by Countable | 11.6.17
President Donald Trump called Sunday’s mass shooting at a Texas church a "mental health problem at the highest level," labelling the gunman a “deranged individual.”
The suspect, Devin Patrick Kelley, served in the U.S. Air Force until he was discharged for bad conduct in 2014. Prior to the discharge, he was court-martialed in 2012 for two counts of assault on his spouse and child.
Should this individual have been allowed to buy a gun?
The Gun Control Act of 1968, which was later amended by the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, makes it a felony offense for certain "prohibited persons" to own any firearm. It’s also a felony to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to one of this “prohibited persons.”
The nine categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act include:
Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any felony crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance (this includes medical marijuana patients)
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
Illegal aliens or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Kelley’s "bad conduct" discharge fell just short of an dishonorable discharge. And while it’s unclear if his assault charges constituted domestic violence, assault can be treated as a felony, and should have prevented the former airman from owning a gun.
Over the years, a number of other groups have been the target of proposed gun bans:
People on the no fly list. Following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in 2015, President Barack Obama urged Congress to pass legislation that would prevent suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms.
Mentally ill individuals. During the twilight hours of the Obama administration, a regulation was put into place that required the Social Security Administration to identify and report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) those individuals who couldn’t work because of psychiatric disabilities and, because of these severe mental impairments, were assigned a money manager. In February of this year, President Trump repealed this regulation—a number of Senate democrats and independents sided with their Republican colleagues in voting to revoke it.
Mentally ill veterans. There has also been separate legislation were veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs would be prevented from buying guns.
Volatile persons. A study out of Duke University concluded that past violent behavior – not mental illness or substance abuse – is the strongest indicator of future violent behavior; the author and his colleagues therefore recommended that those who’ve been arrested for violent misdemeanors should be banned from owning a firearm. Currently, California bans people convicted of a range of violent misdemeanors from owning a gun for 10 years; some of these misdemeanors include "threatening public officers, employees, and school officials," “assault with a stun gun or taser,” and “stalking.”
Protestors. The locations where individuals should be allowed to carry guns is another Your Turn, but following the events in Charlottesville this summer, the ACLU announced it would "no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms." Should protesters be banned from carrying guns, even in states that allow open or concealed carry?
Who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns? Or are there some on the current list of prohibited owners you think should be allowed to purchase a firearm? Given the events in Texas, do we need to expand the law to include those court-martialed for "bad conduct"? Should the rest of the U.S. follow California’s example? Hit Take Action, tell your reps, then tell your fellow citizens below.
— Josh Herman
(Photo Credit: iJacky / iStockphoto)
Written by Countable
I’m a gun owner and a hunter and I have very strong opinions on who should be allowed to own a gun. In my opinion a gun owner is someone who has been formally trained and passed a gun safety test. The training should be no less than 24 hours and should demonstrate proficiency in no less than 3 types of weapons, loading, unloading, types of ammunition, stances, aiming, live fire, and gun law at a minimum. Ownership should be restricted to those who have no felonies of any type on their record, no domestic, animal, child abuse, pedophilia or other weapons charges on their records. No semi-automatic weapons should be owed by anyone not on active duty or reserves. No kits or bumps stocks should be legal at all. No silencers should be legal. Those owning guns with children or visiting children must possess a gun safe capable of securing all owned weapons.
Ban semi automatic weapons and magazines. Weapons of war have no place in our society. Are we in Afghanistan? A war zone? BAN semi automatic weapons and magazines.
This has gone to far! There have been to many deaths due to gun violence. It doesn’t make sense for mentally ill or violent individuals to be able to purchase guns. How can the president say this isn’t a gun issue? We all know that it is the individual who does the killing not the gun itself. We’re tired of the arguments given by gun lovers and the NRA. Please stand up for the victims and the people. We don’t need to continue with these senseless deaths!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. NO WE DON’T! We must live in FEAR to go to our schools, churches, public spaces because we worship guns over people! Stop being so corrupt in your values Congress, you have children too. I’m they would like to feel safe. Commonsense gun control, background checks, banning of ridiculous war level weaponry should not be in the hands of every day civilians.
Juat because one has a mental illness doesn't classify them as deranged. A person with a mental illness can be anyone from depressed to schizo affective to Attention Deficit. You have to look at each individual on a case by case basis and simply can't lump all that are diagnosed with a "mental illness" as dangerous.
I believe this is a over reaching as it is worded already and adding more groups would be unconstitutional. Let’s use another industry as an example of how this is over reaching. A person claims bankruptcy. Using these rules, this person would no longer be able to get a loan FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE! Not all people charged with a felony is a criminal for their entire life. What about mentally ill? Who determines who is ill? A single doctor? Or a board of doctors? Or elected officials who could be mentally ill themsleves? At what point do we stop classifying people as ill? What about what meds they are on? Do we ban guns for everyone on Prozac, Xanax, and Ritalin?What about anyone who has been in therapy once in the last 15 years. Banned from a gun regardless of what it was for? This is a basic right of being in this country. Continuing to limit who has access to firearms will not stop these events from happening. The only way to truly stop gun violence is to remove gun free zones. Every person has a right to defend themselves at all times.
Don’t forget, we may need to defend our selves from corrupt law enforcement or even the military. It’s our duty when faced with tyranny. Or would you all throw our founding fathers in Guantanamo if they were alive today? As for medical cannabis users, there no more addicted to weed than the rest of us are to vitamins. So let them have guns.
Endorse the laws on the books. No new laws!
It has been determined that the Air Force dropped the ball on reporting the Texas Church Massacre shooter's dishonorable discharge to the appropriate authorities to show in a background check. So we don't need new laws, we simply need to enforce the ones that we already have. He should not have been allowed to purchase the firearms. It was illegal for him to do so and Air Force dropped the ball.
We need to ban assault weapons. Our freedom should not be measured by our ability to buy increasingly deadly weapons for killing people.
Yes, I agree with these restrictions and also add the restriction on the gunstock addition which mimics automatic weapons
Only professionals in the military, law enforcement and farmers who have passed background checks should be allowed firearms
I am a police officer and I will put myself in the way of any threats to citizens of my community. That is what I am paid to do, that is what I am trained to do, that is what I signed up for when I went to the academy and graduated. I know full well the dangers of my job and what it takes to make the right decisions in a life and death situation, even then police officers are humans and make mistakes that cost people their lives. We are not perfect but why should we ask everyday Americans to do the same in the face of gunshots with little to no training at all? Guns are weapons meant to kill we can see the amount of damage they cause through the nation everyday. We need common sense gun legislation, mandatory background checks, Weapon registration, ammunition regulation, domestic violence screenings, mental health screenings and assault rifle regulation. Doing nothing is not enough and it is placing my life in more danger than it already is and it is costing the lives of everyday citizens that shouldn’t be prepared for this amount of violence. Please do something anything, because America will always be in my thoughts and prayers.
I’m also a gun owner. Before I purchased a gun I took classes on gun safety and the proper use of guns. As a responsible gun owner I believe that there should be a nationwide background check, there should also be a nationwide law that if your guns is lost or stolen you must file a police report, I live ina state that you don’t have to report a lost or stolen gun.
Longer it takes to fire the gun = less loss of life. Round up the semi automatics, automatics, mods and magazines. Hand them over to the military, who actually needs them. It might not be the only answer but it’s a good start!
Every shooting brings out the same questions from the same people. A person who goes into a church to kill innocent, unarmed parishioners is morally bankrupt. No amount of laws will compensate for that. The same argument goes for anyone who would kill the innocent anywhere in any format. The solution is a moral compass. Which starts with a definitive idea of right and wrong. And those definitions can be found nowhere but...wait for it...wait for it...the Holy Bible.
I like Andrew proposal about adopting similar gun laws as 🇨🇦 Canada. But, his argument needs stronger evidence. After all, Canada and the US maybe neighbors, but we have very different cultural identities and values. As Ticktock and CrescentSkies pointed out, the US lacks many defining characteristics of Canadian society. Including, humanitarian focused policies and the societal infrastructure -education, healthcare, ... - which, quite possibly, safeguards Canadians from the mass shootings we experience. I.got.an.idea did an awesome job of sardonically depicting America’s fallacy of inequality in his comment. Americans, like Andrew, might find it isn’t so much the Canadian gun laws we are missing; but the investment Canada makes in its citizens is what is most in need of conscious adoption. Laws cannot legislate morality, they can only be used in an attempt to disrupt/deter immoral actions.
Ban bump stocks and semi-automatic guns for anyone who is not in the army or in the reserves. If ordinary people want to hunt or use a gun range, they should just use a hunting rifle or a hand gun. There, simple as that.
Liberals. They are the ones who do the mass shootings.
Just make it so the maximum clip can only hold five rounds allowing one in the chamber. Competition shooting don’t use 18 or 30 round clips. Hunting should not be allowed to have more than 5 rounds in the clip and one in the chamber. If you need more than one round to make a kill, you need to take up another sport. Six rounds in any weapon is more than enough for sport or self defense unless you are a police officer 👮 or military in a war zone. We are a country of collectors and gun enthusiasts so let’s allow that just limit the clip capacity. Those with large clips will have a mini gold mine for collectors.