Pawn shops are required to have an FFL and run background checks if they deal in firearms.
You have to be 21 to buy one from an FFL, but you only have to be 18 to own one. Texas doesn't require the license to carry anymore.
The Constitutionality of a 21-year-old age restriction is in question in the courts. As I said before, the 9th circuit just a few weeks ago overturned the California law banning sales of certain rifles to those under 21. The 4th circuit did the same with handguns last year, though that decision was vacated soon after, not on the basis of merit, but only because the plaintiff turned 21 before the case was finished with the appellate process.
As mentioned before, the Tulsa shooter had already purchased a handgun several days before the shooting, so a waiting period would likely have had no impact in this particular case.
Birdshot is not a good home defense load.
- - - Updated - - -
ATF form 4473 question 21(g).
Actually, 21(b), (c), (h), and (i) also deal with the military, too.
There are a lot of things that prohibit people from owning firearms.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
About that….
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/70768...-rights-debate
“ NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the group supports the underlying VAWA law, just not the new gun restrictions. "The gun control lobby and anti-gun politicians are intentionally politicizing the Violence Against Women Act as a smokescreen to push their gun control agenda," she told NPR. “
This doesn’t quite extend to those with felony charges but I honestly expect that’s not really a bridge to far for any American gun lobby.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/polit...use/index.htmlActor Matthew McConaughey delivered impassioned and at-times emotional remarks at the White House press briefing on Tuesday, telling the stories of those who died in the elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and urging more action on gun control.
"These are reasonable, practical, tactical regulations to our nation, states, communities, schools and homes. Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals. These regulations are not a step back -- they're a step forward for a civil society and, and the Second Amendment," McConaughey said in a roughly 20-minute speech from the podium.
Receiving training does not impart a legal duty. It's frankly ludicrous to think it does. If Uvalde wanted to make it policy, then they can take action by firing the officers involved for breaking policy. But that's not the same as a legal duty.
Again, you're just trying to twist reality to fit your narrative without respect for the facts of the matter.
No, you literally just ignored what was said and what's in the law. They acted with intent, yes. The end result of their actions likely helped protect the shooter. But their intent was not specifically to engender that outcome, and the law very clearly links the intent with the outcome.
Put simply, they didn't have a duty to confront the shooter, only a loose duty to "protect the public". In stopping parents from putting themselves in harm's way in a confrontation with the shooter, the police are quite literally fulfilling their duty to "protect the public". We may not like the outcome and believe that they should have acted differently, but unless you have audio of the police saying "Yeah, we want that guy to kill as many people as possible so we have to stop these parents from getting to him first!" then there's absolutely no case for accessory.
Sure I have. Your misreading of state law and your lack of understanding of what entails a legal duty don't make you right, they're just an embarrassment.
Why don't you go find some legal scholars who think that an accessory charge is warranted and post those links here for us, hmm?
Hey @cubby, you think Endus is an intelligent poster and never disingenuous, surely you agree with his "interpretation"?
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Cool, fuck that loser. I honestly can't believe that the White House still gives anyone from there press credentials. Like, I'm all for a free press and hosting some fairly garbage outlets (Fox, some of the liberal outlets like HuffPo are honestly pretty trashy but nowhere near as bad), but Newsmax is not even pretending to be actual news.James Rosen of Newsmax
It absolutely can create such duties. That's how laws and professional practice policies work.
You seem to be deflecting from my opinion that their actions violate the letter of the law and that they should be charged, to some impression that the practice of the law and certain abusive protections like qualified immunity means they will be charged with anything.Sure I have. Your misreading of state law and your lack of understanding of what entails a legal duty don't make you right, they're just an embarrassment.
Why don't you go find some legal scholars who think that an accessory charge is warranted and post those links here for us, hmm?
I'm well aware they'll probably get a pizza party and told to not be naughty in the future. That doesn't mean I agree that outcome is justice.
No. Police department training and policy can create a duty to the department, and a violation of such can be punished by the department. But only the law can create a legal duty, whereupon the violation of which is punishable by the law.
No. I've quite clearly stated that you completely misread the letter of the law and that you're simply wrong.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
It doesn't if you don't act on it. You might think you're clever, but all I see is an idiot.
What's even worse then hypocrisy is living in a nation where kids get murdered on the weekly and you're just here acting like I'm a fool, I'm not the one standing on the sidelines as kids get murdered. You are.
Maybe, we'll never know, he's dead. But he did buy the rifle, then nearly immediately went after a hospital's worth of security. If he was willing to go without the rifle, he would have done so May 29th when he got the pistol. I contend he would not have done that with just a pistol, on the grounds that we have proof he could have but didn't. If he wasn't willing to go in with just the pistol, and there'd been a one-week waiting period, we wouldn't be talking about his shooting, because it'd happen tomorrow.
Now, we have no way of knowing if waiting a week to get his rifle would have changed anything afterwards. If that's what you meant, then we agree. And this is where I point out that red flag laws during that one week might have helped, except apparently Oklahoma fucking hates those with a passion, and the doctor had nobody to call about his apparently homicidal patient. So unless he got a new doctor or some other form of help, or just shot himself to end the pain with the handgun we know he had, he likely would have still shot up a hospital and killed about the same number of people. Just, you know, tomorrow.
Actually on the topic, we know the Texas shooter had a pistol, but I can't find (a) where he got it or (b) if he even fired it once. He turned 18, legally bought two rifles and 375 rounds Jesus Christ, got the pistol...somehow, then went to the school and, near as I can tell, only fired the rifle -- even when he was in the same room with the terrified schoolchildren. Possibly due to logistics again (putting the rifle down to draw your pistol, etc). Any chance you, or anyone for that matter, know where he got the pistol? He did not have a LTC and was under 21 which in Texas is a problem, I mean less of a problem than murdering 21 people but still a problem, but apparently, bringing an AR-15 directly into a school while firing wildly into the building and nearby people is okay.
That's one possible interpretation, but I don't really know why you think it's a justified assumption.
Waiting periods exist mostly to try and prevent people from buying a gun and using it while they're in the heat of anger. Even in your assumed scenario, if he's thinking through the issue enough to decide not to do it when he only has a handgun but then decides to do it 3 days later when he gets the rifle, that tends to rule out an impulsive decision. If the intervening 3 days doesn't cause him to second-guess his action, then another 7 days is unlikely to, as well.
Is there an indication that the shooter made specific threats to the doctor? From what I can tell, the doctor had no idea his patient was homicidal. And there are definitely people he could have called, had homicidal threats been levied. I have no problem with red flag laws, but the purpose of a waiting period isn't really to synergize with red flag laws.
All that being said, there definitely needs to be some improvement to the system of identifying prohibited people without running afoul of HIPAA. In too many cases, people don't get reported, or the reports don't get added to the appropriate database, etc.
I'm not even 100% sure that he had a handgun. There were early reports to suggest that, but not as much in later reports. If he did have one, he could legally have obtained it in a private sale or from a parent, for example. At 18, he would have been unable to buy one from an FFL.
From your own link:
A new law (HB 1927) took effect on September 1st, 2021. Now, people who qualify under the law can carry a handgun in a public place in Texas without a license to carry (LTC).
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Then it sounds like we do agree, barring hypotheticals like "he dies in a car crash five days later". Or "second doctor fixes pain issue and removes motive for mass murder".
Yes. And immediately afterwards, it says they have to be 21. That's why I cited it. And then mentioned his age.
Yeah, it was mixed in with a bunch of other shit too that, oddly enough, just came up. Namely
Yep, the law that lets anyone 21 and over pack heat, had restrictions to prohibit felons, wife beaters and evidentlly federal military court rulings of guilty too. Not even a year later and with one mass shooting -- a big one, too -- they're removing the restrictions.
That new law also says "you can't be drunk". Which again raises some interesting age-related questions, and also, the law calls out exceptions for carrying a no-LTC pistol, while drunk. As in, times when you can still do that. That's Texas, y'all.
I mean... no?
They didn't remove the restrictions, they just removed the easiest means of "verifying" that they're not a prohibited person. Realistically, though, the only people who would question a person's right to carry and ask for their LTC would be the police, and they have the means to identify prohibited people, card or no.
Those restrictions are all federal (except for the age requirement), and cannot be removed by Texas.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils