Congress faces renewed pressure on gun control after Indiana's red-flag law fails to thwart FedEx shooter

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  one month ago  •  89 comments

By:   Paulina Firozi, Lisa Rein, Hannah Knowles (MSN)

Congress faces renewed pressure on gun control after Indiana's red-flag law fails to thwart FedEx shooter
The renewed momentum for gun-control action comes as authorities in Indiana said they do not know what broke down in the existing process that's meant to prevent the bloodshed that took place.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



A Senate Democrat leading negotiations seeking to compromise with Republicans on gun-control legislation said Sunday he's hopeful that last week's mass shooting at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis will hasten a breakthrough.

© Jeff Dean/AFP/Getty Images Family, friends and community members attend a vigil in Indianapolis on Sunday to remember the victims of a mass shooting at a local FedEx facility that took the lives of eight people.

"I hope this will increase the changes to get something done," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview. "We've been engaged in consistent discussions with Republicans. Interest in this issue does get elevated [for Republicans] when there are more high-profile shootings."

The renewed momentum for gun-control legislation following House action in March comes as authorities in Indiana said they do not know what broke down in the existing process that's meant to prevent the bloodshed that took place. That legislation includes background checks for gun purchases but not red-flag language aimed at temporarily denying guns to those who could be a danger to themselves or others.

Murphy said he expects Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to bring gun-control legislation to the floor this spring, possibly as soon as May.

More than a year before police say 19-year-old Brandon Hole killed eight people at a FedEx facility in Indiana, police temporarily detained him because of concerns about his mental health. Although Indiana has such a law, it's unclear whether proceedings necessary to deny Hole a gun were initiated, experts said.

Hole's mother had contacted law enforcement, fearing that her son would attempt "suicide by cop."

According to the FBI, Hole's mother contacted law enforcement in March 2020, which led Indianapolis police to place him on an "immediate detention mental health hold." The next month, Hole was interviewed by the FBI. A shotgun was seized at Hole's home that, according to officials, was not returned.

Indianapolis shooter was former FedEx employee, had had gun seized by police, authorities say

But in the months that followed, Hole was able to legally purchase more firearms — two assault rifles in July and September, according to police.

In Indiana, individuals are subject to an FBI background check when purchasing a firearm if they buy the weapon from a licensed gun dealer, according to experts.

Police have not said where Hole bought the rifles they say he used to carry out the shooting, only that they were purchased legally from a licensed gun store.

For a record to be entered into the FBI system prohibiting someone from purchasing a firearm, there needs to be a determination made through a court proceeding, said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy. No mechanism exists to prohibit someone from buying a firearm simply because of an FBI interview or investigation, he added.

Under Indiana's extreme-risk protection law, law enforcement can seize a firearm from people who pose a risk to themselves or others. After the weapon is seized, the law states that a court hearing needs to take place within 14 days and that the state has the burden of proving that the individual is dangerous — though experts say the time between a firearm seizure and a hearing is frequently delayed.

It remains unknown whether such a hearing took place or was scheduled at all in Hole's case.

"I don't know honestly if they reviewed that and declined to file or, you know, because of covid couldn't do anything with it — I know the courts were shut down — but you'd have to ask them about that," Indianapolis Police Chief Randal Taylor said in an interview.

The Marion County prosecutor's office did not respond to emails and calls requesting comment.

Experts and advocates say the question marks remaining in the Indianapolis case underline what may be limits to Indiana's gun policy.

"Had they shown the court that this man was a danger to himself or others, he would have been added to a prohibited-purchaser list and he would have been unable to buy any firearms legally," said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. "That does not appear to be what happened here and we saw the consequences of that."

Allison Anderman, senior counsel with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Indiana law requires a petition to be filed with the court for a hearing to take place.

"It doesn't sound like law enforcement did that in this case," she said. "I do wonder if that is because this change in the law hasn't been implemented as well as it can be."

The state's long-standing Jake Laird Law was amended in 2019 amid a wave of legislation across the country that passed in the wake of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Before the 2019 change, the Indiana law only allowed law enforcement to seize firearms that individuals already had in their possession, Anderman said.

Aaron Kivisto, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Indianapolis, said the possibility that no court proceedings were initiated may point to the narrowness of Indiana's law.

The state law requires the proceedings to be initiated by law enforcement, whereas some states "provide multiple avenues to initiate firearm seizure proceedings, and most frequently this allows for family members to petition the court to initiate a firearm seizure," Kivisto said in an email.

He pointed to the Biden administration's "model" for red-flag legislation allowing family members or law enforcement to petition the court to temporarily prohibit someone in crisis from obtaining a firearm. As part of executive actions announced this month to curb gun violence, President Biden instructed the Justice Department to create a template for states to enact such red-flag laws.

"Although there remain many uncertainties involved in the recent case from Indianapolis, the facts that have been reported seem to support the consideration of mechanisms that allow family members to petition the court directly when they are concerned about someone in crisis," Kivisto said.

Boulder and Atlanta shootings rekindle debate over red-flag gun laws

Murphy said a federal red-flag law is under discussion in the Senate, where major gun-control legislation has languished since the 1990s. It would probably take the form of financial incentives to states to pass their own laws, he said.

Murphy added that Senate Republicans he has spoken with favor passage of legislation with such incentives, but he warned that senators are unlikely to agree to a stronger measure allowing someone to seek a judge's order in federal court to confiscate a gun.

Murphy and advocates also cautioned that such laws could still allow someone whose gun was confiscated to buy a firearm, perhaps online or through a private seller, if background-check laws aren't strengthened.

Before the latest tragedy, the House in March passed legislation — largely along party lines — that would expand background checks for all gun sales and most gun transfers. The House also acted to close what is known as the "Charleston loophole" in which the FBI now has only three days to review whether a buyer can legally purchase a firearm. The new bill would extend that window to 10 days.

House pushes ahead on gun control, backs expansion of background checks

Despite rising public support for universal background checks, any Senate legislation is likely to be narrower in scope, Murphy said, given that it would require 60 votes to pass and that Republicans oppose the House bill.

Those bills do not contain red-flag provisions.

Taylor said law enforcement will conduct a review to assess how Hole's case was handled.

"When we do our reviews, we look at what we'd done or didn't do, and if training needs to be revamped or if it's just a reminder to troops of what needs to happen," Taylor said. "… But if we find that there's a breakdown of communication between us and the courts or us and the prosecutor's office or us and whoever else would be involved with this, we certainly have those conversations as well."

Asked whether authorities should have done anything differently last year, when Hole's mother shared her concerns about "suicide by cop," Lt. Shane Foley, an Indianapolis police spokesman, said "officers did what they could at the time." He pointed to the seizure of Hole's shotgun.

"Now could something have been done, from then till now? … Certainly that's something that we'll explore," he said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago
More than a year before police say 19-year-old Brandon Hole killed eight people at a FedEx facility in Indiana, police temporarily detained him because of concerns about his mental health. Although Indiana has such a law, it's unclear whether proceedings necessary to deny Hole a gun were initiated, experts said.

Either papers were filed in a court of law or they were not. I don't get what would be unclear about that.

It seems to me the Indiana law is sufficient and would have thwarted this kid getting guns, had that law been followed in the spirit that it was passed.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

You know that gun laws are rarely followed; or prosecuted. 

What the Democrats are looking for is more laws on the books that only law abiding gun owners will follow. Criminals won't care, and know they will rarely be enforced.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    one month ago
What the Democrats are looking for is more laws on the books that only law abiding gun owners will follow.

Can you name any laws that criminals will always follow?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Do you think THAT was his point??????

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
1.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Wow, simply wow.

I am not sure you could have missed the point any harder if your tried.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Do you think THAT was his point??????

Simple question.  Why evade it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    4 weeks ago

It is a stupid, pointless question that adds zero to the topic.

Why ask such an idiotic question to begin with?

Perhaps the Indiana law--had it been actually followed up on in the spirit that the law was passed in, The Fed Ex shootings might not have happened.

Please tell me what law Indiana does not have that could have prevented it?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
It is a stupid, pointless question that adds zero to the topic.

So just say that you refuse to answer it because it undermines your complaining about additional gun laws.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

No one is complaining about Indiana's gun laws.

Read before commenting so you know what is under discussion.

Complaints are about how Indiana's law wasn't fully followed and utilized correctly to prevent the tragedy.

Your off topic comments don;t add anything here.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
No one is complaining about Indiana's gun laws.

Are you trying to deflect again?  Where did I mention Indiana laws?

Read before commenting so you know what is under discussion.

Here's a better idea, why don't you actually read the comment before replying directly to it.  Hmmmm?

Complaints are about how Indiana's law wasn't fully followed and utilized correctly to prevent the tragedy.

Perhaps, before you read the comments, you should read the article.

Congress Faces Renewed Pressure On Gun Control After Indiana's Red-Flag Law Fails To Thwart FedEx Shooter

And since you are so up on Indiana gun laws, please explain the Indiana laws that pertain to gun shows and strawman purchases.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    4 weeks ago

I seeded the article.

I read the article.

I understood the article.

When you can make those same claims, then you, too, will know what the topic is and be able to comment accordingly.

Indiana law was sufficient to prevent this kid from getting a weapon legally IF the law had been used as intended.

Adding more laws to those already ignored does absolutely nothing except give some liberals a chance to say the "did" something--even if it is meaningless.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
Adding more laws to those already ignored does absolutely nothing except give some liberals a chance to say the "did" something--even if it is meaningless.

Which means you are opposed to any new laws (i.e. Georgia).  Since there is no law in existence that isn't ignored by criminals.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

It is amusing to watch your little journey from Point A to Point X---almost as amusing as you attempting to tell ME what I really, really meant!

LOL!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    4 weeks ago
Which means you are opposed to any new laws (i.e. Georgia).  Since there is no law in existence that isn't ignored by criminals.

I didn't say criminals weren't following the law. Read my post again.

maybe twice.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.12    4 weeks ago
I didn't say criminals weren't following the law. Read my post again.

No, you are saying that the law ignores the laws when criminals break them.  It is a very black and white world you live in, except when you talk about liberals, at which time you switch to any color of the rainbow to try and make a point.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    4 weeks ago

Do you honestly believe that Indiana couldn't have done a better job?

I damn sure do. They should have used the existing law to ensure that the kid couldn't buy a gun legally.

Please leave your personal snarky comments about me out.

All the liberal talk about more gun laws is silly nonsense if we don't bother to enforce laws already on the books, what leads you to believe that new laws would be enforced better?

I have some ideas about cutting down on gun crimes, but I am sure someone would scream that it disproportionately affects one group or another.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
1.1.15  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
Can you name any laws that criminals will always follow?

Absolutely none.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    4 weeks ago
Please tell me what law Indiana does not have that could have prevented it?

Enforcement. 

Seriously, unless and until LEOs and prosecutors are REQUIRED to seek a Judges order for removal for EVERYONE that is put on a mental hold, it's up to their own 'judgement' and as anyone can see, in this case that judgement caused deaths. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    4 weeks ago
Do you honestly believe that Indiana couldn't have done a better job?

Never said that.  Are you trying to deflect again?

They should have used the existing law to ensure that the kid couldn't buy a gun legally.

I asked you this before, what are their laws regarding gun shows and strawman purchases?  They may not have been able to stop him.

Please leave your personal snarky comments about me out.

Hey pot, how's it going?

All the liberal talk about more gun laws is silly nonsense if we don't bother to enforce laws already on the books, what leads you to believe that new laws would be enforced better?

They are different laws regarding sales, not purchases, and regarding background checks.  Making it illegal to sell assault style weapons and over sized magazines.  Gun shops are generally law abiding.

I have some ideas about cutting down on gun crimes, but I am sure someone would scream that it disproportionately affects one group or another.

You just know that you want to pull out the race card.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.15    4 weeks ago
Absolutely none.

Me neither.  So what is the point of laws then?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    4 weeks ago

Not one damn thing to do with race--although I am sure you will try to make it about that instead.

I say if any crime is committed with anyone even carrying a gun, then make that an automatic 5 year sentence that can ONLY run consecutively with the other sentences and without any chance of early release. Second offense involving a gun, make it a ten year sentence with the same stipulation. And no plea-bargaining down on the gun charges allowed.

Seems like that would be better than what most anti-gun advocates support.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    4 weeks ago
I say if any crime is committed with anyone even carrying a gun, then make that an automatic 5 year sentence that can ONLY run consecutively with the other sentences and without any chance of early release.

Sounds good to me.

Second offense involving a gun, make it a ten year sentence with the same stipulation.

Also sounds good.

And no plea-bargaining down on the gun charges allowed.

How about a mandatory 5 or 10 years added onto the sentence for the primary crime AFTER sentencing and plea bargaining is completed?  So they plea down to 2 years for the crime, but then have 5 years added to that 2.  

And I would add that they lose the ability to purchase, own, or possess a gun from that point on.

Seems like that would be better than what most anti-gun advocates support.

Don't know, have never seen an "anti-gun" advocate, just gun control ones.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.20    4 weeks ago

Can't see what you refuse to see.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    4 weeks ago
Can't see what you refuse to see.

Can't see what only you see.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.23  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    4 weeks ago
I asked you this before, what are their laws regarding gun shows and strawman purchases? 

You mean this law: GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition. Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)

Who is a Prohibited Person:

  • convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  • who is a fugitive from justice;

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

  • who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  • who is an illegal alien;

  • who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

  • who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
  • who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

  • who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.23    4 weeks ago
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition. 

Yet GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) is a Federal law which sets out mandates for licensed dealers, NOT private sales at gun shows so it's irrelevant. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.25  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.24    4 weeks ago
Yet GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) is a Federal law which sets out mandates for licensed dealers, NOT private sales at gun shows so it's irrelevant. 

No, it applies to "ANY PERSON"..

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.25    4 weeks ago
No, it applies to "ANY PERSON"..

SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED in INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE goose. 

THAT isn't how gun shows work...

They come into Indiana from Chicago and drive home with as many guns as they want from private sellers, NO questions asked...

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
1.1.27  expatingb  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    4 weeks ago
They come into Indiana from Chicago and drive home with as many guns as they want from private sellers, NO questions asked...

Please provide the locations for those shows.  When I return stateside, I might visit one or two.   All gun shows I've ever been to have licensed dealers selling legal firearms to buyers.  Locals have NICS checks run and dependent on local laws, might walk out with the gun or be required to come back in "X" number of days.  Out of state buyers have to provide the name of a local to-the-buyer FFL gun dealer to receive the firearm and make the transfer to the buyer after the NICS check is run.  And all of the shows I've ever been to have quite a few Federal, State and local law enforcement roaming the aisles to ensure all laws are adhered to by both buyer and seller.

So, please provide the name of the shows you speak of and locations.  I'd be very interested in attending several.  Only to validate your claim of course.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Dulay  replied to  expatingb @1.1.27    4 weeks ago
Please provide the locations for those shows. 

Google 'Indiana Guns shows'. You'll see dozens of websites with dates and locations. Some are ongoing, some are once every couple of months. 

All gun shows I've ever been to have licensed dealers selling legal firearms to buyers. 

You'll find the same here in Indiana.

You will also find PRIVATE sellers, in the parking lot selling from their vehicles and inside from rented table, or even just walking around the show with a rifle slung on their shoulder with a price tag on it. 

AGAIN, NO questions asked. When the ads for the shows say 'all state laws' blah, blah blah, they mean NONE, since there are NO laws in Indiana regulating gun sales between PRIVATE sellers and buyers. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.29  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    4 weeks ago
They come into Indiana from Chicago and drive home with as many guns as they want from private sellers, NO questions asked...

Just because people do it doesn't mean that its not against the law. 

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.30  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.28    4 weeks ago
AGAIN, NO questions asked. When the ads for the shows say 'all state laws' blah, blah blah, they mean NONE, since there are NO laws in Indiana regulating gun sales between PRIVATE sellers and buyers. 

How many firearms have you purchased without a background check, you seem to be very familiar with the process. You are also confusing State Law vs Federal Law.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.29    4 weeks ago
Just because people do it doesn't mean that its not against the law. 

There is NO law in Indiana regulating the PRIVATE sale of guns goose. NONE. PERIOD, full stop. It's the wild west just east of Chicago. 

Hell, Wisconsin doesn't even license gun dealers. 

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) doesn't say a fucking thing about shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition. NADA. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.30    4 weeks ago
How many firearms have you purchased without a background check, you seem to be very familiar with the process.

Bought 2, sold 1. 

You are also confusing State Law vs Federal Law.

Where? Be specific. 

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
1.1.33  expatingb  replied to  Dulay @1.1.28    4 weeks ago
You will also find PRIVATE sellers, in the parking lot selling from their vehicles and inside from rented table, or even just walking around the show with a rifle slung on their shoulder with a price tag on it.  AGAIN, NO questions asked. When the ads for the shows say 'all state laws' blah, blah blah, they mean NONE, since there are NO laws in Indiana regulating gun sales between PRIVATE sellers and buyers. 

I asked you to name the shows I could go to to buy firearms "no questions asked".  I don't want to run all over the place trying to validate your claim for you, I want specifics.  Please provide those shows where it occurs.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.34  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    4 weeks ago
GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922( d ) doesn't say a fucking thing about shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition. NADA. 

That's funny, I pulled that from the ATF's Website, guess you need to call them and tell them they don't know shit. 

Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)

Get back to me let me know what they say. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.35  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    4 weeks ago
You are also confusing State Law vs Federal Law.
Where? Be specific. 

What part don't you understand, GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922 is Federal Law. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.36  Dulay  replied to  expatingb @1.1.33    4 weeks ago

EVERY fucking gun show in Indiana follows the same 'state rules' for PRIVATE sales. NONE.

Where you will find those deals when you get your ass back here, I can't tell you. The one in Elkhart or South Bend were good when I went in 2019. Guys in the parking lot, plenty of PRIVATE sellers inside. 

Have fun...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.34    4 weeks ago
That's funny, I pulled that from the ATF's Website, guess you need to call them and tell them they don't know shit. 
Get back to me let me know what they say. 

That's what happens when you rely on others for your comments rather than READING the information for yourself. I encourage you to READ that section of the fucking law with your own eyes. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.35    4 weeks ago
What part don't you understand, GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922 is Federal Law. 

I already stated that fact. 

FAIL. 

What part don't YOU understand? 

GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922 does NOT require Private sellers in Indiana selling to PRIVATE buyers to confirm the buyers identification, residency, age or qualification to own a gun.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.39  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.37    4 weeks ago
That's what happens when you rely on others for your comments rather than READING the information for yourself. I encourage you to READ that section of the fucking law with your own eyes. 

You can not knowingly sell to a prohibited person, you can not sell a gun to someone out of state without a ffl being involved. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.40  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    4 weeks ago
There is NO law in Indiana regulating the PRIVATE sale of guns goose. NONE. PERIOD, full stop. It's the wild west just east of Chicago. 
 The state of indiana may not have any state laws , but anyone that sells a firearm must still comply with federal law and regulations that apply to non ffl sellers .
 1. they can not sell to anyone they know is an prohibited person ( since private sellers can not use NICS it is unrequired for private sales where the seller does not make aliving off selling firearms  unless state law states one has to be done with private sales )
 2 , the person buying the firearm must be of the legal federal age to posess such firearm , 18 for long guns ( unless the state has preempted and made the age 21 ) and 21 for handguns .( sellers responsability to check)
 3. private sales can only be done intra state ( sellers responsability  to check ID) If a buyer is from out of state the sale must go through an FFL holder and said firearm is then sent to an FFL holder in the resident state  .
 Those are federal laws and regulations for private sales , if you have seen it done any other way , report it . and last i knew residents of Indiana , still have to follow federal laws and regulations. If they dont , they have committed a felony .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.39    4 weeks ago
You can not knowingly sell to a prohibited person, you can not sell a gun to someone out of state without a ffl being involved. 

How the fuck would you KNOW if someone is a 'prohibited person' if there is NO requirement for a background check goose? 

How the fuck would you KNOW if a someone is from 'out of state' if there is NO ID requirement? 

Hint: You CAN'T.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.40    4 weeks ago
Those are federal laws and regulations for private sales , if you have seen it done any other way , report it . and last i knew residents of Indiana , still have to follow federal laws and regulations. If they dont , they have committed a felony .

Just like the laws governing hiring undocumented workers, the 'knowingly and intentionally' clause is a galactic loophole in the law. 

There is NO regulation in Indiana that makes sellers responsible for checking the ID of a buyer. 

In short, ignorance is bliss AND profitable. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.43  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.42    4 weeks ago

or like prohibition?

 people intent on not following the law will not follow the law not matter what is made law .

 what do you have if you have 100 pounds of the following each ?

potasium nitrate (stump remover)

charcoal  (BBQ briquettes)

sulfur (Hot bath soaking addative )

Federal law limits (gun) black powder to 50 pounds per person

 those 3 ingriedients are all thats needed when mixed (in the right proprtions ) to make it , and as you can see none of the ingriedients alone are illegal or regulated  But those quantities in posession , mean you can have about 130 pounds of black powder( almost 3 times the legal limit) at your disposal and takes about 40 mins to mix together if you have   a big enough container.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
1.1.44  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.41    4 weeks ago
How the fuck would you KNOW if someone is a 'prohibited person
How the fuck would you KNOW if a someone is from 'out of state

Ah.........ask, if they lie, not your problem, if they go and kill someone with the firearm you sold them, ask your attorney. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.43    4 weeks ago
people intent on not following the law will not follow the law not matter what is made law 

Legislators seem intent on passing laws with galactic loopholes while pretending that they mitigate the problems. 

if you have   a big enough container.

And a big enough set of huevos. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.44    4 weeks ago
Ah.........ask,

Why? 

if they lie, not your problem, if they go and kill someone with the firearm you sold them, ask your attorney. 

Judging from the infinitesimal number of employers who are prosecuted for hiring undocumented workers, there won't be a need for a lawyer. 

Pull the Shultz: I know NOTHING! 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.47  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @1.1.45    4 weeks ago
And a big enough set of huevos.

EX wife took those long before the divorce ......

container just has to be non sparking  to include static discharge and non heat generating 

Takes alittle longer but you can also get potasuim nitrate from bat or chicken guano.

sorry i didnt answer sooner , had to fix the chicken pen.....the girls are restless.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
1.1.48  expatingb  replied to  Dulay @1.1.36    3 weeks ago
EVERY fucking gun show in Indiana follows the same 'state rules' for PRIVATE sales. NONE.

Where you will find those deals when you get your ass back here, I can't tell you. The one in Elkhart or South Bend were good when I went in 2019. Guys in the parking lot, plenty of PRIVATE sellers inside. 

Have fun...

I apologize for my very late response, but as I've noted in previous replies to others, I generally have more important things to utilize my time for than forums like these, but they do provide a degree of amusement on occasion.

Now, as to your response, thanks for the response with nothing but anecdotal evidence that you claim to have enjoyed.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Dulay  replied to  expatingb @1.1.48    3 weeks ago
Now, as to your response, thanks for the response with nothing but anecdotal evidence that you claim to have enjoyed.  

Well hell, since the ONLY fucking 'evidence' that you will accept is personally seeing it for yourself, get back to me when you bring your ass to Indiana, USA. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1    4 weeks ago

Who is responsible for not vigorously enforcing the gun laws there in Indiana?  I'd like to hear their explanation on why this kid got the weapons he did.  Sounds like they would have made it harder at least as intended. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2    4 weeks ago

I suspect it would be the local authorities who apparently dropped the ball. The law is in place, and should have been followed.

Laws are rather pointless if the people responsible don't bother to enforce them.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.1    4 weeks ago

Exactly...... If they won't enforce the laws on the books, they need to find people that will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.2    4 weeks ago

It is crap like this that people get tired of. Instead of looking to pass yet another law, how about enforcing and using the ones we already have?

Wow, what a novel idea!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2    4 weeks ago
I'd like to hear their explanation on why this kid got the weapons he did.

I just roughly skimmed the law so im spitballing here .

How long did it take the police to walk the report to the prosecutor?

Did the prosecutor drop the ball thinking the problem was mitigated by the confiscation of the shotgun?

 when does the 14 days the law states start? when the prosecutor gets the case ? or when the firearm is confiscated ?

 If no action is taken what happens ? ( i think we see what happens ).

 a lot of questions only those that CAN take action have to answer.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.4    4 weeks ago

It would be nice to completely dissect this to make an example/learning experience to those responsible for handling these matters.

Lives are on the line....  Let the finger pointing begin.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

To me , the more questions answered  the more questions that come up. and until the questions i already had get answered , it wont do much to speculate except muddy the water.

i do however feel , that laws already on the books  , need to be enforced , no excuses . if they cant be enforced , get rid of them and craft ones that can.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.5    4 weeks ago

as more information is coming forward it looks like the dissection  has begun ...and without the water getting too muddied .

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Expert
1.2.8  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.7    4 weeks ago
and without the water getting too muddied

Pray it stays that way Mark.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.2.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

wont be holding my breath...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
2  Paula Bartholomew    4 weeks ago

As long as the NRA remains a financial puppet master for some members of Congress, any legislation is a waste of time and more will die.  Until one of these mass murders land in their own back yards, they won't do shit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2    4 weeks ago

Pray tell what Indiana should have done under the law to prevent this.

And then relate WTF the NRA has to do with it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
2.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    4 weeks ago

If not for the NRA and their deep pockets, certain firearms would have been made illegal for civilians to own a long time ago.  You DON'T Need an AR or an AK to hunt game with.  You DON'T need an AR or an AK for home protection.  They are just shinny toys for ammosexuals to get their rocks off with.  Hasta la bye bye.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    4 weeks ago

I actually am laughing about this now , look at the recent and current Hicap mag ban sitting in congress.  Its going to fail , no question about it ,  why? its unenforcable and has a loophole big enough to drive a missle launcher through.

Oh they can enforce the sale of future mags , but they grandfather already existing and owned mags  so they will still be out there, are they hoping they break or wear out?  repair and maint on a mag is easy , hell i have some 15 rnd m-1 carbine mags that came with the carbine i bought , it was made in 43 , the mags came from the factory with the gun , and they still function like they came from the factory. almost 80years later.... why the grandfather clauses ? to attempt to garner the needed votes to pass the legislation , not likely to happen  look at what happened when NYS passed its safe act , very little compliance .

NRA has nothing to do with who gets elected to congress , thats the people that vote that have elected them according to what they want represented .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Maybe Indiana authorities should have used existing laws to prevent the kid from getting a gun. Nothing to do with the NRA--but I get that it is a popular whipping post for the liberal left.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
2.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    4 weeks ago
Nothing to do with the NRA--but I get that it is a popular whipping post for the liberal left.

Particularly those liberals who have no fucking idea what they're talking about

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    4 weeks ago
Pray tell what Indiana should have done under the law to prevent this.

Follow the law. 

And then relate WTF the NRA has to do with it.

Well if the Sherriff and/or prosecutor are elected, the NRA has been known to make a campaign contribution or two.

There are a plethora of County Sheriffs who come right out and state that they have no intention of enforcing 'unconstitutional' gun laws, whether Federal or state. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Seems like lots of guesswork on your part.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
Seems like lots of guesswork on your part.

In what way?

Following the law IS something the should have done. 

I said IF they are elected to that's not guessing, that's speculating. 

As for the Sheriffs, that's not guess work, that's FACT. Look it up for yourself. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
There are a plethora of County Sheriffs who come right out and state that they have no intention of enforcing 'unconstitutional' gun laws, whether Federal or state. 

Well sheriffs are elected , the highest elected LEO official there is , not appointed anywhere i know of , and if they are elected they are representing the voice of the people that elected them to their positions , and since they are elected , they run the risk of not being RE elected should the majority of voters are displeased with their actions while in office..

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
and since they are elected , they run the risk of not being RE elected should the majority of voters are displeased with their actions while in office.

Well if it was the Sheriff's call, I'd venture to posit that there are PLENTY of people that would be 'displeased' with him right about now. 

I read another article today that states it was the prosecutors call and he whined about it being too hard to meet the standard of the law as written. I'd bet that's the first time he's opined on that in public. I won't hold my breath for his campaign to amend the law...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Are we talking 2 different situations here ? are  you talking ablout what happened  with the fed ex shooting?

 If so i believe that was city police not the sheriff that was involved , and in that case the head of city police is a chief and they are appointed by whichever political party runs the city government.

I addressed your statement and your statement alone of sheriffs making statement as about not enforcing federal laws .

 because federal and state law are 2 seperate things and local police such as the sheriffs department are not obligated to enforce let alone HELP federal law enforcement enforce federal law.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    4 weeks ago
I read another article today that states it was the prosecutors call and he whined about it being too hard to meet the standard of the law as written.

To hard to meet the standard? really? all the standard is is that a direct family member had a concern due to actions , and that would have been enough for a judge to order an evaluation , which would likely been enough to get a commital which inturn automatically would have made the individual a prohibited person on the national list.

 Sounds to me like the city prosecutor , was being a lazy SOB because they didnt consider it a slam dunk and they would have to work for it .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

What I found ironic is that the Prosecutor actually stated that if the Judge didn't agree with them that they would have to return his shotgun. Based on the law, they SHOULD have returned his shotgun since the chose NOT to pursue a red flag hearing. So it looks like they retained his shotgun ILLEGALLY and failed to mitigate his danger to himself and others. 

BTW, it was the County prosecutor. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
because federal and state law are 2 seperate things and local police such as the sheriffs department are not obligated to enforce let alone HELP federal law enforcement enforce federal law.

Since when? Federal law supersedes state law. A Federal gun restriction MUST be enforced by state LEOs. Yet the red flag law is a state law and it's on the County Sheriff and County prosecutor to enforce it. If the time restrictions of the law make it 'too hard' to enforce, THEY should bring that to the legislature and get the law amended.

Based on my experience with Indiana's GOP controlled legislature, it wouldn't be a stretch to presume that they passed the law to placate 'the rabble' while intentionally making it almost impossible to enforce. A 'political' win, win.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
Since when?

I think that "concept " started with the sanctuary city and states movement on immigration, I guess we shall actually see if the "sanctuary movement" will be pushed into court and it settled once and for all.

and since federal law supercededs state law , weeds still illegal on the federal level , doesnt matter if the state legalizes or decriminalizes , its still enforcable by your thinking by state officials .

And use of weed is still listed as something that makes a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm.... 

As it is and the way its being put forward that i see , those LEO stating their positions on sanctuary of 2nd amendment related federal law , basically what they are saying is they wont enforce leaving it up to the feds LEO to do the enforcing all by their lonesome . that should be interesting to watch.

As i pointed out , whats so hard about holding a hearing within the 14 day window  for a judge to decide that a 6 month or whatever time frame evaluation  of the individual , something that would have legally allowed the state to remove the persons rights to posess or buy , all the while ensure that  their due prosses was protected ?  the only one that CAN make that call to remove  said right is a judge , not the prosecutor , which they seem to have by not following that route ,confiscated and held the persons property without due process which can be seen as prosecutorial misconduct and an illegal act . 

The victims of the shooting might want to be looking into that .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.14    4 weeks ago
I think that "concept " started with the sanctuary city and states movement on immigration, I guess we shall actually see if the "sanctuary movement will be pushed into court and it settled once and for all.

It's been litigated pretty thoroughly already. They tried to defund 'sanctuary cities and states' and failed. The SCOTUS refused to hear Trump's case on appeal. 

Can the US Government keep trying to revisit it? Sure, but it seems a losing cause. 

The fact is, for far too long the US Government dumped the cost of enforcing Federal immigration law onto states. For decades the US Government failed to reimburse states for the cost they incurred detaining immigrants 'for' the Feds.  

and since federal law supercededs state law , weeds still illegal on the federal level , doesnt matter if the state legalizes or decriminalizes , its still enforcable by your thinking by state officials . And use of weed is still listed as something that makes a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm.... 

It's NOT my thinking Mark, it's in the Constitution. 

BTW, weed laws ARE still enforced by the Feds.

As it is and the way its being put forward that i see , those LEO stating their positions on sanctuary of 2nd amendment related federal law , basically what they are saying is they wont enforce leaving it up to the feds LEO to do the enforcing all by their lonesome . that should be interesting to watch.

The whole Constitutional Sheriff's speel is that Federal and State authority is subordinate to local government authority. In short, totally opposite of the Constitution. 

As i pointed out , whats so hard about holding a hearing within the 14 day window  for a judge to decide that a 6 month or whatever time frame evaluation  of the individual , something that would have legally allowed the state to remove the persons rights to posess or buy , all the while ensure that  their due prosses was protected ? 

The Officer who seized the weapon in the first place has to take the first step. 

Sec. 3   . (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.

At this point, we don't even know if that happened. I read that the Marion County prosecutor made the final decision not to pursue the red flag filing. It looks like there is plenty of blame to go around.

The victims of the shooting might want to be looking into that .

The victims and their families should be looking into the fact that the Indiana law doesn't allow THEM to bring their fears directly to the court. Other state's red flag laws do. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.15    4 weeks ago

fairly interesting read , and as usual i have agreements and disagreements of the opinion put forth .

 as for the sanctuary issue , it appears that it has come down as to be in favor of the states choices , i really see no difference with this situation , only difference is what it is applied to .

federal weed laws are not being enforced in those states that have decriminalized or legalized . feds choice there.

 The section you post mentions the officers responsibility to report to the court , who is the point of contact for LEO to make the report to? that would be the prosecutors office . I think the intro to law and order has pretty much taught everyone that. and if the prosecutor made the call that MUST have happened .

So that leads me to ask where did the "Buck stop" as pres truman is famous for , because where the buck stopped is where the culpability begins , and the prosecutor made that choice themselves and we see the results of not following through.

the prosecutor may have felt the case was weak , and didnt want to have the judge rule against them , but it was not so weak that a judge would not reasonably use the ability to have a medical evaluation done . thus simply extending the process .

 Blame to go around? if the cops did as the law says , disarmed and made the report to the courts ( ie prosecutor as POC) then they have no blame , Nor does any judge since the case was never presented as it should have been .

 Only one place to place the blame here and i think we both and all can see where its landing .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.16    4 weeks ago
i really see no difference with this situation , only difference is what it is applied to .

What it's being applied to is the difference. Guns are products and that come under commerce. Constitutionally, Interstate commerce is federally regulated. 

So unless gun manufacturers intent to only sell in the state where they produce, they are engaging in Interstate commerce. 

The section you post mentions the officers responsibility to report to the court , who is the point of contact for LEO to make the report to? that would be the prosecutors office .

Nope. The law clearly states: 'the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual'. 

The law states that the court is the LEO's 'point of contact'. They didn't follow the law. 

I think the intro to law and order has pretty much taught everyone that. and if the prosecutor made the call that MUST have happened .

The Chief and/or the prosecutor SHOULD have ensured that the LEO sent a written statement to the court. They didn't and have yet to give a cogent reason for not doing so. 

So that leads me to ask where did the "Buck stop" as pres truman is famous for , because where the buck stopped is where the culpability begins , and the prosecutor made that choice themselves and we see the results of not following through. the prosecutor may have felt the case was weak , and didnt want to have the judge rule against them , but it was not so weak that a judge would not reasonably use the ability to have a medical evaluation done . thus simply extending the process .

The shooter was committed for an undisclosed amount of time. We still don't know the results of the psych evaluation, why he was released and under what conditions. It looks like the FBI couldn't connect him to white supremacists so they punted. 

Blame to go around? if the cops did as the law says , disarmed and made the report to the courts ( ie prosecutor as POC) then they have no blame , Nor does any judge since the case was never presented as it should have been .  Only one place to place the blame here and i think we both and all can see where its landing .

A good cop would have filed the documentation with the court, per the law. 

A good Chief would have followed up and ensured that the documentation was sent to the court. 

A good Prosecutor would have followed up and ensured that the documentation was sent to the court.

All share blame. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.17    4 weeks ago

Like i said , interesting read , but again we have differences of opinion , such is life.

so anything that can be made into a firearm should be regulated , but thats not the way it happens in the real world , the only time interstate commerce comes into play as you pointed out is if a finished product crosses state lines 

 thats the argument currently going on about unfinished parts that require a serial number , im waiting to see how that unfolds.

 i will take it you can prove exactly who in the court ( other than the normal POC of the prosecutors office) the officer has to make the report too? otherwise the usual and precedented is usually the correct point of contact. The clerk of courts maybe?

See that i havent seen , he was held? a 72 hr hold maybe?  being held and committed are 2 different things committed needs a drs signature for release, being held doesnt .

 besides , involentary commital is one of those things that make one a prohibited person and are entered into NICS so i am highly skeptical if his "holding" was a commital, especially since to be involentarily committed, needs a judges signature and approval.

  and when did the FBI get involved in a reported suicidal  individual that may intend to do so by nature of LEO? suicide by cop i believe they called it unless it was simple CYA and they simply ran his name through a data base and it came back no known connections . like you said a punt with the info they had . .

 the guys mom did the right thing she reported her concerns , so she has no blame 

 the cops came out and conducted an interview with both , something must have convinced them it was nessisary to confiscate the shotgun , so they did right there 

 seems our bone of contention between you and myself is what happens next ,.

 If i am correct , and the POC for the officers is in fact the prosecutors office , remember they are members of the court so reporting to them is approriate and fills the laws requirements filing with the clerk of courts or some other entity within the court , not so much and is irregular. . i would have to say that was done since the prosecutor is the one that made the choice to proceed or to just let it go.

 and since the prosecutors office and the police dept work hand in hand to get crimes prosecuted , it makes no sense to create a seperate POC for the courts .

 lets not forget the head prosecutor also has assistants that handle other things like traffic court , B&E, and like things , but the prosecutor already made their statement .

 doesnt seem to me that the way the law works and the way you are presenting what should happen are lining up logically . 

My presentation looks like it does .

 like they say , IF a frog had wings, it wouldnt bump its ass when it hopped .....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.18    4 weeks ago
i will take it you can prove exactly who in the court ( other than the normal POC of the prosecutors office) the officer has to make the report too?

Why refuse to recognize the clear mandate in the law? I already cited that clear mandate. 

besides , involentary commital is one of those things that make one a prohibited person and are entered into NICS so i am highly skeptical if his "holding" was a commital, especially since to be involentarily committed, needs a judges signature and approval.

Nope. Per Indiana law, the COURT are the ones that inform the NCIS about prohibited persons and they may NOT report those committed for evaluation or observation. NO court participated in this instance.

LEOs took Hole to the hospital instead of jail. That 'Immediate Detention' [LEO] is allowed to last only 24 hours. An 'Emergency Detention' [Physician] could extend that to 72 hours. NEITHER requires a Judge's signature or approval. 

like you said a punt with the info they had . .

Actually, reporting states that the FBI interviewed Hole about his white supremacy internet activity. So they punted AFTER an interview. 

and since the prosecutors office and the police dept work hand in hand to get crimes prosecuted , it makes no sense to create a seperate POC for the courts .

Yet the law clearly does exactly that and the LEO is culpable for failing to follow the law. 

BTW, an 'Immediate Detention' requires the LEO to submit a written statement citing the reasons for the detention. THAT should be on record at the hospital and THAT should be in the LEO's report of the call and THAT should have been submitted to the circuit or superior court if they seized Hole's shotgun, which they obviously did. 

So now the question is: Why insist that the LEO get a pass on failing to follow the law? 

doesnt seem to me that the way the law works and the way you are presenting what should happen are lining up logically . 

Why? I am QUOTING the law.

If 'the way it works' and 'what I'm presenting' by QUOTING the law isn't 'lining up', it would be logical to conclude that the LEO failed to follow the law without consequence to HIM. There are however  consequences to the victims. 

My presentation looks like it does .  like they say , IF a frog had wings, it wouldnt bump its ass when it hopped .....

AGAIN, correlation doesn't imply causation. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.1.20  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @2.1.19    4 weeks ago

when it comes to what indiana law is , im on what some call a learning curve , maybe because it doesnt affect me where i live . So i trust your presentation , even IF it seems illogical to me to go about the business of the situation , what is becoming clear though is someone , wants a law with more "teeth " that is easier to pass through the system.( both the courts and LEO that make up the judicial system)

 why would someone not enforce a law ? simple nullification , take advantages of what one thinks is a flaw , point them out and say the law needs to be changed because of loopholes , cracks , ineffectiveness or burden of proof , i saw that not so long ago with a protester on social media , guy carrying a can of soup during the protest , obvious it was going to be thrown but the claim that its soup for his family (winking at the camera) , presents doubt .

 We arm chair quarterbacks can speculate all we want , but what actually needs done is an honest review of the situation to include the law itself  , something none of us are going to be in a position or privy to .

 and if things do need changed , then it is on the legislature to do so and make the nessisary changes , that the people will be comfortable with .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.1.20    4 weeks ago
We arm chair quarterbacks can speculate all we want , but what actually needs done is an honest review of the situation to include the law itself  , something none of us are going to be in a position or privy to .

Well since I am on a first name basis with my State Representative, I sure as hell can be privy to whether the legislature is going to conduct an 'honest review'. 

and if things do need changed , then it is on the legislature to do so and make the nessisary changes , that the people will be comfortable with .

I can attest to the fact that ONE thing the people aren't comfortable with is LEO's ignoring the law or people that are of a questionable mental state having access to guns. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1.22  gooseisgone  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
You DON'T Need an AR or an AK to hunt game with.  You DON'T need an AR or an AK for home protection. 

Who are you to tell me what I need. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.23  XXJefferson51  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1.22    3 weeks ago

That’s what I was wondering.  I’ve read too many stories of people even small and young using an AR 15 for home defense.  It’s not up to anyone else to decide for us what we need to defend our homes and families with.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
3  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

Meh, too many guns already and no backbone to take the steps that need to be taken to get a handle on the issue. I don’t expect anything to change in my lifetime.

Just know where your exits are, keep an eye on the people around you, and hope physics breaks your way. Not much else to be done.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    4 weeks ago
Just know where your exits are, keep an eye on the people around you

Im a BIIIG proponent of situational awareness , it does save lives .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    4 weeks ago
too many guns already and no backbone to take the steps that need to be taken to get a handle on the issue.

(this  ought ta be good)

What pray tell are the steps needed to "get a handle " on the "issue" ?

( remember i was born an asshole , i just grew bigger)

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

GregTx
Sean Treacy
CB


33 visitors