #38
 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
1. What we need is
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:31 PM
Jul 2015

an alternative planet - one where folks don't worship their death tools to make up for personal inadequacies.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. It appears not to have been a legal purchase.
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:36 PM
Jul 2015

From: http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/07/rusty-houser-wife-john-russell-houser-mentally-committed

Family members also tried to have Houser involuntarily committed in 2008 ‘because he was a danger 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.

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

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
...
(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)
8. The police say it was legal, and they know the specifics of his case. If the police think it
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:06 PM
Jul 2015

was legal, then that obviously is their interpretation of the law and how they're going to enforce it.

spooky3

(34,427 posts)
11. Yes--and a hospital is not the same as a "mental institution", which may be one of the
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:19 PM
Jul 2015

"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)
12. That would be a huge loophole, if that's the case. There also appears to be a problem
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:23 PM
Jul 2015

with "adjudications" made in different states.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
14. Hospitals qualify under the definition of "Mental Institution"...
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:27 PM
Jul 2015

From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.

spooky3

(34,427 posts)
18. That suggests that CERTAIN hospitals qualify. But do we know if the one where Houser was
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:36 PM
Jul 2015

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)
20. I think that definition would cover anywhere someone would likely be involuntarily committed.
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:47 PM
Jul 2015

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':

Family members also tried to have Houser involuntarily committed in 2008 ‘because he was a danger
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

Houser was involuntarily committed to a hospital in Georgia, the documents said, and he allegedly threatened his wife that once he got out he would continue his erratic behavior and stop the marriage.





Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
21. I had a friend who couldn't pass a background check
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:07 PM
Jul 2015

until he had proven that he completed his treatment. Same applies here.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
25. Damn. I guess we should tighten gun restrictions as to make them insurmountable.
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:06 PM
Jul 2015

That's what I'm hearing.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
32. He likely was evaluated, but not judged a "mental defective"
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:53 PM
Jul 2015

...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 70’s, 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 weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s 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 it’s 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 learner’s 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 driver’s 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)
37. Several of your suggested law changes would violate recent USSC rulings
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:13 AM
Jul 2015

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)
39. Check other discussions...
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:22 AM
Jul 2015

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, Waldman’s 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 men—who 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 1970s—part 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)
40. Aberration or no, it's the law until overturned
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:35 AM
Jul 2015

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)
41. Recently the SC upheld gun controls in California...
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:54 AM
Jul 2015

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)
3. What do you suggest?
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:38 PM
Jul 2015

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)
6. How about a moratorium on all gun sales until the NRA and SCOTUS...
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:01 PM
Jul 2015

...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)
29. I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing real, enforcible actions here, not fantasy
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:45 PM
Jul 2015

While we're at it, I'd like a unicorn for my daughter.

Rainbow striped, please.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
9. Just like Charleston, VT, Tucson...
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:10 PM
Jul 2015

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)
10. All guns should be,,
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:11 PM
Jul 2015

controlled at the Federal Level just like shoulder-fired tank missled are controlled.. Register, license, title and insure !

pnwmom

(108,973 posts)
13. As another posted pointed out, being committed to a psych ward in a hospital might not be the same
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:26 PM
Jul 2015

as being committed to a "mental institution" under the terms of that law. Maybe the law should be revised to make that clear.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
22. Your last statement nails it
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:11 PM
Jul 2015

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.

NickB79

(19,233 posts)
28. Federal law applies even if states don't have such statutes
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:43 PM
Jul 2015

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

NickB79

(19,233 posts)
33. If they were convicted, yes
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:57 PM
Jul 2015
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.


It's a good law.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
23. That's like saying
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:54 PM
Jul 2015

"Anyone with a penis is a potential rapist. So we should just castrate everyone to prevent rape."

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
24. Are you saying that we should ban all guns?
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:59 PM
Jul 2015

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)
27. I think you got my meaning wrong.
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:23 PM
Jul 2015

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)
5. And to top it off, that gun was comparatively CHEAP.
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:58 PM
Jul 2015

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.

Novara

(5,838 posts)
19. How many times have we heard "legally purchased gun" in these massacres?
Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:38 PM
Jul 2015

Pretty much the only rule on guns is: any asshole who wants one can get one.

Vinca

(50,253 posts)
35. I don't see how it could have been legal given he'd been committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:25 AM
Jul 2015

It's apparent we need to revamp the method used for background checks.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
38. This was a hate crime against women. His history of anti-woman screeds and rants
Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:21 AM
Jul 2015

combined with his "methodical" targeting of women victims leaves me with no doubt this was a hate crime.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Gun Used in Lafayette Lou...