Suspect in Shooting of Giffords Ruled Unfit for Trial

[MyrnaLoy]

But A-OK for gun purchases.

"federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Jared L. Loughner was not mentally competent to stand trial on charges of opening fire at a constituent event for an Arizona congresswoman in January, killing 6 and injuring 13."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26loughner.html

[Logical]

1. Well, I know many will hate this but he might actually be insane. n-t

[provis99]

5. delete.

[X_Digger]

7. Wrong., he's under indictment.

Question 12.(b) on the form 4473-

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for
more than one year?

And indictment records are part of the NICS check.

[cleanhippie]

2. Not anymore he's not, so whats your point?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[provis99]

6. He can stil buy a gun legally.

He hasn't been convicted of anything, and he hasn't been involuntarily committed, so if he were free on bail, he could go to a Phoenix WalMart and buy a gun today.

[dogmoma56]

9. he will never be allowed to talk to anyone again., much less go free

[provis99]

19. he can still buy a gun right now though.

[eqfan592]

22. Ummm, how???? (nt)

[MyrnaLoy]

37. easy

gun show.

[eqfan592]

44. See post 43. (nt)

[rl6214]

48. You mean private seller

[Spoonman]

54. That's the typical answer

of all those ignorant of the FACTS!

All dealers at gun shows are required by federal law to run a NICS check PERIOD.

The "gun show loophole" is a myth created be ANTI BoR ASS-HATS!

[Hoyt]

58. Yep, but if they ain't "dealers," they can sell them to just about anyone- and many will for top $$.

Some "dealers" do too.

[gejohnston]

59. since everyone knows his name and face, I doubt a jury would find reasonable

doubt that the seller did not know who he was. Assuming he got out, found an irresponsible gun seller willing to risk hard federal time, I doubt it would be cheap. He would be better off getting a big butcher knife from Walmart.
Of course he could get a gun through his drug connection who can get a single use gun from some gang banger. Same with any other country. He could have gotten the gun legally in Canada, just a few more forms to fill out, the mental health issue would be the same.
He did have a drug connection. That is widely known too, so the is a prohibited person for three reasons.

So, what is your point?

[Hoyt]

60. Point is simple, anyone who buys a gun might sell it to the wrong person --and many don't care.

Look at the gun "dealers" here that readily admit they are out to make a buck off their purchases of guns manufactured and marketed for the capability of killing a lot of folks in short order.

[gejohnston]

61. Dealers here? Where? Black market dealers? Us? I still have my libel lawyer on speed dial

and the guy you are thinking of is in the alley next door to his drug connection.

[RSillsbee]

66. So are you willing to deny my civil liberties

based on what some unknown , unscrupulous person might do?

[Hoyt]

68. Not sure selling guns w/o background checks should be legal -- has nothing to do with "civil" libs.

[RSillsbee]

69. It's all about property rights

My private property is mine to dispose of as I please.

I only have one gun that I bought new so that means all the rest of my cache (I picked that word just for you) were purchased w/ out a background check.

You should thank me fir taking all those guns off the street

[Hoyt]

71. Couldn't pass huh? Try buying a real tortoise shell guitar pick. Guns need to be just like that.

Make you guys go through a dealer. Not some shame dealer either.

Property rights do not apply to everything, despite what you think.

[RSillsbee]

74. I have a CHP which means I passed a stricter check then NICS

but you knew that

[Spoonman]

70. Apply that same "logic"

to car dealers and individuals that sell vehicles to individuals capable of doing 130 miles an hour with no safety device to preclude the idiot from operating them.
They are not required to do ANY background check on individuals to determine if they have a license, suspended license or DWI convictions, etc.

42,873 - Vehicle related fatalities per year

17,429 - Estimated to have have been killed so far this year (2011) in vehicle-related crashes

55- Estimated to have have been killed so far today (27 May 2011) in vehicle-related crashes.

DWI - one death every 48 minutes.

Grow up and wake up, your argument(s) unsubstantiated hyperbole.

You demonstrate a true lack a real world knowledge and understanding with every reply, and are simply regurgitating the melodramatic rantings of others that have been proven ignorant as well!

[Hoyt]

72. Grow up? You guys live in absolute fear of your pipeline to guns drying up. You grow up.

[gejohnston]

34. no if you are awaiting trial, you are on the no buy list

[MyrnaLoy]

38. even at

gun shows?

[gejohnston]

42. If the seller is a FFL holder yes, all laws apply

Individual to individual,is your question. The answer is that it is still a federal crime for anyone who knows who he is to sell. His picture and name is everywhere. Unfortunately, non FFL holders are prohibited by law to use NICS. I could not do the check if I wanted to. I would like to think that we agree that private sellers should have the ability. Every gun show I have been in the US has off duty cops as security. The cops know who he is.
Since he will not be released, it is academic.

[Spoonman]

55. Even at

gun shows!

His attempt to purchase would be considered a criminal act.

HOWEVER,

He could walk into Bed Bath and Beyond and buy the biggest butcher knife made.
He could walk into any sporting goods store and buy a crossbow, regular bow, or baseball bat.
He could stroll into a renaissance festival and buy a sword or mace.
All of which are just as deadly, and NEVER BE QUESTIONED.

Too bad the concept of personal accountability fails to register with you.

[X_Digger]

10. No, see post #7. n/t

[cleanhippie]

12. No, he can't.

Because he is NOT out on bail. If he were, we could then discuss the limitations, or lack of them, the bail stipulated.

ANd as X-digger had educated you, he is under indictment.


Now you have no excuse to post ignorance.

[provis99]

20. you can buy a gun when under indictment.

[X_Digger]

23. Not for a felony, no.. post #7. n/t

[MyrnaLoy]

36. well

he'll always have gun shows for his gun shopping needs.

[eqfan592]

39. Cute..

...doesn't match up with reality (gun shows are not the primary source for criminals, not by a long shot) but cute.

[MyrnaLoy]

40. cute

and true.

[eqfan592]

41. If he were somehow released...

...which is really not likely to happen, he'd be far more likely to get a gun (if he were so inclined) from a family member or acquaintance. I guess we could just round all of THEM up and lock them up in advance, or maybe attempt to forcibly disarm them, but generally you don't punish people for crimes they are yet to commit.

[MyrnaLoy]

45. or

just go to any of the hundreds of gun shows around the state. My guess is they have more guns that his family members.

[eqfan592]

50. Yet amazingly enough....

...that's not how most criminals go about doing it. Reality just doesn't fit your prejudice.

Now if you want to talk about giving private sellers some sort of access to the background check system, that would be a different story. But something tells me you'd rather just shut down gun shows because you don't like guns, gun owners and just pretty much anything to do with guns in general, thus solutions to issues that would work for both sides are not something that interest you.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Gun shows crawling with police officers. Yes.

Have you ever been to a WAC show? Just curious.

You can't spit there without hitting 2 police officers. Probably 10% of the sellers are off-duty cops (or retired)

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Yes, it is true.

It is completely true that today any criminal or insane person can open up the local newspaper, go online to any number of online auction sites, or go to a local gun show and find a private seller, and illegally buy a firearm.

Yes, this needs to be fixed. One way is to open NICS up to private sellers.

Another is to issue FOID cards to everyone who applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, unless they opt-out.

[oneshooter]

53. "go online to any number of online auction sites"

Online sales of firearms require the weapon be transfered from a FFL dealer to a FFL dealer, and then to the customer.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Atypical Liberal]

57. Not if you arrange a local pick-up.

I would suppose that if I bought a gun off of Gunbroker or Guns America and the guy was in my state, I could just go pick up the gun for cash on the barrel.

[rl6214]

49. You mean private sellers

[gejohnston]

47. sorry, see questions 11b and 11f on ATF form 4473

He is under indictment and a judge ruled that he is unable to attend to his own affairs by ruling him unfit for trial.

[WatsonT]

14. The law disagrees with that statement

[provis99]

18. link?

[X_Digger]

24. Here ya go..

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title18/18usc922.html

USC §922(d)(1)-

(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;

[eqfan592]

25. See post #7! (nt)

[provis99]

27. I can't see it, it is hidden from me.

[eqfan592]

30. Lol, you have him on ignore?

Must like being disconnected from reality.

Here is a copy and paste and thanks to X_Digger for the info!.

http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title18/18usc922.html

USC §922(d)(1)-

(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;

[pipoman]

46. IOW

[WatsonT]

63. It's been pointed out to you many times

At this point you are merely displaying willful ignorance.

[Straw Man]

17. Absolutely and utterly false.

He hasn't been convicted of anything, and he hasn't been involuntarily committed, so if he were free on bail, he could go to a Phoenix WalMart and buy a gun today.

Did you read the linked article? He's being held at a Federal psychiatric facility. Do you think he signed himself in and can sign himself out? I'll give you a hint: no.

The Federal form 4473 (known as the "NICS check") asks the following:

“Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

The answer is "yes" to all of the above for little Jared. And there never was the possiblity of bail: he has been in custody since the attack. "If he were free on bail...." If he were a winged unicorn, he could stab the guards with his horn and fly over the wall to freedom. But he still wouldn't be able to buy a gun at Wal-Mart.

I know it's probably a lot of fun making this stuff up, but next time you might want to do a little fact-checking.

[provis99]

21. He has NOT been committed. He is eligible to buy a gun.

As he is being detained, without conviction, it is physically impossible for him to buy a gun; but he is legally still allowed to, because he has not been CONVICTED.

[eqfan592]

26. No. He. Is. Not.

Question 12.(b) says it all.

[provis99]

28. Yes he is.

[PavePusher]

35. O.K., we get it, you're five years old.

Isn't it past your bed-time?

[X_Digger]

29. Poor provis99 has me on ignore..

No wonder he keeps repeating that untrue statement.. someone feel free to repeat the US law I quoted in post #25 to him

[eqfan592]

31. Lol, already done.

I couldn't figure out why he/she would keep posting something that was slam-dunk proven not true over and over again. Now I understand! Guess they just like being disconnected from reality.

[X_Digger]

32. It's DU's electronic version of 'lalalala-I-can't-hear-you!' n/t

[Spoonman]

56. THWACK!!!!!

That's the DU gungeon electronic version of a reality bitch slap!

[Straw Man]

33. OK, let's do this again.

Form 4473 reads “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

A "yes" answer to any of the above is an automatic disqualification. A conviction is not necessary. The judge has just ruled that Jared Loughner is incompetent to manage his affairs and has ordered him held for further evaluation. In addition, he is under indictment. He is not legally eligible to purchase a firearm. Read the law.

[gejohnston]

43. A judged ruled he is unfit to stand trial and was committed.

By declaring him unfit for trial because he is mentally incompetent. The judge committed him.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. WRONG. You should READ THE STATUTE.

Loughner has now been adjudicated mentally unfit. He's not going anywhere, and if he did, he would NOT be elegible to purchase a gun.

Stop being silly.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Hahaha bullshit. He WAS JUST adjudicated mentally unfit.

[sharesunited]

11. After-the-fact deprived a bunch of people of ALL their Constitutional rights.

Is that justice? No, it isn't.

[cleanhippie]

15. blah blah blah

[krispos42]

16. Are you talking about being pro-gun-control, or pro-torture?

The arguments are remarkably similar.

[eqfan592]

51. Yes, we need to start punishing criminals...

...BEFORE they commit their crimes! Guilty until proven innocent is the way to go, right shares?

[one-eyed fat man]

73. Bureau of Future Crime

Special Agent Claire Voyanne't has determined at some unforeseen date you will commit securities fraud. You should be locked up now.

What too fanciful? You obviously have a computer, at some future date the Feds will find you have been transmitting child porn all over the web.

In case you haven't figured it out, you DON'T get jailed for something you know how to do. Doubtless there are any number of hideous crimes you could commit from raping babies to burning down old folks homes, to posting child porn on line.

Our stupid Constitution prevents you from being hanged until you actually commit a crime and get convicted for it...unlike your standard for everyone else.

Insulted? Guess what? Wireless router hijacked for child pornography

SARASOTA - Malcolm Riddell awoke at 6 a.m. one day last year to some of the most heart-sinking words a homeowner can hear: "FBI, open up."

When he did, a dozen armed FBI agents swarmed through the lawyer's lofty Palm Avenue condo in downtown Sarasota. They held him against the wall, separated him from his wife and then questioned him on the porch looking down 12 stories onto Sarasota Bay.

Riddell says he was not nervous or scared, just clueless. The FBI agents searched through his computer equipment for a while, then made it all clear: child pornography images were flowing through Riddell's wireless Internet connection.

...and it's not exactly rare, your router could be being hacked right now.

Innocent Man Accused Of Child Pornography After Neighbor Pirates His WiFi

Germany has a different take:

In Germany, the country's top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.

The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.Text

I know you find the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments pesky impediments to government efficiency, so you should rejoice in the German concept of "reasonable suspicion." A German policeman can search based on his reasonable suspicion that you have evidence of a crime. How do you determine if the suspicion was reasonable? He finds something.

[X_Digger]

4. The salient word in your post? "Ruled"

There's this little thing we like to call due process. Perhaps you've heard of it?

In spite of multiple people claiming that Loughner was 'crazy', and his college suspending him until he sought psychiatric help, Loughner had never been judged 'mentally defective'. He'd never been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, never faced a competency hearing, never been adjudicated a danger to himself or others.

Y'see, we try to avoid stripping people's rights without a court proceeding, as a general rule.

You might want to write a sternly worded letter to the editor of your local newsrag if you think that should change.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WatsonT]

13. I know right, isn't it horrible how we wait for people to commit crimes

before stripping them of their rights?

[Euromutt]

62. That ruling means he can't possess firearms anymore

By dint of having been ruled by a judge to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, he has ipso facto been "adjudicated to be mentally defective" for the purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968; that is, he won't be able to legally purchase or possess a firearm again.

Illegally, perhaps, but unfortunately, even the most just laws of man cannot override the laws of nature.